ReportWire

Tag: Americans

  • Set Your Clocks Back Tonight—And No, Daylight Saving Time Isn’t Going Away Yet

    Set Your Clocks Back Tonight—And No, Daylight Saving Time Isn’t Going Away Yet

    [ad_1]

    Topline

    Americans will set their clocks back Sunday morning as daylight saving time comes to an end—even as a national debate gains steam over whether the longstanding tradition of switching between daylight saving and standard time should be eliminated, and if daylight should be permanently pushed back the extra hour.

    Key Facts

    At 2 a.m. Sunday, clocks in the U.S. will revert to standard time, turning back one hour and giving Americans an extra hour of sleep that night, but shifting sunrise and sunset an hour earlier and ushering in four-plus months of darker winter evenings.

    In March, the Senate approved the bipartisan Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent, extending daylight longer into the evening between November and March in exchange for darker winter mornings—but the bill has stalled in the House.

    The bill, which would apply to every state except Hawaii and Arizona—an outlier in the daylight savings arena, observing year-round standard time—is the latest attempt at longer evenings, with proponents, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who introduced the bill, arguing it would reduce crime, improve rush-hour traffic safety and encourage kids to play outside longer.

    Critics of the semi-annual switch also point out the process of changing the clocks twice a year has been linked to increases in traffic accidents, robberies, workplace injuries and heart attacks in the days that follow the shift—a 2004 study published in Accident, Analysis and Prevention also found permanent daylight saving would decrease vehicle deaths by more than 350 per year.

    Lawmakers in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Washington have proposed bills to make daylight saving time permanent, although none of those bills have received Congressional approval—the Uniform Time Act allows states to exempt themselves from daylight saving time—which Arizona did (with the exception of the Navajo Nation) in 1968—but forbids states from remaining on permanent daylight saving time without congressional approval.

    Chief Critic

    Scientists studying sleep warn a transition to permanent daylight saving time could disrupt Americans’ circadian rhythms as midday sunlight is pushed back from noon to 1 p.m. The result, according to a 2019 study in the Journal of Health Economics, is that people’s “social and biological time” drift apart, creating a phenomenon known as “social jetlag,” while overall sleep time decreases by an average of 19 minutes, and impairs sleep quality. According to University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School-Baystate professor Karin Johnson, that could increase the risk of health problems, including obesity, diabetes and heart disease, NBC News reported.

    Big Number

    63%. That’s the share of U.S. adults surveyed in an American Academy of Sleep Medicine survey last July that want to eliminate seasonal time changes, including 38% who strongly support eliminating it.

    Key Background

    Although the debate over daylight saving time is almost as old as the practice itself, it’s facing renewed criticism as lawmakers attempt to do away with standard time altogether. The semi-annual changing of the clocks began in 1918 as an initiative to save fuel, give shoppers extra time after work, although federal officials left it up to state and local lawmakers to decide when they should reset their clocks, and whether they do it at all—creating a completely nonuniform nationwide time system. Congress standardized the practice in 1966, with former President Lyndon B. Johnson approving the Uniform Time Act, following through on three years of planning from the Committee for Time Uniformity. In 1996, Congress amended the Uniform Time Act, extending daylight saving time by bringing the start date up nearly one month, from the first Sunday in April to the second Sunday in March while pushing the end date from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November. Recently, however, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are once again trying to change America’s time. In a statement last year, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who supports the Sunshine Protection Act, argued permanent daylight saving time “positively impacts consumer spending and shifts energy consumption,” while Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said “I don’t know a parent of a young child that would oppose getting rid of springing forward or falling back.”

    Further Reading

    Permanent Daylight Saving Time Would Cut Collisions With Deer And Save Lives, Study Finds (Forbes)

    Daylight Saving Time Is Here And It Could Be The Last Time We ‘Spring Forward’ (Forbes)

    Clocks turn back this weekend, but the future of daylight saving time is far from settled (NBC News)

    A Brief History Of Daylight Saving Time (Forbes)

    [ad_2]

    Brian Bushard, Forbes Staff

    Source link

  • Why Traffic Fatalities Spiked During Pandemic —And Are Staying High

    Why Traffic Fatalities Spiked During Pandemic —And Are Staying High

    [ad_1]

    The pandemic upended everyday life in lots of ways, and one of them was driving. We didn’t do as much of it for a couple of years. But apparently we got way worse at it when we did get behind the wheel.

    And in that simple fact seems to lie the main reasons U.S. traffic deaths have spiked dramatically since the onset of the coronavirus – and have stayed elevated even since the pandemic has ended, compared with the encouraging trends in highway deaths during the previous 20 years.

    “Distracted driving and speeding became more normal during the pandemic, and have stayed that way,” Chris Hayes, leader of the transportation and risk-control practice at Travelers Insurance, told me. “One reason fatalities and injuries have been going up is that, while there might be a somewhat elevated number of crashes, crashes at higher speeds are worse” in their outcomes.

    Hayes has more than 20 years of experience in his field, and lately the study of traffic fatalities unfortunately has gotten more fascinating. More than 9,500 Americans died in traffic crashes in the first quarter of 2022, the deadliest start to a year on our roads in two decades, with deaths up 7% compared with the same period last year. That followed a 10.5% increase in deaths in all of 2021 over 2020, to nearly 43,000 people, a rise that, in turn, followed a 7% increase in deaths to nearly 39,000 people in 2020 over 2019.

    Fortunately, the number of people dying in U.S. traffic accidents finally fell in the April-to-June period this year compared with a year earlier, by 4.9%, the first decrease after seven consecutive quarters of increases that started in the summer of 2020. But it won’t be clear until next year whether the pandemic-era plague of increased traffic fatalities has ended or reversed itself.

    Driving behaviors that got out of line during the pandemic for various reasons created a dramatic reversal of decades of steady progress in cutting U.S. traffic deaths, which had seemed to defy a stubborn foothold of distracted driving and had benefited from the spread of more and more automated safety technologies in new vehicles.

    Long story short, American drivers basically let more sparsely populated roads get to their heads early in the pandemic.

