(JOHANNESBURG) — A new coronavirus variant has been detected in South Africa that scientists say is a concern because of its high number of mutations and rapid spread among young people in Gauteng, the country’s most populous province, Health Minister Joe Phaahla announced Thursday. The coronavirus evolves as it spreads and many new variants, including those with worrying mutations, often just die out. Scientists monitor for possible changes that could be more transmissible or deadly, but sorting out whether new variants will have a public health impact can take time. South Africa has seen a dramatic rise in new infections, Phaahla said at an online press briefing. “Over the last four or five days, there has been more of an exponential rise,” he said, adding that the new variant appears to be driving the spike in cases. Scientists in South Africa are working to determine what percentage of the new cases have been caused by the new variant. Currently identified as B.1.1.529, the new variant has also been found in Botswana and Hong Kong in travelers from South Africa, he said. The World Health Organization’s technical working group is to meet Friday to assess the new variant and may decide whether or not to give it a name from the Greek alphabet. The British government announced that it was banning flights from South Africa and five other southern African countries effective at noon (1200GMT) on Friday, and that anyone who had recently arrived from those countries would be asked to take a coronavirus test. U.K. Health Secretary Sajid Javid said there were concerns the new variant “may be more transmissible” than the dominant delta strain, and “the vaccines that we currently have may be less effective” against it. The new variant has a “constellation” of new mutations, said Tulio de Oliveira, from the Network for Genomic Surveillance in South Africa, who has tracked the spread of the delta variant in the country. The “very high number of mutations is a concern for predicted immune evasion and transmissibility,” said de Oliveira. “This new variant has many, many more mutations,” including more than 30 to the spike protein that affects transmissibility, he said. “We can see that the variant is potentially spreading very fast. We do expect to start seeing pressure in the healthcare system in the next few days and weeks.” De Oliveira said that a team of scientists from seven South African universities is studying the variant. They have 100 whole genomes of it and expect to have many more in the next few days, he said. “We are concerned by the jump in evolution in this variant,” he said. The one piece of good news is that it can be detected by a PCR test, he said. After a period of relatively low transmission in which South Africa recorded just over 200 new confirmed cases per day, in the past week the daily new cases rapidly increased to more than 1,200 on Wednesday. On Thursday they jumped to 2,465. The first surge was in Pretoria and the surrounding Tshwane metropolitan area and appeared to be cluster outbreaks from student gatherings at universities in the area, said health minister Phaahla. Amid the rise in cases, scientists studied the genomic sequencing and discovered the new variant. “This is clearly a variant that we must be very serious about,” said Ravindra Gupta, professor of clinical microbiology at the University of Cambridge. “It has a high number of spike mutations that could affect transmissibility and immune response.” Gupta said scientists in South Africa need time to determine if the surge in new cases is attributable to the new variant. “There is a high probability that this is the case,” he said. “South African scientists have done an incredible job of identifying this quickly and bringing it to the world’s attention.” South African officials had warned that a new resurgence was expected from mid-December to early January and had hoped to prepare for that by getting many more people vaccinated, said Phaahla. About 41% of South Africa’s adults have been vaccinated and the number of shots being given per day is relatively low, at less than 130,000, significantly below the government’s target of 300,000 per day. South Africa currently has about 16.5 million doses of vaccines, by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, in the country and is expecting delivery of about 2.5 million more in the next week, according to Nicholas Crisp, acting director-general of the national health department. “We are getting in vaccines faster than we are using them at the moment,” said Crisp. “So for some time now, we have been deferring deliveries, not decreasing orders, but just deferring our deliveries so that we don’t accumulate and stockpile vaccines.” South Africa, with a population of 60 million, has recorded more than 2.9 million COVID-19 cases including more than 89,000 deaths. To date, the delta variant remains by far the most infectious and has crowded out other once-worrying variants including alpha, beta and mu. According to sequences submitted by countries worldwide to the world’s biggest public database, more than 99% are delta. from https://ift.tt/3l9hY3y Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/
0 Comments
As you tuck into your Thanksgiving dinner, the kick-off event (at least for Americans) of the holiday season, spare a thought for the planet’s carbon waistline. Food production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for more than a third of emissions worldwide — and a new study has given fresh insight into how small changes in the diet can have a big impact on food-related emissions. And even if it doesn’t inspire you to forgo the turkey and trimmings, it serves as a good reminder that a post-holiday pause on overindulgence might be just the kind of thanks Mother Earth might appreciate most, not to mention your own body’s health. Research published in the scientific journal PLOS One found that diets limiting meat, dairy and processed food were not only good for health, but for the planet as well. Previous studies only looked at broad food groups, but this one assessed the greenhouse gas emissions of 3,233 different foods consumed by a cohort of 212 adult volunteers in the U.K. over three 24-hour periods. The report found that people whose intake of saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sodium met levels recommended by the World Health Organization had lower greenhouse gas emissions than people who exceeded recommended levels of those nutrients. Meat, unsurprisingly, was the biggest health and climate culprit. Meat eaters’ diets