Time to be 'solutions-focused:' Tackling COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans

In this interview, Prof. Leon McDougle, MD, MPH, president of the National Medical Association (NMA), speaks to Medical News Today about vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans and some of the initiatives that are successfully tackling this issue.

In November 2020, just 42% of Black Americans were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Given that Black adults are, according to some studies, 3 times more likely to contract the new coronavirus than white adults, the high level of vaccine hesitancy among this population is of particular concern.

Much of this vaccine hesitancy is deeply rooted in centuries of oppression and white supremacist beliefs that informed medically exploitative practices against Black folks. With its long history of medical experimentation and other abusive practices, the medical establishment has “earned” the distrust of many Black Americans. 

But, as Prof. McDougle has told Medical News Today, this is the time to be “solutions-focused.” It is a time to focus on “building bridges” to overcome medical mistrust.

Prof. McDougle is Chief Diversity Officer, Associate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion, and professor of family medicine at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. He spoke with MNT about some of the efforts that Black healthcare professionals and organizations have made, their successful results, and his hopes for the future. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Prof. Leon McDougle, MD, MPH: Well, to start, there has been an improvement. Looking at the Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September, 50% were willing to receive the vaccine, whereas just most recently in December, that improved to 62%, and at that same time, 35% said that they were unwilling to receive the vaccine. 

So that’s why the Black Coalition Against COVID — which includes a consortium of four Black medical schools: Howard, Morehouse, Meharry, and Charles R. Drew, along with the NMA, the National Black Nurses Association, the Montague Cobb Health Institute, the National Urban League, and Blackdoctor.org — have come together to speak to the Black community to inform them about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. 

So, in part, the answer to your question is that Black healthcare professionals need to be speaking to the Black community about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

Source: Medical News Today 

Can Pets Get COVID-19?

 Some species can contract COVID-19 following close contact with infected humans. In Hong Kong, 17 dogs and 8 cats that had been residing with COVID-19 infected patients were tested by health officials who found evidence of the infection in two dogs. Cases of infected cats have been reported in Hong Kong and Belgium.

In Wuhan, researchers examined serum samples from 102 cats and found COVID-19 antibodies in 15 of the sample. However, whilst animals can become infected, they do not necessarily develop symptoms or become infectious to humans. Evidence collected to date indicates that the following domestic animals are susceptible to contracting the virus:

• Dogs: Whilst dogs can become infected following contact with infected humans, it is rare, they display mild or no symptoms and they cannot transmit the infection further.
• Rabbits:  Similar to dogs, whilst rabbits can become infected, they show no symptoms and do not transmit the virus to other rabbits or other species.
• Cats: Can catch COVID-19 from infected humans but display mild or no symptoms. Whilst they can spread the infection to other cats, there is no evidence to date that they transmit back to humans.
• Ferrets: Ferrets are susceptible to COVID-19 infection, do display symptoms and can pass the infection to other ferrets. Although there is no evidence of ferrets transmitting the disease back to humans, data from studies of mink infectious indicate a potential for ferrets to re-infect humans.

 Source: news-medical.net

A blood test could diagnose depression and bipolar disorder

 

Researchers found that levels of a nerve growth factor were lower in people with depression or bipolar disorder than in healthy controls. Doctors could potentially use levels of the growth factor to monitor the effects of antidepressant treatment.

In adults, a protein called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) promotes the growth and survival of nerve cells and is known to play a vital role in learning, memory, and maintaining brain flexibility, or “plasticity.”

Psychological stress reduces blood levels of one form of the protein, called mature BDNF (mBDNF), and low levels are associated with depression.

However, commercially available blood tests are unable to differentiate accurately between mBDNF and its precursor, known as proBDNF.

This matters because proBDNF binds to a different receptor and causes inflammation and nerve degeneration.

“Growing evidence indicates that inflammation in brain cells is linked with depressive behaviors, and proBDNF seems to activate the immune system,” says Prof. Xin-Fu Zhou of the University of South Australia in Adelaide. “Therefore, we must separate it from mature BDNF to get an accurate reading.”