    “The pandemic saw massive changes,” Hayes noted. “Unemployment skyrocketed; fuel became very cheap at the same time; and people were afraid to go out. So the density on roadways went down substantially. There was an assumption that this would be good for roadway safety. But, conversely, it ended up leading to long-term increases. It sounds too simple to be true, but the basic barometers of what makes a person a good driver — speed and lane management — got substantially worse early in the pandemic as the perception grew that you could just drive the way you want to.”

    A number of dynamics sewn by the pandemic worsened and then persisted at heightened levels, Hayes said. More drivers became distracted by personal anxieties that grew because of Covid, for instance, even as more drivers felt freedom on emptier roads not to check their driving behavior. And many drivers simply veered into behaviors that are patently dangerous and lead to increased crashes, injuries and deaths on the road.

    Twenty-three percent of U.S. drivers said they engage in texting or emailing while behind the wheel, according to Traveler’s latest annual risk index, up from 19% in the survey taken just before the pandemic. Also, 15% check social media, up from 13%; 12% take videos and pictures, up from 10%; and 11% actually shop online while driving, up from 8%. That last statistic — measuring conducting ecommerce while on the move — “is the one that shocks people,” Hayes said.

    One reason for the alarming increase in distracted-driving activities, Hayes explained, is that “the line between when you’re working and when you’re at home has blurred significantly. Especially during the pandemic, that sense that, ‘I need to be in touch with my employer because I feel removed’ from work absolutely grew, and employers felt it was OK to call people on their cell phones because that’s how you got in touch with people.

    “So there’s a temptation to still answer the call and be part of that meeting and be part of something [at work]. That remains. That’s one of the real challenges now about distracted driving.”

    Another relevant factor in driving safety over the last few years has been the spread of legalized recreational-marijuana usage through a number of states, which in turn has led to more Americans driving while high. And though clearly state and federal traffic-safety officials are worried about the impact of more pot-influenced drivers, as judging by the temporary warning signs that increasingly appear on roadways, Hayes said “understanding where [cannabis] use might end and people can operate machinery is still poorly understood.”

    “It’s absolutely one of the most complex topics you can talk about” in automotive safety,” Hayes said. “It’s not very well understood. One of the [knowledge] gaps we see is the assumption from many people and employers that drunk driving gives them a reference point for driving while under the influence of marijuana.

    “They are both substances that have an effect on reaction time, but that’s about the best you can get in comparing the two. The rate of absorption and reduced faculties, the time [marijuana] remains in your system, and the time it take sto affect driving are so completely different that they fail as comparison points.”

    At the same time, Hayes believes the impact on traffic safety from the many advances in automated safety systems — including adaptive cruise control, drowsiness alerts and lane-departure warnings — hasn’t been significant enough to offset such negative factors. But he said the contributions of new automotive-safety technology to actually reducing crashes and deaths significantly have taken a long time historically, in part because it takes many years for the collective American vehicle fleet to turn over. Thanks to quality and durability advances in most vehicles, the average age of the vehicle “park” in the United States is at a record average of about 12 years.

    “It typically takes 40 years from when they’re introduced to when they’re in 95% of vehicles,” Hayes said about new safety technologies. “This is true even for ones that are digitally based, because they require new hardware. Another factor with [automated-safety systems] is that there is a level of resistance to adoption by consuemrs who perceive theyre giving up some level of control of the vehicle.”

    [ad_2]

    Dale Buss, Contributor

    Source link

  • Americans More Worried About Violent Crime As Republicans Make It A Top Midterm Issue

    Americans More Worried About Violent Crime As Republicans Make It A Top Midterm Issue

    [ad_1]

    Topline

    Americans have grown significantly more concerned about becoming victims of violent crime like murder, sexual assault and muggings over the last year, according to a new Gallup poll, as Republican midterm candidates across the country blame Democrats for what they present as skyrocketing crime—though actual crime data is more mixed.

    Key Facts

    Some 78% of the 1,009 respondents surveyed from October 3-20 said they believe crime rates are rising nationally, while 56% said they think crime is rising where they live.

    Those numbers are far above what’s seen in an average year: Over the last few decades, an average of about 67% of respondents have said crime is rising nationally and only 44% have said the same about their local crime rate, according to Gallup, which has polled annually on both issues since 1989.

    There’s a massive partisan divide when it comes to crime perception, according to the poll—73% of Republicans said crime is going up where they live, compared to 51% of independents and 42% of Democrats.

    Some 47% of respondents said they’re worried about their child being harmed at school, up 13 points from last year’s survey, the steepest year-over-year increase in fear for any of the potential crimes surveyed by Gallup.

    Concern about being sexual assaulted had the next-biggest increase (29% this year, up eight points from 2021), followed by getting murdered (up seven points to 29%), being attacked while driving a car (up seven points to 36%) and getting mugged (up seven points to 40%).

    Key Background

    Whether crime is actually skyrocketing across the country remains an open question, and one that is complicated by incomplete statistics. The FBI released a crime report earlier this month finding violent crime actually dropped by about 1% from 2020 to 2021, but about 40% of law enforcement agencies, including many big city police departments, did not supply information. A separate report released by the Major Cities Chiefs Association for the first half of 2022, which includes most big cities like New York City and Los Angeles, found the total murder rate in urban areas is down 2.4% compared with the first half of 2021, with rapes down just over 5%. Robberies, however, were up 13% compared to last year and aggravated assaults rose 2.6%, both of which are more common than homicide and rape. Similarly, a report earlier this year by the Council on Criminal Justice found property crimes like robbery, burglary and larceny jumped in 29 U.S. cities in the first half of this year as murder rates dropped slightly, reversing a trend from earlier in the Covid-19 pandemic, when property crime fell while murder rates increased. Republicans have embraced crime concerns as one of their signature midterm campaign issues, along with inflation, blaming President Joe Biden and fellow Democrats for the problems, even though the president has little direct influence on inflation or local crime trends.

    Surprising Fact

    Crime has soared as a talking point on cable news networks over the past six weeks, especially on conservative-leaning Fox News, according to a Washington Post analysis.