clocked 59% higher emissions compared to vegetarians, and men’s diets overall contributed 41% higher emissions than women’s, largely because of their greater meat intake. Read more: Counting Your Carbon Footprint One Meal at a Time But before you skip the turkey in favor of pie, the report’s authors note that desserts don’t get a free pass either. “It’s not that confectionery is any worse than other dietary components, it’s that we eat so much of it that it all adds up to a high impact,” says the report’s lead author Darren Greenwood at the University of Leeds’ School of Medicine in the U.K. “Whilst other foods, like vegetables, contribute to a healthy balanced diet, sweets have very little nutritional benefit. So it is an unnecessary impact on the environment.” The report’s findings support a focus on plant-based foods, both for personal decisions on diet and nutrition, and for public policy. But that doesn’t mean a plate of Brussels sprouts for Christmas dinner. It’s about being more thoughtful in your food choices, and conscious of how they are consumed, says Greenwood. “We can all do our bit by buying local produce, grown in season. Maybe this year buy less, but better quality, food. Don’t cook more than you’ll eat and try not to waste any leftovers. That way we can enjoy the holiday and treat ourselves—think of it as a gift to our children for the future.” They will thank you for it. Eventually. from https://ift.tt/3cI6787 Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ Grappling with Europe’s punishing fourth wave of COVID-19, Austria’s government took bold steps to combat the spread of the disease on Friday — not merely sending the country back into lockdown for three weeks, but also announcing the first national COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the western world. Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg says the mandate, due to enter into force on Feb. 1, is needed to boost a stagnant vaccination campaign. Just over 69% of eligible people have received at least one dose, languishing about ten percentage points behind other wealthy western European countries. Authorities blame that comparatively low vaccine coverage for the record-breaking COVID-19 caseload Austria is currently experiencing, with 14,000 cases reported Monday —nearly twice as many as it experienced at the peak of its then-record second wave in November 2020. “There are too many among us who haven’t shown solidarity,” Schallenberg told local media Friday. “Raising the vaccination rate is the only way to break this vicious circle.” But the plan drew instant outrage. Some 40,000 people protested the governments’ new measures in Vienna on Saturday, joining a spate of marches across western European cities against recently reimposed COVID containment measures. Austrian demonstrators carried signs reading “no to vaccines” and “down with the fascist dictatorship.” Many levelled comparisons to the history of Nazi experiments in Austria—long evoked by the country’s powerful anti-vaccine movement. Police said far right affiliated groups, which have played a key role in spreading anti-vaccine information, were prominent at the marches. Against that backdrop, public health experts are dubious about the decision to make vaccines obligatory. Though a mandate may convince some Austrians who were hesitant to get vaccinated, they say it is unlikely to win over those with more deep-rooted opposition. Some worry that the move could backfire, further politicizing the issue. “It deepens the chasm in our society,” says Thomas Czypionka, head of health economics and policy at the Vienna-based Institute for Advanced Studies, “There is a growing number of people opposing the government and policies against COVID-19, and this vaccine mandate may well serve as a strong push to more radicalization— especially with our history.” How will Austria’s vaccine mandate work — and will it be effective?Under the government’s plan, authorities will send out invitations to vaccination appointments to the 2 million people who are not yet fully vaccinated, and after Feb. 1, will begin imposing fines of around $4,000 on those who refuse to attend. In the meantime, when the current lockdown lifts on Dec. 13, restrictions will stay in place for unvaccinated people. Experts are divided on whether the mandate will work. Daily figures on vaccine doses suggest that stricter controls on the movement of the unvaccinated introduced earlier this month, combined with the surge in new infections, have pushed hundreds of thousands of people to a shot in the last few weeks. With those recent moves apparently already convincing those who were on the fence, there is doubt about how much impact obligatory vaccines will have. “There will be a small group which will move on to vaccinations now, voluntarily. But most [unvaccinated people] will probably even go into more resistance,” says Eva Maria Adamer-König, head of Public Health at FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences in Graz, Austria. She cites a 2016 study in the European Journal of Public Health that found mandates for selected vaccinations can make people more likely to refuse other vaccinations that they had previously been comfortable with. “This could be a big problem.” Czypionka expects that those who are strongly opposed to vaccines will likely just keep making appointments for shots, not turning up, and refusing to pay their fines—potentially creating a headache for Austria’s courts. Since the mandate won’t come into force for several months and immunity from vaccines takes weeks to come into effect, it will have no impact on Austria’s current caseload, he says. “The right decision would have been to address skepticism early in the year, and to have implemented mandatory vaccination for the health professionals and for our educational staff. Maybe this would have been enough to avoid these strict measures.” Why is COVID-19 so bad in Europe right now?As winter sets in and Europeans begin to spend more time socializing indoors, the highly transmissible Delta variant of COVID-19, now dominant across the continent and the world, is spreading fast. Europe has for several weeks been the epicenter of the pandemic. Vaccines are helping to bring down hospitalisations and deaths from COVID-19, though. In Austria, the current surge in infections is causing roughly a third of the number of daily deaths as the second wave, according to Oxford University’s Our World in Data project. But the stagnation of Austria’s vaccine campaigns over the summer has left its