Recent studies in animals by Prof. Zhou and his colleagues found that injecting proBDNF into the brain or muscle triggers depressive behaviors.

Prof. Zhou and his team have now developed a test that can measure mBDNF much more accurately.

In collaboration with the University of Adelaide and Kunming Medical University in Yunnan, China, they used the new test to show that people with depression or bipolar disorder have significantly lower levels of mBDNF in their blood than healthy controls.

In a paper that appears in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the study authors say that doctors could use the test to diagnose these conditions and monitor the success of treatment.

“This could be an objective biomarker, in addition to a clinical assessment by a doctor,” says Prof. Zhou.

Source: Medical News Today

 

COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Israel: Successes, lessons, and caveats

 Israel is a world leader in the race to roll out the COVID-19 vaccine. In this Special Feature, Medical News Today look at why the vaccine rollout has been so successful in Israel and discuss the controversies and equity issues related to the campaign.

While the United States has struggled to meet COVID-19 vaccine rollout goals, within just 2 weeks, Israel vaccinated almost 15% of the country’s population of more than 9 million.

As of January 19, 2021, 25.6% of the Israeli population have received their first vaccine dose, and 550,000 people have received both doses.

To give some perspective, Israel is vaccinating residents at a rate of 32.4 people per 100, compared with 4.8 people per 100 in the U.S., and 7 per 100 in the United Kingdom.

But why exactly has the rollout been so successful in Israel? And what can we learn from this early success? In this Special Feature, we review what is known about Israel’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Early rollout successes

Israel’s success in rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine seems to be due to several factors influencing the access to and distribution of the vaccine.

The Israeli government started searching early on for a way to secure vaccine doses.

In June 2020, Israel became one of the first countries to sign a purchase agreement for a vaccine supply from Moderna. In November, the country announced additional vaccine deals with AstraZeneca and Pfizer.

The first Pfizer vaccine doses arrived in Israel on December 9, 2020, and vaccinations began on December 19, 2020. The country is still waiting for the other two vaccines.

Israel’s government also allegedly agreed to pay top dollar for vaccines and purchase millions of doses. Although the exact price is unknown, one official said that the price was about $30 per vaccine — double the average price abroad.

The makers of the vaccine that Israel is currently using — U.S. company Pfizer and German partner BioNTech — would not comment on the cost of the vaccine.

In exchange for an early, steady vaccine supply, the Israeli government also assured Pfizer that the country’s rollout would offer quick, large-scale results, promising to give the company detailed patient information on those receiving the vaccine in Israel.

Israeli officials expected Israel’s vaccine rollout to be successful because the country is small but has a vast healthcare infrastructure. The country also has a well-developed, universal healthcare system that connects all residents to a national digital health network.

All residents also have insurance from semi-private healthcare maintenance organizations (HMOs) that run services throughout the country, even in rural, remote regions.

Israel’s centralized, digitized system makes it easier to track and access information and roll out national healthcare agendas, such as vaccination campaigns.

Source: Medical News Today

 

How does fake news of 5G and COVID-19 spread worldwide?

 

• A recent study finds misinformation on the new coronavirus spreads differently across various countries. However, there was a consistent misunderstanding of 5G technology.
• Among the search topics examined, the myth around 5G having links to COVID-19 was the one that spread fastest.
• Dispelling myths and encouraging people to fact-check sources could help build trust with the public.

The year 2020 brought a COVID-19 pandemic as well as a pandemic of misinformation.

From the first reported case in Wuhan, China, scientists have worked around the clock to gather information about this new coronavirus. In a year, we have learned a lot about the structure of the new coronavirus, how it spreads, and ways to reduce transmission.

But with new information comes misinformation. There have been many potentially dangerous theories related to COVID-19, ranging from the new coronavirus being human-made to the idea that injecting bleach or other disinfectants could protect against infection.

With the coincidental rollout of 5G technology, rumors have also linked the new technology to the new coronavirus.