    What To Watch For

    Republicans seem to be making major inroads with undecided voters just weeks before the election, regardless of actual crime statistics. The GOP has closed polling gaps in pivotal Senate contests, like Pennsylvania’s and Georgia’s, and party officials are growing increasingly optimistic they will retake control of both the House and the Senate.

    Further Reading

    What’s the non-obvious reason Fox News is talking about crime more? (Washington Post)

    Pennsylvania Senate Race: Near-Tie As Republicans Rally Around Oz, Narrowing Fetterman’s Lead (Forbes)

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Reimann, Forbes Staff

    Source link

  • Club Med Expands Globally With Upscale Resorts And Sustainability Focus

    Club Med Expands Globally With Upscale Resorts And Sustainability Focus

    [ad_1]

    The iconic French vacation brand Club Med is celebrating its 72nd birthday, and with it comes big news as it expands to even more places around the globe. Known for its all-inclusive holidays with onsite entertainment, its signature pool activities with music and even a trapeze experience, Club Med knows a thing or two about how to please people on vacation.

    Still, all-inclusive trips have not caught on with Americans in the same way they have for European travelers. Club Med wants to change that as it seeks to attract more Americans to its international network of properties. While it recently closed its sole U.S. property in Florida, it is only temporary as Club Med has plans for more to come.

    Carolyne Doyon, president and CEO of Club Med North America and the Caribbean, shares where the brand is headed in a post-pandemic vacation world.

    What are Club Med’s plans for North America?

    In 2025, Club Med Utah will become the first new resort in the U.S. for the brand in more than 20 years and the first-ever Exclusive Collection (5-Star) mountain resort in North America. With 65 years of expertise operating mountain resorts in Europe and Asia (and today’s growing popularity in outdoor-focused vacations), this is the right opportunity to bring this concept to the market.

    Club Med wants to make winter sports more accessible and cost-effective for American travelers, whose options are currently limited to expensive and time-consuming “do-it-yourself” ski vacations. With the brand’s unique all-inclusive mountain vacation model, everything is taken care from lift passes, group ski or snowboard lessons, and guided hiking groups to all-day dining, childcare, and family activities – which are all included.

    The plan is to grow by adding 3-5 new resort openings or renovations per year, seeking destinations that are ideal for both families and upscale travelers.

    Does Club Med work with American travel advisors?

    The brand has a close relationship with travel advisors around the world through investments in education and self-service tools such as the Club Med Travel Advisor Portal and Club Med University, an e-learning and training program. It helps them discover the latest offers, learn about the resorts and book client vacations. Club Med University teaches travel advisors about different Club Med products.

    How is Club Med moving in a more upscale direction?

    Throughout the brand’s 72-year history, we’ve watched the company evolve and appeal to a more upscale and family-friendly experience. The portfolio is adapting to cater to that shift by removing properties that don’t meet that high bar.

    The Club Med Exclusive Collection portfolio boasts 19 of Club Med’s most luxurious 5-star accommodations. This will grow to 25 properties by 2025. The collection is divided into different product lines ranging from resorts and chalets to cruises. Within the Exclusive Collection portfolio, there is also the soon-to-be renovated sailing yacht, Club Med 2, setting sail again in December. Each of these properties has tapped renowned architects and designers to create beautiful properties that show the Club Med spirit and trademark French savoir-faire.

    What is Club Med doing on the sustainability front?

    Happy to Care is Club Med’s global sustainability program that addresses various environmental and social issues that affect the communities where the brand operates. Across the network, Club Med is working to eliminate single-use plastics, construct professionally-certified, sustainable resorts and implement efforts toward energy conservation. Club Med resorts in North America and the Caribbean are already Green Globe certified.

    This past summer, Club Med partnered with renowned vegan chef Chloe Coscarelli to help implement more plant-based dishes in resort restaurants. She led intensive training sessions with food and beverage teams in the Caribbean and Mexico. The goal was to help them learn how to develop and deliver their own elevated plant-based dishes for resort guests.

    Local sourcing is another primary focus. At Club Med Québec Charlevoix, 80% of food products are sourced from Canada and 30% are from farms within 62 miles of the resort. At Club Med Michès Playa Esmeralda, coffee, cacao and produce are all sourced from local farms.

    Where is Club Med growing in the coming year?

    Travelers can expect to see 10 new Club Med resorts and 13 renovations or extensions of existing resorts by 2024, including Club Med Pragelato-Sestriere in Italy and Club Med Gregolimano in Greece. This December, travelers have three new all-inclusive mountain resorts – Club Med Tignes and Club Med Val d’Isère in the French Alps and Club Med Kiroro in Japan. Next year, Club Med will open its third Japanese property in Hokkaido and a new resort on the Malaysian side of the island of Borneo.

    What is the Club Med Joyview brand?

    The Joyview brand is a hotel-style concept in China with resorts situated an hour outside major cities for guests to enjoy a weekend away from the hustle and bustle. The concept includes more flexibility like daily room rates or an option for an all-inclusive package.

    Does Club Med have a loyalty program?

    Yes, it’s called Great Members, and each time a guest books a Club Med vacation, they receive points that helps them build status (Turquoise, Silver, Gold or, the highest, Platinum). A guest can earn points with each dollar spent as well as by referring friends and family. Each status tier comes with a different set of benefits like discounts on spa treatments and excursions, priority check-in, private transfers, resort credit, and early access to sales, discounts and promotions.

    [ad_2]

    Ramsey Qubein, Contributor

    Source link

  • The Pandemic’s Legacy Is Already Clear

    The Pandemic’s Legacy Is Already Clear

    [ad_1]

    Recently, after a week in which 2,789 Americans died of COVID-19, President Joe Biden proclaimed that “the pandemic is over.” Anthony Fauci described the controversy around the proclamation as a matter of “semantics,” but the facts we are living with can speak for themselves. COVID still kills roughly as many Americans every week as died on 9/11. It is on track to kill at least 100,000 a year—triple the typical toll of the flu. Despite gross undercounting, more than 50,000 infections are being recorded every day. The CDC estimates that 19 million adults have long COVID. Things have undoubtedly improved since the peak of the crisis, but calling the pandemic “over” is like calling a fight “finished” because your opponent is punching you in the ribs instead of the face.