population especially vulnerable, Adamer-König says. Many of the country’s fully vaccinated people received their last dose back in summer and, with protection from infection—though not from severe disease or death—waning after six months, people are becoming more able to catch and transmit COVID-19. “But [vaccinated] people still feel safe and like they can’t do any damage, and [unvaccinated] people haven’t gotten vaccinated because we have had few restrictions over the summer,” she says. Adamer-König says the government failed to counter a current of vaccine misinformation that was already strong in Austria pre-pandemic and has been building since the start of 2021. Myths about the risks of vaccines—including that they make women infertile—have spread online and been fanned by politicians from the far-right Freedom Party, the third-largest force in Austria’s parliament. Why were people protesting in Europe?Many Europeans are tired of the seemingly unending cycle of restrictions. Anger over recently imposed rules has sparked large protests in Belgium, Croatia, Italy, Northern Ireland and Switzerland over the past week. In some cities, demonstrations turned violent over the weekend. In the Netherlands, where the government has proposed a law that would ban unvaccinated people from entering businesses, even with a negative test, the city of Rotterdam experienced what the mayor labelled “an orgy of violence.” Crowds torched hundreds of cars and threw rocks at police officers. In Brussels, where the Belgian government has made home-working mandatory four days a week and expanded mask-wearing rules, some members of a 30,000-strong march lit fireworks and broke into stores. Vienna’s march was comparatively tame, but police reported “high levels of aggression” among protesters and the presence of far-right extremists. Human rights groups denounced the wearing of yellow stars by many protesters, an attempt to compare COVID-19 restrictions to the grave abuses suffered by European Jews in the late 1930’s and 1940’s. Will other countries in Europe introduce vaccine mandates?So far only a handful of countries worldwide, including Turkmenistan, Indonesia and Micronesia, have announced plans to make vaccines mandatory for all adults. But many western countries, including the U.S., France and Italy, have introduced limited mandates for public employees and health care staff. To deliver its mandate, Austria’s government will need to develop a legal framework for obligatory vaccination that respects the country’s constitution, and allows exceptions for those who are not able to get vaccinated for medical reasons. In doing so, the center-right government can count on broad support from the main opposition center-left Social Democratic party. But it will likely draw political fire from the Freedom Party, whose leader said last week that a mandate would cross “a dark red line.” That process—and the extent of backlash from anti-vaccine protesters—will be watched closely in other countries battling low vaccine take up. In Germany, where the vaccination rate is hovering around 70%, Health Minister Jens Spahn says officials are debating the introduction of a mandate. “Probably by the end of this winter pretty much everyone in Germany,” he told a news conference Monday, “will be vaccinated, cured or dead.” from https://ift.tt/30P6z1t Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ On Nov. 19, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported an advisory committee’s advice and expanded the group of people who can now get COVID-19 booster doses to include all adults over age 18. But just because you’re now eligible for a booster shot, do you need to run out and get one? Does the booster recommendation mean your original vaccination is no longer protecting you? How urgent is the need to get that booster dose? The CDC now says that all adults who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine are eligible to get booster at least six months after their second dose. (The agency had already recommended boosters for all adults initially vaccinated with the Johnson&Johnson-Janssen shot.) Previously, the CDC made a distinction between those over age 65 and with underlying health conditions—who the agency said “should” get a booster shot—and those living or working in high risk settings, who “may” get a booster. According to a spokesperson for the CDC, the latest expansion for all adults falls into the latter category, so it makes it possible for any adult to get boosted, and leaves the choice up to the individual. Many people are interpreting that to mean that the urgency to get a booster isn’t as great as the urgency behind the CDC’s original message to get vaccinated, and some people aren’t quite clear about how necessary the booster is. Studies show that the original doses of all three vaccines currently approved or authorized—two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna shots, or one dose of the J&J-Janssen shot—continue to protect people from getting severe disease and needing to be hospitalized. But the agency decided to recommend boosters because there is also growing evidence from countries like Israel, where more of the population has been vaccinated for a longer period of time than in the U.S., that infections among vaccinated people are possible, and that some of those people are sick enough to need hospitalization. In fact, this question of how urgently boosters are needed was considered carefully by the CDC’s panel of experts, as well as the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advisory committee. Initially, for example, the FDA committee decided to recommend boosters for adults who live or work in settings that put them at higher risk of getting infected, but the CDC panel opted to limit boosters to those at highest risk for severe disease—people over age 65 and those with underlying health conditions. Walensky, however, broadened the booster-eligible group to include those who also work or live in settings where they might be more likely to get exposed to SARS-CoV-2, such as health care facilities, grocery stores, prisons, homeless shelters and schools. The CDC allowed people in this group to choose whether they wanted to get a booster or not but made the option possible for them. The latest guidelines, which recommend boosters for all adults, follow this precedent that Walensky set. Otherwise healthy adults now have the option to get a booster, but they don’t have to, though the CDC encourages it. In a press briefing on Nov. 22, Walensky said “everyone over 18 years of age is eligible to get boosted. So, if you’re 18 years and older, I encourage you to go get boosted.” But that falls short of recommending that people get boosted, says Dr. Leana Wen, professor of health policy and management at George Washington University. “The issue is whether the booster is essential vs. nice-to-have. Right now the guidance is phrased as the original vaccination provides pretty good protection, and if you want to get a little extra protection, get boosted,” she says. “That is not the case. Seeing [studies] that found protection from the vaccines declines from the high 80% to 90% to 40% after five or six months —that is not nice-to-have. The booster is not like topping up the immune protection; it’s more like game-changing.