Factors behind the spread of misinformation

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in widespread lockdowns across the world in 2020. With billions stuck at home, people have increasingly turned to social media, which is playing a pivotal role in the spread of misinformation.

According to an October 2020 study in Scientific Reports, some social media sites, such as Gab, have a far higher proportion of articles from questionable sources circulating than other platforms such as Reddit. Engagement with the content on social media platforms also varied, with Reddit users reducing the impact of unreliable information and Gab users amplifying its influence.

Not all misinformation is shared maliciously. A July 2020 modeling study in Telematics and Informatics found people shared COVID-19 articles — even if they were false — because they were trying to stay informed, help others stay informed, connect with others, or pass the time.

One particular social media platform, Twitter, has become a double-edged sword regarding coronavirus news. A 2020 commentary in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine suggests that Twitter helps rapidly disseminate new information. Still, constant bad news can result in burnout, or push users to seek out more optimistic information that may be false.

But who is more likely to share articles from dubious sources? A 2016 study in PNAS found that like-minded individuals tend to share more articles with each other, but this can lead to polarized groups when article sharing involves conspiracy theories or science news.

Sharing articles with inaccurate information was most observed among conservatives and people over the age of 65 years, suggests a 2019 study in Science Advances. The research was looking at fake news surrounding the 2016 United States political election.

To investigate how misinformation spreads worldwide, an international team of researchers explored what types of misinformation were more likely to be shared with others, and the patterns in how that misinformation spread. Their findings appear in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

Source: Medical news Today

 

What can science tell us about mediums who hear voices?

 Researchers have investigated what characterizes people who say that they can hear the voices of the dead.

Spiritualism is a movement whose adherents believe that the spirits of deceased people continue to live on after physical death.

Mediums claim that they have the ability to communicate with the spirits through seeing (“clairvoyant”), feeling (“clairsentient”), or hearing (“clairaudient”) them.

Studies from the Universities of Cardiff, Northampton, and Lancaster — all of which are in the United Kingdom — have argued that religious and spiritual experiences (RSEs), such as clairaudience, can be useful as a comparison to auditory hallucinations of people with certain mental health conditions.

The ‘clairaudient’ experience

A new study, which appears in the journal Mental Health, Religion & Culture, examined links between auditory spiritual communications experienced by mediums, beliefs, and personality.

The study was part of the Hearing the Voice project. Dr. Adam J. Powell, of the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Durham in the U.K, and Dr. Peter Moseley, of the Department of Psychology at Northumbria University, also in the U.K., carried out the study.

“Spiritualists tend to report unusual auditory experiences [that] are positive, start early in life, and [that] they are often then able to control,” explains Dr. Moseley. “Understanding how these develop is important because it could help us understand more about distressing or non-controllable experiences of hearing voices too.”

Source: Medical News Today

 

Diabetes treatment may protect against COVID-19 mortality

 In a new study, the medication metformin significantly reduced the risk of death from COVID-19 in people with diabetes.

• Upon analyzing data from a diverse patient population, the researchers found that individuals who had been taking metformin, a drug for type 2 diabetes, were less likely to die of COVID-19 than those not on metformin.
• Their study also highlighted the fact that Black people made up a disproportionate number of those who tested positive for COVID-19.
• According to the researchers, this disparity is likely due to socioeconomic factors, lack of access to healthcare, and a higher risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 among Black populations.

Researchers have found that people with diabetes undergoing treatment with the medication metformin are at significantly less risk of death due to COVID-19 compared with those not taking the medication.

The study, which appears in the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology, also found that African American study participants were disproportionately more likely to contract the virus than white participants.

Source: Medical News Today

 

NEWSLETTER Heart disease risk associated with eating fried foods

 

• Eating fried food is linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular events
• The risk increases with each additional 4-ounce weekly serving
• Compared with those who ate the least fried food, those who ate the most had a 37% increased risk of heart failure

A recent meta-analysis has found that eating fried foods is linked with a heightened risk of major cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes.