    American leaders and pundits have been trying to call an end to the pandemic since its beginning, only to be faced with new surges or variants. This mindset not only compromises the nation’s ability to manage COVID, but also leaves it vulnerable to other outbreaks. Future pandemics aren’t hypothetical; they’re inevitable and imminent. New infectious diseases have regularly emerged throughout recent decades, and climate change is quickening the pace of such events. As rising temperatures force animals to relocate, species that have never coexisted will meet, allowing the viruses within them to find new hosts—humans included. Dealing with all of this again is a matter of when, not if.

    In 2018, I wrote an article in The Atlantic warning that the U.S. was not prepared for a pandemic. That diagnosis remains unchanged; if anything, I was too optimistic. America was ranked as the world’s most prepared country in 2019—and, bafflingly, again in 2021—but accounts for 16 percent of global COVID deaths despite having just 4 percent of the global population. It spends more on medical care than any other wealthy country, but its hospitals were nonetheless overwhelmed. It helped create vaccines in record time, but is 67th in the world in full vaccinations. (This trend cannot solely be attributed to political division; even the most heavily vaccinated blue state—Rhode Island—still lags behind 21 nations.) America experienced the largest life-expectancy decline of any wealthy country in 2020 and, unlike its peers, continued declining in 2021. If it had fared as well as just the average peer nation, 1.1 million people who died last year—a third of all American deaths—would still be alive.

    America’s superlatively poor performance cannot solely be blamed on either the Trump or Biden administrations, although both have made egregious errors. Rather, the new coronavirus exploited the country’s many failing systems: its overstuffed prisons and understaffed nursing homes; its chronically underfunded public-health system; its reliance on convoluted supply chains and a just-in-time economy; its for-profit health-care system, whose workers were already burned out; its decades-long project of unweaving social safety nets; and its legacy of racism and segregation that had already left Black and Indigenous communities and other communities of color disproportionately burdened with health problems. Even in the pre-COVID years, the U.S. was still losing about 626,000 people more than expected for a nation of its size and resources. COVID simply toppled an edifice whose foundations were already rotten.

    In furiously racing to rebuild on this same foundation, America sets itself up to collapse once more. Experience is reputedly the best teacher, and yet the U.S. repeated mistakes from the early pandemic when faced with the Delta and Omicron variants. It got early global access to vaccines, and nonetheless lost almost half a million people after all adults became eligible for the shots. It has struggled to control monkeypox—a slower-spreading virus for which there is already a vaccine. Its right-wing legislators have passed laws and rulings that curtail the possibility of important public-health measures like quarantines and vaccine mandates. It has made none of the broad changes that would protect its population against future pathogens, such as better ventilation or universal paid sick leave. Its choices virtually guarantee that everything that’s happened in the past three years will happen again.


    The U.S. will continue to struggle against infectious diseases in part because some of its most deeply held values are antithetical to the task of besting a virus. Since its founding, the country has prized a strain of rugged individualism that prioritizes individual freedom and valorizes self-reliance. According to this ethos, people are responsible for their own well-being, physical and moral strength are equated, social vulnerability results from personal weakness rather than policy failure, and handouts or advice from the government are unwelcome. Such ideals are disastrous when handling a pandemic, for two major reasons.

    First, diseases spread. Each person’s choices inextricably affect their community, and the threat to the collective always exceeds that to the individual. The original Omicron variant, for example, posed slightly less risk to each infected person than the variants that preceded it, but spread so quickly that it inundated hospitals, greatly magnifying COVID’s societal costs. To handle such threats, collective action is necessary. Governments need policies, such as vaccine requirements or, yes, mask mandates, that protect the health of entire populations, while individuals have to consider their contribution to everyone else’s risk alongside their own personal stakes. And yet, since the spring of 2021, pundits have mocked people who continue to think this way for being irrational and overcautious, and government officials have consistently framed COVID as a matter of personal responsibility.

    Second, a person’s circumstances always constrain their choices. Low-income and minority groups find it harder to avoid infections or isolate when sick because they’re more likely to live in crowded homes and hold hourly-wage jobs without paid leave or the option to work remotely. Places such as prisons and nursing homes, whose residents have little autonomy, became hot spots for the worst outbreaks. Treating a pandemic as an individualist free-for-all ignores how difficult it is for many Americans to protect themselves. It also leaves people with vulnerabilities that last across successive pathogens: The groups that suffered most during the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009 were the same ones that took the brunt of COVID, a decade later.

    America’s individualist bent has also shaped its entire health-care system, which ties health to wealth and employment. That system is organized around treating sick people at great and wasteful expense, instead of preventing communities from falling sick in the first place. The latter is the remit of public health rather than medicine, and has long been underfunded and undervalued. Even the CDC—the nation’s top public-health agency—changed its guidelines in February to prioritize hospitalizations over cases, implicitly tolerating infections as long as hospitals are stable. But such a strategy practically ensures that emergency rooms will be overwhelmed by a fast-spreading virus; that, consequently, health-care workers will quit; and that waves of chronically ill long-haulers who are disabled by their infections will seek care and receive nothing. All of that has happened and will happen again. America’s pandemic individualism means that it’s your job to protect yourself from infection; if you get sick, your treatment may be unaffordable, and if you don’t get better, you will struggle to find help, or even anyone who believes you.


    In the late 19th century, many scholars realized that epidemics were social problems, whose spread and toll are influenced by poverty, inequality, overcrowding, hazardous working conditions, poor sanitation, and political negligence. But after the advent of germ theory, this social model was displaced by a biomedical and militaristic one, in which diseases were simple battles between hosts and pathogens, playing out within individual bodies. This paradigm conveniently allowed people to ignore the social context of disease. Instead of tackling intractable social problems, scientists focused on fighting microscopic enemies with drugs, vaccines, and other products of scientific research—an approach that sat easily with America’s abiding fixation on technology as a panacea.