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Biden Administration’s chief medical advisor on COVID-19, is equally adamant about the necessity of booster doses. He tells TIME that in his recent broadcast interviews, “I came down very strongly that I thought saying ‘should’ vs. ‘may’ has done nothing but confuse people,” he says. “If you really want people to get a booster, just tell them what to do.” Fauci points to growing data from a number of countries, including the U.S., that support the need for boosters now. That evidence consistently indicates that infections, hospitalizations and deaths are several-fold lower in those a month after receiving a booster dose, compared to those who only received the original vaccine. In fact, early data suggest that a booster dose may lead to an enhanced level of protection in terms of higher levels of virus-fighting antibodies, as well as longer-lasting protection, than the original vaccine doses. The question of whether boosters are necessary or a luxury comes down to what the goals of vaccination are: if you want to prevent serious disease and reduce hospitalizations, the original vaccination continues to do that pretty well. But if you want to prevent breakthrough infections, boosters are critical. “Right now we are facing more than 90,000 new infections a day [on average], we are entering the winter season, and people are gathering for the holidays,” says Wen. “We know immunity to symptomatic infection wanes substantially at the six-month mark, and immunity even to severe disease wanes too. It’s mind-blowing to me that we cannot just be straightforward with people at this point, and say it is essential to get a booster. The CDC playing around with ‘should’ vs. ‘may’ wording has further confused people.” Wen points out that the language choice isn’t just semantics. If the CDC had said that all adults should get a booster, then the additional dose would be like the annual flu shot, and doctors would ask their patients about whether they had received a booster or not. By making it optional, patients won’t necessarily be asked or reminded about getting a booster. “That makes a huge difference,” says Wen. Leaving the decision up to individuals could diminish boosters’ protective potential, she adds. So should you get a booster? Essentially, it couldn’t hurt. With 29 states currently recording new highs in daily COVID-19 cases—coupled with the winter season of colds, flu and other respiratory infections—having the added protection of a booster makes sense. That’s especially true if you’re planning on traveling over the holidays, and mixing with people who aren’t from your household in airports or on planes, trains or buses, and then mingling with family from different households as well. If you have small children who either aren’t yet vaccinated or are only partially inoculated, there’s even more reason to build up a cushion of immunity to surround those who are less protected. Getting a booster is your choice, but it’s one that could affect family and friends around you. “Many people think the booster is a luxury, as opposed to something they need to get,” says Wen. “That messaging needs to change urgently.” from https://ift.tt/3HPA7wO Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ It’s entirely possible to love and dread the holidays at the same time—especially in 2021, which promises awkward conversations along with glad tidings and good cheer. As families and friends plan to get together this year, they’ll not only need to weigh the risk of getting sick from COVID-19, but also the possibility that some attendees have taken safety protocols more seriously than others. While talking to loved ones about holiday get-togethers in advance can be nerve-wracking, it’s essential. I spoke with Dr. Joshua Morganstein, associate professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and Rick Hanson, a psychologist and senior fellow at UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, about staying safe and happy this holiday season. Forget “Winning” the ArgumentBefore your Thanksgiving dinner or other holiday gathering, think through the risks, and talk about safety with everyone who will be attending. Questions like vaccination, who is most at risk for a serious infection and how much COVID-19 is spreading in your area are all important pieces of the equation (which I lay out in more detail here). Set aside any impulse to “win” an argument. Drawing a line about safety doesn’t mean “lashing out or punishing others,” Hanson notes—and definitely is not about politics. Instead, Hanson advises finding common ground. When discussing safety precautions, he suggests framing challenges as a “we” issue; in other words, “What’s good for all of us? How can we make an arrangement that we all agree to?” Rather than talking about the pandemic or public health in general, focus on concrete actions that need to be taken (who will pick up testing kits?), agreements (e.g., everyone will get tested the day before) or results (focus on keeping a specific person safe, like a grandparent). While it’s within your rights to cancel plans, that doesn’t mean you should disregard the impact your decision has on others. As Hanson notes, some people might interpret these decisions as choosing yourself or your immediate family over other people. It’s important to show that while your decision is firm, you still care about whoever you would have been gathering with. “[Lead] with a recognition of the impact, followed by an unapologetic statement: what would you feel you need to do to be safe,” he says. And remember that the pandemic has impacted everyone. “They’re freaked out too,” Hanson says. “It’s been a hard year for them, too.” Plan AheadWhether you’re more worried about spreading COVID-19 or tackling a tough