The analysis looked at the results of 19 studies, 17 of which concerned major cardiovascular events, and 6 of which investigated all forms of mortality.

The authors found that the risk rises with each additional weekly serving weighing 4 oz (114 grams). The results of the analysis appear in the journal Heart.

Generally, the Western diet is high in processed meats, saturated fats, refined sugars, and carbohydrates, and low in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and seafood. This type of diet is considered a risk factor for obesity and type 2 diabetes.

In their meta-analysis, the researchers looked specifically at fried foods, which are prevalent in the Western diet, and how these foods impact cardiovascular health.

The effects of frying

Foods coated in flour and fried are often high in calories. And, as the researchers point out, they taste good, which makes overeating a temptation.

Also, fried foods, particularly those from fast-food outlets, often contain trans fats. These raise levels of low-density lipoprotein, or “bad,” cholesterol and reduce levels of helpful high-density lipoprotein, or “good,” cholesterol.

In addition, the researchers point out, frying boosts the production of chemical byproducts, which can affect the body’s inflammatory response.

Scientists had already associated eating fried foods with developing obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension.

However, investigations into the links between fried food and cardiovascular disease and mortality had not yielded consistent results, the authors of the present analysis observed.

As a result, they set out to provide definitive evidence that doctors could use when giving dietary advice.

Source: Medical News Today

 

Why do doctors underdiagnose these 3 conditions in women?

 International Women’s Day prompts us to celebrate women and womanhood. However, recent research suggests that women may face more than their fair share of challenges, including in receiving appropriate medical care. What are some of these challenges, and why do they occur?

Women have played a vital role in the improvement of medical care across clinical fields.

Figures such as Dorothea Dix, who helped change the face of mental health care, Rosalind Franklin, who contributed to the discovery of human DNA structure, and Dr. Virginia Apgar, who put together the evaluation criteria assessing the health status of newborn infants, have revolutionized medicine.

Despite this, women and girls across the world still face challenges and discrimination in medical settings.

Only last year, for instance, senior staff from the Tokyo Medical School, as well as from Juntendo and Kitasato Universities in Japan, admitted to manipulating entrance exam scores so that fewer women candidates would qualify for their courses.

These admissions spurred endless debates about the degree to which women who choose medical care as a profession keep on facing waves of discrimination.

Such problems, however, do not stop at women trying to build a career in medical sciences. According to some reports, women also face discrimination as patients. Sometimes, their doctors fail to diagnose conditions they are struggling with, or offer them the wrong diagnosis and consequently, the wrong kind of therapy.

In this Spotlight feature, we will look at some of the conditions that doctors underdiagnosed in women and explore some of the possible reasons behind these lacks in medical care.

1. Endometriosis

One of the chronic conditions that many women struggle with for a long time before they manage to receive a correct diagnosis — if they ever do — is endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a progressive gynecological condition, which doctors currently consider incurable. Endometriosis occurs when the type of tissue that usually only lines the uterus grows in other parts of the body. This can include the ovaries, fallopian tubes, urethra, but also the bowel, kidneys, and other organs.

Symptoms of this condition include debilitating pain in the pelvic area, as well as other parts of the body, heavy and persistent menstrual bleeding, spotting between periods, pain during sex with vaginal penetration, nausea and vomiting, severe headaches, and persistent fatigue.

These symptoms can often have a severe impact on an individual’s quality of life, affecting their productivity, other aspects of their physical and mental health, and their relationships.

Estimates in the journal Fertility and Sterility indicate that 10–15 percent of women of reproductive age live with this condition, and 70 percent of women who experience chronic pelvic pain actually have endometriosis.

As the authors of that study paper write, “The time from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis is disturbingly long.” Two-thirds of the people they spoke to begin to experience symptoms of endometriosis during adolescence. However, most of these people do not seek medical attention immediately, and once they do, it can take doctors 10–12 years to make a correct diagnosis.