    The allure of biomedical panaceas is still strong. For more than a year, the Biden administration and its advisers have reassured Americans that, with vaccines and antivirals, “we have the tools” to control the pandemic. These tools are indeed effective, but their efficacy is limited if people can’t access them or don’t want to, and if the government doesn’t create policies that shift that dynamic. A profoundly unequal society was always going to struggle with access: People with low incomes, food insecurity, eviction risk, and no health insurance struggled to make or attend vaccine appointments, even after shots were widely available. A profoundly mistrustful society was always going to struggle with hesitancy, made worse by political polarization and rampantly spreading misinformation. The result is that just 72 percent of Americans have completed their initial course of shots and just half have gotten the first of the boosters necessary to protect against current variants. At the same time, almost all other protections have been stripped away, and COVID funding is evaporating. And yet the White House’s recent pandemic-preparedness strategy still focuses heavily on biomedical magic bullets, paying scant attention to the social conditions that could turn those bullets into duds.

    Technological solutions also tend to rise into society’s penthouses, while epidemics seep into its cracks. Cures, vaccines, and diagnostics first go to people with power, wealth, and education, who then move on, leaving the communities most affected by diseases to continue shouldering their burden. This dynamic explains why the same health inequities linger across the decades even as pathogens come and go, and why the U.S. has now normalized an appalling level of COVID death and disability. Such suffering is concentrated among elderly, immunocompromised, working-class, and minority communities—groups that are underrepresented among political decision makers and the media, who get to declare the pandemic over. Even when inequities are highlighted, knowledge seems to suppress action: In one study, white Americans felt less empathy for vulnerable communities and were less supportive of safety precautions after learning about COVID’s racial disparities. This attitude is self-destructive and limits the advantage that even the most privileged Americans enjoy. Measures that would flatten social inequities, such as universal health care and better ventilation, would benefit everyone—and their absence harms everyone, too. In 2021, young white Americans died at lower rates than Black and Indigenous Americans, but still at three times the rate of their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

    By failing to address its social weaknesses, the U.S. accumulates more of them. An estimated 9 million Americans have lost close loved ones to COVID; about 10 percent will likely experience prolonged grief, which the country’s meager mental-health services will struggle to address. Because of brain fog, fatigue, and other debilitating symptoms, long COVID is keeping the equivalent of 2 million to 4 million Americans out of work; between lost earnings and increased medical costs, it could cost the economy $2.6 trillion a year. The exodus of health-care workers, especially experienced veterans, has left hospitals with a shortfall of staff and know-how. Levels of trust—one of the most important predictors of a country’s success at controlling COVID—have fallen, making pandemic interventions harder to deploy, while creating fertile ground in which misinformation can germinate. This is the cost of accepting the unacceptable: an even weaker foundation that the next disease will assail.


    In the spring of 2020, I wrote that the pandemic would last for years, and that the U.S. would need long-term strategies to control it. But America’s leaders consistently acted as if they were fighting a skirmish rather than a siege, lifting protective measures too early, and then reenacting them too slowly. They have skirted the responsibility of articulating what it would actually look like for the pandemic to be over, which has meant that whenever citizens managed to flatten the curve, the time they bought was wasted. Endemicity was equated with inaction rather than active management. This attitude removed any incentive or will to make the sort of long-term changes that would curtail the current disaster and prevent future ones. And so America has little chance of effectively countering the inevitable pandemics of the future; it cannot even focus on the one that’s ongoing.

    If change happens, it will likely occur slowly and from the ground up. In the vein of ACT UP—the extraordinarily successful activist group that changed the world’s approach to AIDS—grassroots organizations of longhaulers, grievers, immunocompromised people, and others disproportionately harmed by the pandemic have formed, creating the kind of vocal constituency that public health has long lacked.

    More pandemics will happen, and the U.S. has spectacularly failed to contain the current one. But it cannot afford the luxury of nihilism. It still has time to address its bedrocks of individualism and inequality, to create a health system that effectively prevents sickness instead of merely struggling to treat it, and to enact policies that rightfully prioritize the needs of disabled and vulnerable communities. Such changes seem unrealistic given the relentless disappointments of the past three years, but substantial social progress always seems unfeasible until it is actually achieved. Normal led to this. It is not too late to fashion a better normal.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Yong

    Source link

  • Hundreds of Americans Will Die From COVID Today

    Hundreds of Americans Will Die From COVID Today

    [ad_1]

    Over the past week, an average of 491 Americans have died of COVID each day, according to data compiled by The New York Times. The week before, the number was 382. The week before that, 494. And so on.

    For the past five months or so, the United States has trod along something of a COVID-death plateau. This is good in the sense that after two years of breakneck spikes and plummets, the past five months are the longest we’ve gone without a major surge in deaths since the pandemic’s beginning, and the current numbers are far below last winter’s Omicron highs. (Case counts and hospital admissions have continued to fluctuate but, thanks in large part to the protection against severe disease conferred by vaccines and antivirals, they have mostly decoupled from ICU admissions and deaths; the curve, at long last, is flat.) But though daily mortality numbers have stopped rising, they’ve also stopped falling. Nearly 3,000 people are still dying every week.

    We could remain on this plateau for some time yet. Lauren Ancel Meyers, the director of the University of Texas at Austin’s COVID-19 Modeling Consortium, told me that as long as a dangerous new variant doesn’t emerge (in which case these projections would go out the window), we could see only a slight bump in deaths this fall and winter, when cases are likely to surge, but probably—or at least hopefully—nothing too drastic. In all likelihood, though, deaths won’t dip much below their present levels until early 2023, with the remission of a winter surge and the additional immunity that surge should confer. In the most optimistic scenarios that Meyers has modeled, deaths could at that point get as low as half their current level. Perhaps a tad lower.

    By any measure, that is still a lot of people dying every day. No one can say with any certainty what 2023 might have in store, but as a reference point, 200 deaths daily would translate to 73,000 deaths over the year. COVID would remain a top-10 leading cause of death in America in this scenario, roughly twice as deadly as either the average flu season or a year’s worth of motor-vehicle crashes.