conversation with your unvaccinated uncle, making a plan can help. Infectious disease experts recommend hashing out how you’ll limit the spread of COVID-19 at your get-togethers as soon as possible. Vaccination, masking and testing can significantly reduce the risk of spreading the virus, but they’ll be much more effective if everyone at your gathering is putting them into effect, especially in the days beforehand. Efforts to “bring down the threat,” as Hanson puts it, can have the added benefit of making you feel less stressed about your gathering. However, he notes that once you’ve done everything you can to reduce risk, it’s important not to blow the risks of a given gathering out of proportion; any given holiday party will only last for a few hours, and if you feel uncomfortable, you can always go home early. Planning can also help if you’re getting ready for a difficult conversation with a loved one—like how to break it to someone that you’re not attending their gathering. Morganstein suggests writing out your thoughts in advance, as it can be difficult to think while experiencing intense emotions. Morganstein also suggests “cushioning” tough news between positive statements, which can reduce the negative emotional impact. For instance, if you’re going to cancel plans to see family, start by saying how much you miss them—and finish by reaffirming that you love them. You also don’t need to explain your decision, especially if you’re worried that the conversation will be difficult. “Consider your own limitations,” says Morganstein. “It’s okay to feel how you feel about it. You don’t have to explain it to other people.” Don’t Aim for PerfectThings go wrong over the holidays. Ovens stop working while baking a pie. Siblings bicker over carving the turkey. Relatives get the flu and need to cancel plans. During a pandemic, mishaps are even more likely. That’s why it’s important to have a safety plan in advance—but also why you should be ready to cut your friends, your family and especially yourself some extra slack this year. Morganstein suggests avoiding thoughts like “That’s what my family always does” and instead reimagining the holidays. “Give yourself a break,” he says. “We can’t fix everything for everybody. We can’t make perfect decisions.” from https://ift.tt/3cHVMJe Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ More Than 90% of U.S. Federal Workers Got Vaccinated by Deadline According to a Government Official11/22/2021 (WASHINGTON) — More than 90% of federal workers received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Monday’s deadline set by President Joe Biden. Biden announced in September that more than 3.5 million federal workers were required to undergo vaccination, with no with option to get regularly tested instead, unless they secured an approved medical or religious exemption. A U.S. official said the vast majority of federal workers are fully vaccinated, and that a smaller number have pending or approved exceptions to the mandate. In all, more than 95% of federal workers are in compliance with the Biden mandate, the official said, either by being vaccinated or having requested an exemption. Workers who are not in compliance are set to begin a “counseling” process that could ultimately result in their termination if they don’t get a shot or secure an approved exception to vaccination. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the statistics because the official wasn’t authorized to speak on the record before their official release later Monday. Read more: A Quirky Ping-Pong Ball Lottery Just Dealt a Blow to Biden’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate The deadline is a major test of Biden’s push to compel people across the country to get vaccinated, as his administration has emphasized that vaccination is the nation’s surest way out from the pandemic. Beyond the federal worker rule, his administration is looking to compel large businesses to institute vaccinate-or-testing requirements that would cover more than 84 million workers, though plans for January enforcement have been on hold pending litigation. There was considerable concern over whether federal employees would follow the mandate, particularly in law enforcement and intelligence agencies where there was vocal resistance, and among federal workers involved in the travel sector heading into the busy holiday travel season. The White House says they don’t anticipate any federal disruptions from the mandate. At the Federal Aviation Administration, 99% of employees are in compliance with Biden’s order, at the Transportation Security Administration, 93% are in compliance, and 98% of Customs and Border Protection workers are in compliance. The official said that on Wednesday the Office of Management and Budget would release a breakdown of agency compliance rates. According to the official, nearly 25% of the Internal Revenue Service’s employees started getting vaccinated after Biden’s announcement, and 98% of its employees are now in compliance with the requirement. Just about two weeks ago, several intelligence agencies had at least 20% of their workforce unvaccinated as of late October, said U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association President Larry Cosme said around the same time that there are about 31,000 members from 65 federal law enforcement agencies in the association and he estimated 60% of them have been vaccinated. The White House is now aiming to use the federal vaccination mandate as a model for private businesses to implement their own mandates even before litigation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s is resolved. Since Biden announced the first federal mandates earlier this summer, the number of unvaccinated Americans aged 12 and over has dropped from about 100 million to under 60 million. Health officials emphasize that the overwhelming majority of instances of serious illness and death from COVID-19 now occur among those who haven’t received a vaccine. from https://ift.tt/3CBP4ih Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ A peculiar ping-pong ball lottery—think: the NBA draft, only required by federal law—on Tuesday dimmed the fate of the Biden Administration’s new mandate governing COVID-19 vaccine requirements for large employers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the emergency rule on Nov. 4 and it was almost immediately challenged. More than two dozen Republican-led states, as well as companies, business groups, unions, and religious organizations filed nearly three dozen lawsuits challenging the