Typically, doctors can only diagnose endometriosis by conducting a laparoscopy. This is a minor surgical procedure in which a doctor inserts a tiny camera into the abdomen to look for lesions and abnormalities.

A doctor may prescribe pain relief medication or hormonal therapy for the management of endometriosis, but since this condition is progressive, many people require multiple and regular surgeries to remove the abnormal tissue growth.

Source: Medical News Today

The controversy of 'female hysteria'

 For centuries, doctors readily diagnosed women with “hysteria,” an alleged mental health condition that explained away any behaviors or symptoms that made men…uncomfortable.

A fondness of writing, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, and even infertility — for the best part of two centuries, all of these and more could easily fall under the umbrella of “female hysteria.”

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, female hysteria was one of the most commonly diagnosed “disorders.” But the mistaken notion that women are somehow predisposed to mental and behavioral conditions is much older than that.

In fact, the term hysteria originated in Ancient Greece. Hippocrates and Plato spoke of the womb, hystera, which they said tended to wander around the female body, causing an array of physical and mental conditions.

But what was female hysteria supposed to be, what were its symptoms, how did doctors “treat” it, and when did they cease to diagnose it as a medical condition?

These are some of the questions that we answer in this Curiosities of Medical History feature.

Female hysteria in the 18th century

While the original notions of female hysteria extend far into the history of medicine and philosophy, this diagnostic became popular in the 18th century.

In 1748, French physician Joseph Raulin described hysteria as a “vaporous ailment” — affection vaporeuse in French — an illness spread through air pollution in large urban areas.

While Raulin noted that both men and women could contract hysteria, women were, according to him, more predisposed to this ailment because of their lazy and irritable nature.

In a treatise published in 1770–1773, another French physician, François Boissier de Sauvages de Lacroix, describes hysteria as something akin to emotional instability, “subject to sudden changes with great sensibility of the soul.”

Some of the hysteria symptoms that he named included: “a swollen abdomen, suffocating angina [chest pain] or dyspnea [shortness of breath], dysphagia [difficulty swallowing], […] cold extremities, tears and laughter, oscitation [yawning], pandiculation [stretching and yawning], delirium, a close and driving pulse, and abundant and clear urine.”

De Sauvages agreed with his predecessors that this condition primarily affected women, and that “men are only rarely hysterical.”

According to him, sexual deprivation was often the cause of female hysteria. To illustrate this, he presented the case study of a nun affected by hysteria, who became cured only when a well-wishing barber took it upon himself to pleasure her.

Another means of “treating” instances of hysteria was through mesmerism, an alleged psychosomatic therapy popularized by Franz Anton Mesmer, a German doctor who was active in 18th-century Europe.

Mesmer believed that living beings were influenced by magnetism, an invisible current that ran through animals and humans, and whose imbalances or fluctuations could lead to health disruptions.

Mesmer alleged that he could act on this magnetic undercurrent and cure humans of various maladies, including hysteria.

Source: Medical News Today

Bloodletting: Why doctors used to bleed their patients for health

 Bloodletting — the practice of withdrawing blood from a person’s veins for therapeutic reasons — was common for thousands of years. In this Curiosities of Medical History feature, we look at the history of bloodletting and how it eventually fell out of favor with the medical community.

Also known as phlebotomy — from the Greek words phlebos, meaning “vein,” and temnein, meaning “to cut” — bloodletting is a therapeutic practice that started in antiquity.

Today, however, the term phlebotomy refers to the drawing of blood for transfusions or blood tests.

Some sources suggest that the original practice of bloodletting is more than 3,000 years old and that the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans — as well as many other ancient peoples — all used it for medical treatment.

But what is the origin of the notion of bleeding someone to help them get better?

The theory of the 4 humors

Hippocrates — an Ancient Greek physician who lived in the fifth century before the common era and was one of the most important figures in the history of medicine — practiced medicine according to the theory of the four humors, or “humoral theory.”

This theory posited that there were four key humors, or liquids, in the human body and that imbalances in these humors were responsible for many physical and mental illnesses.