    COVID deaths persist in part because we let them. America has largely decided to be done with the pandemic, even though the pandemic stubbornly refuses to be done with America. The country has lifted nearly all of its pandemic restrictions, and emergency pandemic funding has been drying up. For the most part, people have settled into whatever level of caution or disregard suits them. A Pew Research survey from May found that COVID did not even crack Americans’ list of the top 10 issues facing the country. Only 19 percent said that they consider it a big problem, and it’s hard to imagine that number has gone anywhere but down in the months since. COVID deaths have shifted from an emergency to the accepted collateral damage of the American way of life. Background noise.

    On one level, this is appalling. To simply proclaim the pandemic over is to abandon the vulnerable communities and older people who, now more than ever, bear the brunt of its burden. Yet on an individual level, it’s hard to blame anyone for looking away, especially when, for most Americans, the risk of serious illness is lower now than it has been since early 2020. It’s hard not to look away when each day’s numbers are identically grim, when the devastation becomes metronomic. It’s hard to look each day at a number—491, 382, 494—and experience that number for what it is: the premature ending of so many individual human lives.

    People grow accustomed to these daily tragedies because to not would be too painful. “We are, in a way, victims of our own success,” Steven Taylor, a psychiatrist at the University of British Columbia who has written one book on the psychology of pandemics and is at work on another, told me. Our adaptability is what allowed us to weather the worst of the pandemic, and it is also what’s preventing us from fully escaping the pandemic. We can normalize anything, for better or for worse. “We’re so resilient at adapting to threats,” Taylor said, that we’ve “even habituated to this.”

    Where does that leave us? As the nation claws its way out of the pandemic—and reckons with all of its lasting damage—what do we do with the psychic burden of a death toll that might not decline substantially for a long time? Total inurement is not an option. Neither is maximal empathy, the feeling of each death reverberating through you at an emotional level. The challenge, it seems, is to carve out some sort of middle path. To care enough to motivate ourselves to make things better without caring so much that we end up paralyzed.

    Perhaps we will find this path. More likely, we will not. In earlier stages of the pandemic, Americans talked at length about a mythic “new normal.” We were eager to imagine how life might be different—better, even—after a tragedy that focused the world’s attention on disease prevention. Now we’re staring down what that new normal might actually look like. The new normal is accepting 400 COVID deaths a day as The Way Things Are. It’s resigning ourselves so completely to the burden that we forget that it’s a burden at all.

    In the time since you started reading this story, someone in the United States has died of COVID. I could tell you a story about this person. I could tell you that he was a retired elementary-school teacher. That he was planning a trip with his wife to San Diego, because he’d never seen the Pacific Ocean. That he was a long-suffering Knicks fan and baked a hell of a peach cobbler, and when his grandchildren visited, he’d get down on his arthritic knees, and they’d play Connect Four, and he’d always let them win. These details, though hypothetical, might sadden you—or sadden you more, at least, than when I told you simply that since you started this story, one person had died of COVID. But I can’t tell you that story 491 times in one day. And even if I could, could you bear to listen?

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Stern

    Source link

  • Lowering the Cost of Insulin Could Be Deadly

    Lowering the Cost of Insulin Could Be Deadly

    [ad_1]

    When I heard that my patient was back in the ICU, my heart sank. But I wasn’t surprised. Her paycheck usually runs short at the end of the month, so her insulin does too. As she stretches her supply, her blood sugar climbs. Soon the insatiable thirst and constant urination follow. And once her keto acids build up, her stomach pains and vomiting start. She always manages to make it to the hospital before the damage reaches her brain and heart. But we both worry that someday, she won’t.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, passed last month, aims to help people like her by lowering the cost of insulin across America. Although efforts to expand protections to privately insured Americans were blocked in the Senate, Democrats succeeded in capping expenses for the drug among Americans on Medicare at $35 a month, offering meaningful savings for our seniors, some of whom will save hundreds of dollars a month thanks to the measure. In theory, the policy (and similar ones at the state level) will help the estimated 25 percent of Americans on insulin who have been forced to ration the drug because of cost, and will prevent some of the 600 annual American deaths from diabetic ketoacidosis, the fate from which I’m trying to save my patient.

    Indeed, laws capping co-payments for insulin are welcome news both financially and medically to patients who depend on the drug for survival. However, in their current version, such laws might backfire, leading to even more diabetes-related deaths overall.

    How could that be true? Thanks to the development of new drugs, insulin’s role in diabetes treatment has been declining over the past decade. It remains essential to the small percent of patients with type 1 diabetes, including my patient. But for the 90 percent of Americans with diabetes who have type 2, it should not routinely be the first-, second-, or even third-line treatment. The reasons for this are many: Of all diabetes medications, insulin carries the highest risk of causing dangerously low blood sugar. The medication most commonly comes in injectable form, so administering it usually means painful needle jabs. All of this effort is rewarded with (usually unwanted) weight gain. Foremost and finally, although insulin is excellent at tamping down high blood sugar—the hallmark of diabetes and the driver of some of its complications—it is not as impressive as other medications at mitigating the most deadly and debilitating consequences of the disease: heart attacks, kidney disease, and heart failure.

    Large clinical trials have shown that two newer classes of diabetes medicines, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, outperform alternatives (including insulin) in reducing the risk of these disabling or deadly outcomes. Giving patients these drugs instead of older options over a period of three years prevents, on average, one death for about every 100 treated. And SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists pose less risk of causing dangerously low blood sugar, generally do not require frequent injections, and help patients lose weight. Based on these data, the American Diabetes Association now recommends SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists be used before insulin for most patients with type 2 diabetes.

    When a young person dies from diabetic ketoacidosis because they rationed insulin, the culprit is clear. But when a patient with diabetes dies of a heart attack, the absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist doesn’t get blamed, because other explanations abound: their uncontrolled blood pressure, the cholesterol medication they didn’t take, the cigarettes they continued to smoke, bad genes, bad luck. But every year, more than 1,000 times more Americans die of heart disease than DKA, and of those 700,000 deaths, a good chunk are diabetes-related. (The exact number remains murky.) Diabetes is a major reason that more than half a million Americans depend on dialysis to manage their end-stage kidney disease, and that about 6 million live with congestive heart failure. The data are clear—SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists could help reduce these numbers.