mandate. While the majority of the lawsuits argued that the government had overstepped its authority, some made the case that the rule didn’t go far enough to protect workers. In a bad sign for Biden’s mandate, the lottery consolidated all these cases under the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a majority of the justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. While justices do not necessarily rule along party lines, the judiciary has become increasingly partisan in recent years. Former President Donald Trump appointed a record number of appellate judges during his time in office, with his picks now making up 30% of active appeals court judges. This expanded the conservative majorities of several circuit courts, including the Sixth Circuit, effectively reshaping the judiciary at the highest level below the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit, a right-leaning appeals court, already put the OSHA vaccine mandate on hold last week. Now all the cases will be transferred to the Sixth Circuit, which will hear consolidated arguments anew. A panel of three appeals court judges still has to be chosen, and it could include liberals, but legal experts noted that the Sixth Circuit has more than twice as many judges appointed by Republicans as those appointed by Democrats. A drum full of ping-pong ballsThe ping-pong lottery was organized by the clerk at the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C. Federal law requires that the lottery is used when multiple lawsuits challenging a federal agency’s actions are filed in separate courts, says Sean Marotta, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells, who has studied the system. Originally, the agency in question chose the circuit that would hear the consolidated cases, and then the rules allowed whoever filed their petition first to choose the circuit. But in order to avoid questions of bias or races to the courthouse, Congress replaced these with a random lottery system in 1988. The federal statute governing the lottery provides a 10-day window to challenge an agency’s action. Any circuit where a lawsuit is filed during that time has an equal chance of being chosen. After the 10 days conclude, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation clerk pulls a ping-pong ball out of a drum to determine where the case will be heard. The lottery has been used in two other cases this year. One involved a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board, and the other an order from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Typically a quiet, bureaucratic process, it’s rare that the lottery system is used in high-profile cases with such far-reaching consequences as the government’s vaccine requirement. Vaccines or masks and COVID-19 testsThe OSHA vaccine mandate, which is expected to cover 84 million workers, says that companies with more than 100 employees must either require their workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 by Jan. 4 or require them to wear masks and undergo regular testing. The rule includes exemptions for medical and religious reasons, as well as for employees who work from home or only outside. The Biden Administration says it believes it has the authority to issue this kind of mandate through OSHA given the ongoing pandemic. But the agency’s track record on emergency rules is shaky. It has issued emergency rules 10 times since it was created in 1971; of the six that have been challenged in court, only one has survived. Experts say there is precedent for the agency acting to protect workers during broader public health crises. Wendy Parmet, a Northeastern University law professor who focuses on public health law, noted that OSHA issued regulations around how companies should handle HIV, also a communicable disease. “We don’t have anything quite comparable. We have not had a pandemic of this kind of severity since OSHA has been created, but it did respond to HIV,” she says. “The mandate is very defensible, and I think it should be seen as within OSHA’s purview.” Parmet called the conservative lawsuits’ arguments that the OSHA rule is unconstitutional “shocking and quite troubling.” If judges ultimately agree with that argument, she says, that begins “to call into question many workplace laws and many other kinds of regulations that we take for granted to keep people safe.” Polarized political climateAgency officials say the current political climate has likely influenced the challenges to the vaccine rules. COVID-19 restrictions have become highly politicized in the past two years. Conservative politicians have also challenged the Biden Administration’s vaccine requirement for health care workers, as well as mask mandates in schools and cities around the country. “What OSHA’s doing isn’t all that radical, but given the extreme positions Republican politicians and legislators are taking right now, it puts OSHA in the national spotlight in terms of the current controversy,” former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab told TIME in September, when Biden first called for the agency to issue an employer vaccine mandate. This partisan environment likely affected how many groups filed lawsuits over the OSHA mandate. In total, 34 cases were filed in all 12 regional circuit courts by conservative groups and liberal ones, including labor unions. “The unions were targeting liberal circuits, meaning circuits with a majority of judges or a near majority of judges who were appointed by Democratic presidents,” says Marotta. While they were also challenging the mandate, by doing so in circuits that were thought to be more favorable to Democrats, they guaranteed there was at least a chance the consolidated cases would be heard by a liberal-leaning court. All eyes on the Sixth CircuitAll 34 cases will now be transferred to the Sixth Circuit. It’s likely the Justice Department will ask the new court to lift the stay the Fifth Circuit previously put on the mandate, and legal experts say this dispute could end up at the Supreme Court, which has a six-three conservative majority. It’s not clear how the Supreme Court would rule. It recently declined to block Maine’s rule requiring COVID-19 vaccines for health care workers, and also rejected challenges to Indiana University’s mandate and New York City’s mandate for teachers. If the courts ultimately agree with the conservative challengers and strike down the vaccine requirement, it would amount to a significant blow to the Biden Administration’s COVID-19 response, experts say. With such slim