According to the most influential version of this theory, these humors were: black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood.

In the second century before the common era, Galen — a famous Roman physician who also subscribed to the humoral theory — promoted arteriotomy, a bloodletting method, as a means of reestablishing the balance of the four humors and treating a variety of symptoms.

According to Galen, a bloodletting incision into the veins behind the ears could treat vertigo and headaches, and letting blood flow out through an incision in the temporal arteries — the veins found on the temples — could treat eye conditions.

The principle behind bloodletting is to remove some blood in a controlled way so that the patient does not end up bleeding profusely.

Source: Medical News Today

Medical myths: All about weight loss

 As 2021 begins, many of us might be planning to lose some weight. However, when it comes to dieting and weight loss, confusion abounds. Here, we dispel 11 widely held myths.

During the holiday season, many people take on more calories than they work off. Consequently, adding a little extra weight at this time of year is not unusual.

Classically, January is a time of change, and many people go on health kicks that include weight loss. With that in mind, we address some common misconceptions.

1. Skipping breakfast aids weigh loss

The common adage that breakfast is the most important meal of the day may or may not be true, but it seems unlikely that skipping the morning meal aids weight loss.

The rationale behind this strategy is that missing one meal a day leads to a lower overall intake of calories. However, the story is not so straightforward.

One study, published in 2010, analyzed food intake information from 2,184 people aged 9–15 years. Twenty years later, the researchers asked for the same information again.

They compared data from people who had skipped breakfast during childhood and adulthood with data from those who had never skipped breakfast or had done so only in adulthood.

Compared with the other groups, the participants who skipped breakfast during both childhood and adulthood tended to have larger waist circumferences, higher fasting insulin levels, and higher total cholesterol levels.

Sometimes, people who skip breakfast eat more during the rest of the day to counteract the deficit. But one 2013 study found that missing breakfast does not lead to eating more at lunch. The authors conclude that “Skipping breakfast may be an effective means to reduce daily energy intake in some adults.”

However, these researchers only monitored the participants’ food intake at lunch, not dinner. And the study only included 24 participants, so we should be wary of drawing solid conclusions from the findings.

A much larger 2007 study, which involved more than 25,000 adolescents, looked for links between skipping breakfast and having overweight. The researchers also assessed the roles of alcohol intake and levels of inactivity.

The scientists found that skipping breakfast had a stronger association with overweight than either alcohol consumption or levels of inactivity.

Source: Medical News Today

Spending time in green spaces may reduce workplace stress

 

• Taking regular walks in the woods or in city parks may enhance workers’ ability to cope with stress.
• The relationship was significant even after controlling for a range of factors.
• The study involved more than 6,000 Japanese workers.

Work-related stress affects employees all over the globe. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) added burnout — defined as a syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress — to its official compendium of diseases as an occupational phenomenon.

Workers in Japan, where workplace culture frequently dictates that employees work brutally long hours, are certainly not immune to occupational stress.

In 2018, workers in Japan took only 52.4% of the paid leave they were due, according to government figures that the BBC reported. The Japanese even have a word — “karoshi” — to describe death by overwork.

In the new study, which appears in Public Health in Practice, scientists from the University of Tsukuba in Japan examined survey data from 6,466 Japanese workers who were between the ages of 20 and 59 years in November, 2017.

Understanding sense-of-coherence scores

As part of the original survey, each of the workers received a sense-of-coherence (SOC) score.

In 1979, sociologist Aaron Antonovsky first introduced SOC as a concept. It refers to an individual’s ability to look at the world and see themselves able to make their life meaningful, manageable, and comprehensible.

He went on to develop a questionnaire that analyzes how respondents understand the things that happen to them, as well as their ability both to manage the situation and to take meaning from it.

A previous study found that individuals with a strong SOC score showed more resilience during stressful life events. This finding supported earlier research suggesting that in the workplace, a strong SOC score could indicate that a worker possesses a solid ability to cope with stress.