    Still, uptake of these lifesaving drugs is sluggish. Only about one in 10 people with type 2 diabetes is taking them (fewer still among patients who are not wealthy or white). The main cause is simple and stupid: American laws prioritize profits and patents over patients. Because SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain under patent protections, drug companies can charge exorbitant rates for them: hundreds if not thousands of dollars a month, sometimes even more than insulin. Doctors spend hours completing arduous paperwork in the hopes of persuading insurers to help our patients, but we’re frequently denied anyway. And even when we do succeed, many patients are left with painful co-payments and deductibles. The most maddening part is that despite their substantial up-front expense, these medications are quite cost-effective in the long run because they prevent pricey complications down the road.

    This is where addressing the cost of insulin—and only insulin—becomes problematic. Doctors are forced daily to decide between the best medication for our patients and the medication that our patients can afford. Katie Shaw, a primary-care physician with a bustling practice at Johns Hopkins, where I’m a senior resident, told me that plenty of her patients can’t afford SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. In such instances, Shaw is forced to use older oral alternatives and occasionally insulin. “They’re better than nothing at all,” she said.

    If the cost of insulin is capped on its own, insulin will be more likely to jump in front of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in treatment plans. That will mean more disease, more disability, and more death from diabetes.

    Medicare patients might avoid some of these effects thanks to provisions in the IRA allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and capping out-of-pocket spending on prescriptions at $2,000 a year. The law also guarantees price negotiations for a handful of medications, but SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists won’t necessarily be on the list. And most Americans are not on Medicare. Already, Shaw said, the patients in her practice who tend to be least able to afford SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are working-class people with private insurance. Some health centers, including the one Shaw and I work at, enjoy access to a federal drug-discount program that can make patent-protected medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, more affordable for the uninsured. But most Americans without insurance aren’t so lucky.

    It would be cruel to choose between a world in which more people with type 2 diabetes are nudged toward a drug that won’t stave off the most dangerous complications, and one in which those with type 1 diabetes are priced out of life. In place of capping the out-of-pocket cost of just insulin, lawmakers should cap the out-of-pocket cost of all diabetes medications. This will both protect Americans dependent on insulin and smooth SGLT2 inhibitors’ and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ path to their revolutionary public-health potential.

    The argument for lowering the cost of these drugs for patients is the same as the argument for insulin affordability: that it is both foolish and inhumane to make lifesaving diabetes medications unaffordable when their use prevents costly and deadly downstream complications.

    Patients like mine need affordable access to insulin. But even more need access to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. If the laws stop at insulin, many Americans could die unnecessarily—not from inadequate access to insulin, but from preferential access to it.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Rose

    Source link

  • ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    [ad_1]

    The most haunting memory of the pandemic for Laura, a doctor who practices internal medicine in New York, is a patient who never got COVID at all. A middle-aged man diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer in 2019, he underwent surgery and a round of successful chemotherapy and was due for regular checkups to make sure the tumor wasn’t growing. Then the pandemic hit, and he decided that going to the hospital wasn’t worth the risk of getting COVID. So he put it off … and put it off. “The next time I saw him, in early 2022, he required hospice care,” Laura told me. He died shortly after. With proper care, Laura said, “he could have stayed alive indefinitely.” (The Atlantic agreed to withhold Laura’s last name, because she isn’t authorized to speak publicly about her patients.)

    Early in the pandemic, when much of the country was in lockdown, forgoing nonemergency health care as Laura’s patient did seemed like the right thing to do. But the health-care delays didn’t just end when America began to reopen in the summer of 2020. Patients were putting off health care through the end of the first pandemic year, when vaccines weren’t yet widely available. And they were still doing so well into 2021, at which point much of the country seemed to be moving on from COVID.

    By this point, the coronavirus has killed more than 1 million Americans and debilitated many more. One estimate shows that life expectancy in the U.S. fell 2.41 years from 2019 to 2021. But the delays in health care over the past two and a half years have allowed ailments to unduly worsen, wearing down people with non-COVID medical problems too. “It just seems like my patients are sicker,” Laura said. Compared with before the pandemic, she is seeing more people further along with AIDS, more people with irreversible heart failure, and more people with end-stage kidney failure. Mental-health issues are more severe, and her patients struggling with addiction have been more likely to relapse.

    Even as Americans are treating the pandemic like an afterthought, a disturbing possibility remains: COVID aside, is the country simply going to be in worse health than before the pandemic? According to health-care workers, administrations, and researchers I talked with from across the country, patients are still dealing with a suite of problems from delaying care during the pandemic, problems that in some cases they will be facing for the rest of their lives. The scope of this damage isn’t yet clear—and likely won’t come into focus for several years—but there are troubling signs of a looming chronic health crisis the country has yet to reckon with. At some point, the emergency phase of COVID will end, but the physical toll of the pandemic may linger in the bodies of Americans for decades to come.


    During those bleak pre-vaccine dark ages, going to the doctor could feel like a disaster in waiting. Many of the country’s hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID patients, and outpatient clinics had closed. As a result, in every week through July 2020, roughly 45 percent of American adults said that over the preceding month, they either put off medical care or didn’t get it at all because of the pandemic. Once they did come in, they were sicker—a trend observed for all sorts of ailments, including childhood diabetes, appendicitis, and cancer. A recent study analyzed the 8.4 million non-COVID Medicare hospitalizations from April 2020 to September 2021 and found not only that hospital admissions plummeted, but also that those admitted to hospitals were up to 20 percent more likely to die—an astonishing effect that lasted through the length of the study.

    Partly, that result came about because only those who were sicker made it to the hospital, James Goodwin, one of the study’s authors and a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, in Galveston, told me. It was also partly because overwhelmed hospitals were giving worse care. But Goodwin estimates that “more than half the cause was people delaying medical care early in their illness and therefore being more likely to die. Instead of coming in with a urinary tract infection, they’re already getting septic. I mean, people were having heart attacks and not showing up at the hospital.”