majorities in Congress, the Administration has relied on federal agencies to implement much of the President’s agenda. Successfully blocking the vaccine mandate would likely encourage conservatives to challenge more federal agency actions under Biden for the remainder of his term. --With reporting by Julia Zorthian from https://ift.tt/3ov7zQy Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ What Hospitals Can Teach the Business World About Attracting and Retaining Experienced Workers11/22/2021 Many companies were surprised by the “Great Resignation” of 2021, which led a record 4.3 million U.S. employees to quit in August alone, whether they were struggling with burnout, their jobs were no longer meeting their needs, or for other reasons. However, a flood of pink slips is old news to those in the health care industry, which has been plagued by job shortages since before the pandemic. The situation was exacerbated as doctors, nurses and others battled COVID-19; health care executives say many of their most experienced nurses have accelerated their retirements or cut back their hours since the outbreak began. Industry leaders fear more may follow; polls suggest 30 to 50% of health care workers may reduce their working hours or quit entirely as the pandemic drags on. However, this crisis has led many health care execs and HR leaders to get creative in an effort to retain and recruit workers—especially older workers, who may bring decades of experience to their jobs. As industries across the corporate landscape grapple with workforce shortages, they may be wise to take their cues from those in the health world. TIME asked a handful of health care leaders about how they’ve hired and retained older, experienced workers. While specific programs and priorities varied across hospitals, certain themes came up again and again: recruiting for experience, flexibility and wellness. ExperienceOne of the big problems with the nursing shortage isn’t just a dearth of nurses, executives say—it’s that it’s especially difficult to find experienced nurses who can work in hospitals’ most complex roles, like operating room positions. That’s why executives are going above and beyond not only to encourage workers to stick around, but to recruit experienced nurses anywhere they can find them. “An experienced nurse, to me, is gold,” says Claire Zangerle, chief nurse executive for the Pennsylvania-based Allegheny Health Network. Zangerle created a program called “RetuRN to Practice,” an initiative to recruit former, often older nurses and, in partnership with the University of Delaware, get them back up to speed, in part by teaching them the latest practices. As many as 70 nurses who joined the program are now working in the Allegheny system. In New York, Northwell Health is also recruiting retired and experienced workers; a main focus is on equity for people of all ages, says senior vice president and chief human resources officer Maxine Carrington. “You want a workforce that reflects the population, and so we have people working at Northwell of all ages,” she says. Northwell is researching and enacting changes both large and small along these lines. In January, for instance, it will launch a “blind resumé” program, wherein ages and other identifying data will be scrubbed from prospective employees’ documents. The company also plans to launch an alumni program that encourages retirees to return as teachers and mentors, and to expand its “Returnship” program—which is initially targeting female caregivers—to better enable retirees to brush up on their skills and get back to work. FlexibilityAmong the executives who spoke with TIME for this story, many agreed that, to attract and retain experienced workers, flexibility is a must. Both Zangerle and Carrington said that it’s been essential to incorporate flexible options for workers who are nearing retirement age, or who are returning from retirement. Flexibility hasn’t always been a given in the health care industry. Zangerle notes that nurses typically work 12 hour days, three days a week—which can be physically and mentally draining, especially as workers grow older. And as employees approach retirement, their priorities sometimes shift from work to other interests, such as spending time with loved ones, traveling or volunteering, says Carrington. As Zangerle enacted the RetuRN to Practice program, she says, she learned that nurses’ schedules were a barrier keeping some people out of work. Allegheny has since begun offering more flexible options, including shorter or weekend shifts. Older nurses are also encouraged to shift to positions that might be less physically demanding, but still draw upon their skills—such as moving from the operating room to become an educator. While offering flexible schedules can be a management challenge, says Zangerle, doing so is helping her make sure she has enough workers on any given day. “As long as we fill the hole, then we’re good to go,” she says. “The pandemic has really pushed us to say, ‘We will tell you our needs, and you tell us what you can do,'” Northwell, meanwhile, is offering more alternatives to quitting or retiring, such as per diem and part-time options. It also runs a staffing agency and offers home health care opportunities, so workers can choose the kind of work that suits their needs. The pandemic also prompted a reconsideration of another popular tool: working from home, including via telemedicine. Shibu Varghese, senior vice president and chief diversity officer for MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said the health care industry has been slow to adopt remote work because the culture revolves around being in a shared physical environment, and leaders were concerned productivity would drop. But in fact, Varghese said, MD Anderson’s staff has been especially productive even at home, and many enjoy the flexibility of remote life. “The wellness aspect of it—where we are allowing for employees to balance their personal life and professional life together—has really allowed a lot of employees to stay with it and work through the pandemic,” he said. WellnessMany hospitals are also trying a direct approach to reduce burnout, a psychological factor thought to be driving many nurses out of the field. In part, that’s involved more focus on wellness, or making sure that workers’ basic needs are being met. For instance, after an Allegheny Health survey revealed that 45% of its nurses skipped meals and weren’t drinking enough water, managers created meal break calendars to ensure workers had coverage, cafeteria