“SOC indicates mental capacities for realizing and dealing with stress,” explains Prof. Shinichiro Sasahara of the University of Tsukuba, one of the study authors.

The study authors note that researchers have previously demonstrated that individuals who are married or have attended college or graduate school are more likely to have a strong SOC score.

They also write that nonsmokers are more likely to have a strong SOC than smokers and that people who exercise frequently tend to have a stronger SOC score than those who do not.

For this study, the researchers divided the survey respondents into groups based on how often they reported walking in forests or green spaces. They then looked for correlations between the time spent walking in nature and a range of factors, including SOC score, sex, age, marital status, educational background, household income, smoking habits, and physical exercise.

A good habit

Of the respondents, 55.9% and 75.9% reported walking in forests or green spaces, respectively, at least once a year.

The researchers found that respondents who walked in forests or green spaces at least once a week showed “a significantly positive association” with a strong or middle SOC score, even after adjusting for demographic factors.

This study’s results line up with numerous previous studies that have touted the benefits of walking in forests and green spaces. One, in particular, concluded that strolling in the woods may decrease the risk of psychosocial stress-related diseases.

Forests occupy about two-thirds of Japanese land. Even in the country’s bustling cities, the study’s authors note, people can easily access parks and gardens.

The authors of the recent study wanted to understand how walking in nature affects work stress management.

“Forest/green spacewalking is a simple activity that needs no special equipment or training,” says Prof. Sasahara. “It could be a very good habit for improving mental health and managing stress.”

Source: Medical News Today

Should I worry about H5N1 bird flu?

 Avian flu, or bird flu, refers to a group of diseases that result from infections with specific influenza viruses. These viruses infect birds and — rarely — spread among humans. One virus that causes bird flu is called H5N1.

The H5N1 virus can cause severe flu with a high mortality rate.
However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), transmission among humans is rare.

So far, the virus has shown no signs of changing genetically to spread more efficiently among humans. However, due to the severity of the illness that the virus can cause, authorities continue to monitor for these genetic changes. H5N1 bird flu is fatal in 60% of cases.

The first outbreak of H5N1 avian flu in humans occurred in 1997 in Hong Kong. Overall, authorities have reported more than 700 instances of human H5N1 infection — in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Indonesia, Vietnam, and Egypt have had the highest numbers of cases.

Below, we investigate whether the H5N1 virus poses a global threat to health. We also describe the symptoms, causes, and treatments of H5N1 bird flu.

Will there be a pandemic?

It is not easy for the H5N1 virus to transmit from animals to humans. It is even harder for the virus to pass from person to person.

However, if a person with seasonal flu then develops this bird flu, the H5N1 virus may be able to exchange genetic information with the seasonal flu virus. If this happens, the H5N1 virus could gain further ability to spread among people.

A strain of avian flu virus that develops greater ability to spread among humans could have serious consequences.

At present, controlling outbreaks of bird flu in animals and humans can help keep the virus from developing this capacity and prevent further spread that could lead to a pandemic.

What is H5N1?

Type A strains of the influenza virus, including H5N1, cause avian flu, or bird flu.

The H5N1 virus can infect several types of birds. Authorities have mostly reported the disease in farmed poultry, such as chickens, geese, turkeys, and ducks.

However, in January 2015, healthcare professionals found a wild duck in the United States that had H5N1 avian flu. Virologists — scientists who focus on viral diseases — have also found the virus in pigs, cats, dogs, and beech martens, as well as leopards and tigers in captivity.

The virus spreads easily among birds through their saliva, nasal secretions, feces, and feed. They can acquire the virus from contaminated surfaces, such as cages and other farming equipment.

Most people with the infection have had direct contact with infected poultry or objects that have touched contaminated bird feces or secretions, according to the CDC.

Until now, very few cases of human-to-human transmission have occurred.

The most recent reported incidence of H5N1 bird flu occurred in Malaysia in March 2017. The outbreak killed a number of chickens, but the authorities reported no human infections.