    For some conditions, skipping a checkup or two may not matter all that much in the long run. But for other conditions, every doctor’s visit can count. Take the tens of millions of Americans with vascular issues in their feet and legs due to diabetes or peripheral artery disease. Their problems might lead to, say, ulcers on the foot that can be treated with regular medical care, but delays of even a few months can increase the risk of amputation. When patients came in later in 2020, it was sometimes too late to save the limb. An Ohio trauma center found that the odds of undergoing a diabetes-related amputation in 2020 were almost 11 times higher once the pandemic hit versus earlier in the year.

    Although only a small percentage of Americans lost a limb, the lack of care early in the pandemic helped fuel a dangerous spike in substance-abuse disorders. In a matter of weeks or months, people’s support systems collapsed, and for some, years of work overcoming an addiction unraveled. “My patients took a huge step back, probably more than many of us realize,” Aarti Patel, a physician assistant at a Lower Manhattan community hospital, told me. One of her patients, a man in his late 50s who was five years sober, started drinking again during the pandemic and eventually landed in the hospital for withdrawal. Patients like this man, she said, “would have really difficult, long hospital stays, because they were at really high risk of DTs, alcohol seizures. Some of them even had to go to the ICU because [the withdrawal] was so severe.”

    Later in the year, when doctors’ offices were up and running, “a lot of patients expressed that they didn’t want to go back for care right away,” says Kim Muellers, a graduate student at Pace University who is studying the effects of COVID on medical care in New York City, North Carolina, and Florida. Indeed, through the spring of 2021, the top reason Medicare recipients failed to seek care was they didn’t want to be at a medical facility. Other people were avoiding the doctor because they’d lost their job and health insurance and couldn’t afford the bills.

    The problem, doctors told me, is that all of those missed appointments start to add up. Patients with high blood pressure or blood sugar, for example, may now be less likely to have their conditions under control—which after enough time can lead to all sorts of other ailments. Losing a limb can pose challenges for patients that will last for the rest of their lives. Relapses can put people at a higher risk for lifelong medical complications. Cancer screenings plummeted, and even a few weeks without treatment can increase the chance of dying from the disease. In other words, even short-term delays can cause long-term havoc.

    To make matters worse, the health-care delays fueling a sicker America may not be totally over yet, either. After so many backups, some health-care systems, hobbled by workforce shortages, are scrambling to address the pent-up demand for care that patients can simply no longer put off, according to administrators and doctors from several major health systems, including Cleveland Clinic, the Veterans Health Administration, and Mayo Clinic. Disruptions in the global supply chain are forcing doctors to ration basic supplies, adding to backlogs. Amy Oxentenko, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona who helps oversee clinical practice across the entire Mayo system, says that “all of these things are just adding up to a continued delay, and I think we’ll see impacts for years to come.”


    It’s still early, and not everything that providers told me is necessarily showing up in the data. Oddly enough, the CDC’s National Health Interview Survey found that most Americans were able to see a doctor at least once during the first year of the pandemic. And the same survey has not revealed any uptick in most health conditions, including asthma episodes, high blood pressure, and chronic pain—which might be expected if America were getting sicker.

    It’s even conceivable that the disturbing observations of clinicians are a statistical illusion. If for whatever reason only sicker people are now being seen by—or able to access—a doctor, then it can be true both that providers are seeing more seriously ill patients in medical facilities and that the total number of seriously ill people in the community is staying the same. The scope of the damage just isn’t yet clear: Maybe a smaller number of people will be worse off because of delayed cancer care or substance-abuse relapses, or maybe far more people—more than tens of million of Americans—will be dealing with exacerbated issues for the rest of their lives.

    None of this accounts for what COVID itself is doing to Americans, of course. The health-care system is only beginning to grapple with the ways in which a past bout with COVID is a long-term risk for overall health, or the extent to which long COVID can complicate other conditions. The pandemic may feel “over” for lots of Americans, but many who made it through the gantlet of the past two-plus years may end up living sicker, and dying sooner.

    This disturbing prospect is not only poised to further devastate communities; it’s also bad news for health-care workers already exhausted by COVID. Laura, the Manhattan internist who treated the colon-cancer patient, told me it’s disheartening to see so many people showing up at irreversible points in their disease. “As doctors,” she said, “our overall batting average is going down.” Aarti Patel, the physician assistant, put it in blunter terms: “Burnout is probably too simple a term. We’re in severe moral distress.”

    Nothing about this grim fate was inevitable. Laura told me that “going to the doctor mid-pandemic may have posed a small risk in terms of COVID, but not going was risky in terms of letting disease go unchecked. And in retrospect it seems that many people didn’t quite get that.” But there didn’t have to be such a stark trade-off between fighting a pandemic and maintaining health care for other medical conditions.

    Some hospitals—at least the better-resourced ones—figured out how to avoid the worst kind of delays. Mayo Clinic, for example, is one of a number of systems with a sophisticated triage algorithm that prioritizes patients needing acute care. In the spring of 2021, Cleveland Clinic launched a massive outreach blitz to schedule some 86,000 appointments, according to Lisa Yerian, the chief improvement officer. And the Veterans Health Administration provided iPads to thousands of veterans who lacked other means of accessing the internet in the spring of 2020, ensuring a more seamless transition to virtual care, Joe Francis, who directs health-care analytics, told me. Thanks in part to these efforts, Francis said, high-risk patients at the VHA were being seen at pre-pandemic levels a mere six months into the pandemic.

    These health-care systems also suggest a path forward. America may still be able to stave off the worst of the collateral damage by reaching the patients who have fallen through the cracks—and already the data suggest that these patients tend to be disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and low-income. Tragically, it’s too late for some Americans: People who died of cancer can’t come back to life; amputated limbs can’t regrow. Others still have plenty of time. Hypertension that’s currently uncontrolled can be tamped down before causing an early heart attack; drinking that’s gotten out of hand can be corralled before it leads to liver failure in a decade; undetected tumors can be spotted in time for treatment. An uptick in premature death and disability, summed over millions of Americans, could strain the health-care system for years. But it’s still possible to prevent an acute public-health crisis from seeding an even bigger chronic one.

    [ad_2]

    Tim Requarth

    Source link