hours were extended and hydration stations and healthy vending machines were installed. Missed meals then dropped from 45% in 2019 to 10% in 2021. At the Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, administrators worked with psychologists at Brown University to ensure that nurses’ needs are being met, says chief nursing officer Anne Schmidt. The hospital has also devised wellness programs offering everything from reiki to food carts to mediation rooms. One goal, says Schmidt, is to build a culture where nurses feel comfortable seeking out help. “Resilience doesn’t come in a bottle,” says Schmidt. “It’s really: how do we normalize self-care?” from https://ift.tt/3l12638 Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expanding authorization for COVID-19 booster doses to include all adults. The decision, announced Nov. 19, broadens the existing emergency use authorization to include anyone vaccinated previously with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 shots. (The authorization had previously already included those who had received one dose of the Johnson&Johnson-Janssen shots.) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) will now decide whether to follow that recommendation and advise boosters for all adults, or whether to refine that advice further. In September, the FDA and CDC authorized booster doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine only for people at higher risk of COVID-19, including those over 65 years, people with certain health conditions, and those who work or live in settings that make it more likely they would get exposed to the virus. In October, the agencies issued the same authorization for the Moderna shot. The authorization at that time extended to everyone who received the single dose J&J-Janssen shot, given the data showing lower initial immunity from the vaccine. For the people originally vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna shots, the agencies advised getting a booster six months after the second dose; for those vaccinated with the J&J shot, two months after that single dose regimen. Already, that eligible population includes a large portion of the U.S. population, and because vaccinators are not requiring documentation of their eligibility, most people who want a booster dose have been able to get one. In the two months since that recommendation, Pfizer and Moderna have provided additional data to the FDA raising concerns about breakthrough infections among the vaccinated, mostly among people with compromised immune systems, as well as studies suggesting that people vaccinated earlier—mostly the elderly—are starting to be hospitalized at increasing rates. Studies by both companies show that the immunity from the vaccine can wane after six months or so, from over 90% protection from COVID-19 disease, to as low as 50%. That protection is brought back up to 90% or so a month after a booster dose. And although further research needs to be done, there are encouraging signs that the vaccines, including a booster dose, might help to curb spread of the virus in communities. The FDA weighed that evidence with additional data on the risks of the vaccines, which include an inflammation of the heart muscle, and concluded that with current infection rates in the U.S. continuing to rise, the benefits of a booster dose for all adults—especially if they can both prevent severe disease and help to dampen spread of the virus—outweighed the small risks. If the CDC endorses the FDA’s authorization, then all adults would now be eligible to get a booster dose. The additional shot could bring additional peace of mind, especially before what is anticipated to be a busier holiday travel season where more people will be gathering and celebrating in larger groups. from https://ift.tt/3DCvow0 Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ An accountant from Wuhan, China, who was widely thought to be first person with Covid-19 actually developed symptoms eight days later than initially reported, making a female seafood seller at the now infamous Huanan market the earliest known case. The confusion was caused by complications from dental work that made the 41-year-old man sick on Dec. 8. A fever and other symptoms caused by coronavirus started Dec. 16, after multiple workers at the Huanan market were already exhibiting signs of infection, including the seafood vendor whose symptoms began Dec. 11, according to a study Thursday in the journal Science. The accountant lived 30 kilometers (19 miles) from the market and had no connection to it. He was probably infected through community transmission after the virus began spreading in Wuhan, said Michael Worobey, head of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona in Tucson and the author of the study. Worobey’s research suggests the Huanan market was the source of the initial outbreak and not just where the SARS-CoV-2 virus was amplified in a super-spreading event.
Scientists have yet to determine the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Debate about its genesis has coalesced around two competing ideas: a laboratory escape or a spillover from animals. Studies identifying closely-related coronaviruses, including in bats dwelling in limestone caves in northern Laos and in Cambodia, support the latter hypothesis, especially since live animals susceptible to the infection were known to be sold in wet markets in Wuhan, including the Huanan center. No live mammals collected at the Huanan market or any other live-animal market in Wuhan has been screened for SARS-CoV-2–related viruses, and the Huanan market was closed and disinfected on Jan. 1, Worobey said. “Nevertheless, that most early symptomatic cases were linked to Huanan Market — specifically to the western section where raccoon dogs were caged — provides strong evidence of a live-animal market origin of the pandemic,” he said. Although it may never be possible to recover related viruses from animals since they weren’t tested as Covid-19 emerged, conclusive evidence of a Huanan market origin via infected wildlife may come through analysis of spatial patterns of early cases, he said. Additional genomic data, including SARS-CoV-2-positive samples from the Huanan market, as well as additional epidemiologic data, could bolster the case, Worobey said. “Preventing future pandemics depends on this effort,” he said. from https://ift.tt/3kP4bPo Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ |
Authorhttps://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ Archives
April 2023
Categories |