Symptoms

The “incubation period” of a virus is the amount of time between the infection and the host developing symptoms. The virus may be contagious during this time.

A 2019 review estimates the incubation period of H5N1 in humans to be at most 7 days, but more commonly 2–5 days.

H5N1 bird flu can cause severe symptoms in humans. A person may experience more serious typical flu symptoms, including:

• a fever of above 100.4ºF (38ºC)
• a cough
• muscle aches

The following signs and symptoms of the illness can range from mild to severe:

• a hoarse voice
• a sore throat
• malaise
• fatigue
• an upset stomach, sometimes involving diarrhea
• nausea
• vomiting
• abdominal pain
• chest pain
• an altered mental state
• seizures

Some people with H5N1 bird flu develop severe respiratory problems, including pneumonia and breathlessness.

According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report from 2005, shortness of breath occurs around 5 days after the first symptoms appear.

The condition of a person with H5N1 avian flu can deteriorate rapidly. They may experience respiratory failure and multiple organ failure, leading to death.

Source: Medical News Today

What is vaccine efficacy?

 Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in disease in a group of people who received a vaccination in a clinical trial. It differs from vaccine effectiveness, which measures how well a vaccine works when given to people in the community outside of clinical trials.

All data and statistics are based on publicly available data at the time of publication. Some information may be out of date. Visit our coronavirus hub and follow our live updates page for the most recent information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

All new vaccines undergo clinical trials to test how well they work. The developers of a vaccine candidate usually determine the main goals of their trial in their clinical trial study protocol.

These goals are called the primary endpoints. For many experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently in development, the primary endpoints focus on preventing new cases of symptomatic COVID-19.

Scientists can calculate how well a vaccine candidate works by looking at the difference in new cases of the disease between the group receiving a placebo and the group receiving the experimental vaccine.

This is called vaccine efficacy. For example, Pfizer/BioNTech reported an efficacy of 95% for the COVID-19 vaccine. This means a 95% reduction in new cases of the disease in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group.

Efficacy versus effectiveness

Volunteers taking part in vaccine clinical trials often undergo close monitoring. The trial team is usually aware of the participants’ general health and any relevant health conditions.

Participants usually report any side effects and may fill out daily symptom monitoring diaries.

Many clinical trials have exclusion criteria such as pregnancy, particular health conditions, and age. Trials involving experimental vaccines rarely include children or seniors until scientists have collected a significant amount of safety data to protect these groups from potential harm.

Vaccine efficacy only provides information about how well a vaccine works under the conditions of the clinical trial. Scientists usually base it on factors that they can quantify, such as numbers of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19.

But the ideal conditions of a clinical trial do not necessarily reflect what is happening in the real world outside of clinical trials.

Vaccine effectiveness tells us how well a vaccine works under real-world conditions once people outside of clinical trials receive the vaccine.

Many factors can influence how a vaccine performs outside of clinical trials. One of these is the health of those receiving the vaccine. Underlying health conditions can affect vaccine effectiveness.

Another factor is how the disease-causing pathogen changes with time. The viruses that cause the flu are prone to mutations that make vaccines less effective. Vaccine developers update the flu shot every year to try to achieve a good match to the most prevailing seasonal flu strains.

Why are efficacy and effectiveness important?

Very few vaccines are 100% effective. But many routines vaccines have very high levels of effectiveness.

For example, the MMR vaccine is up to 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps, and about 97% effective against rubella.

The annual flu shot has an effectiveness of 40–60%.

Some people may not develop full protection despite receiving a vaccine. Other people are unable to have certain vaccines. This may be because they have an allergy to components in the vaccine or because of other health matters, such as taking immunosuppressant medication.

While vaccine effectiveness can inform scientists how much it can reduce new cases in those who have the vaccine, scientists can also use this to work out how many people need to have the vaccine to reach herd immunity.

Herd immunity means enough people are protected from the disease to slow down or stop the pathogen’s spread. This means that people who have not had the vaccine or cannot have the vaccine receive indirect protection.

Source: Medical News Today