ReportWire

Tag: health experts

  • America Is Having a Senior Moment on Vaccines

    America Is Having a Senior Moment on Vaccines

    [ad_1]

    For years now, health experts have been warning that COVID-era politics and the spread of anti-vaxxer lies have brought us to the brink of public-health catastrophe—that a Great Collapse of Vaccination Rates is nigh. This hasn’t come to pass. In spite of deep concerns about a generation of young parents who might soon give up on immunizations altogether—not simply for COVID, but perhaps for all disease—many of the stats we have are looking good. Standard vaccination coverage among babies and toddlers, including the pandemic babies born in 2020, is “high and stable,” the CDC reports. And kindergarteners’ immunization rates, which dipped after the pandemic started, are no longer losing ground.

    Whatever gaps in early childhood vaccination were brought on by the chaos of early 2020 have since been reversed, Alison Buttenheim, a professor of nursing and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told me: “We’ve substantially caught up, which is incredible. It’s actually an amazing feat.”

    But even in the shadow of this triumph, a more specific crisis in vaccine acceptance has emerged. Americans aren’t now suspicious of inoculations on the whole—the nation isn’t anti-vax—but we have lost faith in yearly COVID shots. Barely any children have been getting them. Among adults, the drop in uptake has been rapid and relentless: By the spring of 2022, 56 percent of all adults had received their initial booster shot; a year later, just 28 percent were up to date; so far this COVID season, just 19 percent can say the same.

    Of course, the dangers from infection have been dropping too. Almost all of us have been exposed to COVID at this point, either through prior immunization, natural infection, or—most likely—both. That makes the disease much less deadly than it’s ever been before. (Among kids, the CDC now attributes “0.00%” of weekly deaths to COVID.) But for one age group in particular—people over 65—the crashing vaccination rates should inspire dread. More than 1,500 deaths each week are still associated with COVID, and almost all of them are senior citizens; current data hint that COVID has been killing seniors at seven times the rate of flu. Across the nation’s nursing homes and retirement communities, the Great Collapse is real.

    Like younger American adults, seniors haven’t been avoiding all recommended immunizations, just the ones for COVID. Their flu-shot rates have gone down a little in the past few years, but only by a handful of percentage points from a pandemic-driven, all-time high of 75 percent. This season, about 70 percent of people over 65 have received their flu vaccine, in line with average rates that haven’t changed that much for decades. In the meantime, seniors’ uptake of the latest COVID shots has fallen off by more than half since 2022, to just 38 percent. These diverging rates—steady for the flu, plummeting for COVID—are notably at odds with the attendant risks. Seniors seem to understand the value of inoculating themselves against the flu. So why do they forgo the same precaution against something so much worse?

    One might blame the toxic political battles around vaccines, and rampant misinformation about their ill effects. “Something terrible has happened to broaden and intensify public rejection of vaccines and other biomedical innovations in the United States,” the vaccine expert Peter Hotez wrote in his recent book The Deadly Rise of Anti-science. Certainly, toxic politics and rampant misinformation exist, but the turn against the experts that Hotez and others have decried doesn’t really fit the emergency described above. Taken as a whole, the population of Americans over 65 is hardly soured on vaccines. Nor are they afraid of COVID vaccination in particular: Though political divides persist, more than 95 percent of seniors received their initial round of shots. More than 95 percent!

    Echoing Hotez in an opinion piece for JAMA that came out last week, the FDA commissioner, Robert Califf, and a senior FDA official named Peter Marks cited the abysmal uptake of COVID shots by senior citizens as one of several signs that the country is nearing “a dangerous tipping point” on vaccination, driven by an oceanic online tide of vaccine misinformation. (Health-care providers should try to stem that tide, they wrote, with “large amounts of truthful, accessible scientific evidence.”) But the volume and intensity of anti-vaccine rhetoric seems to have diminished somewhat since 2022, Buttenheim told me: “You’d have to come up with some reason why it’s having more of an effect now than it did over the past couple of years.”

    Confusion and fatigue may well be bigger factors here than fear or false beliefs. Many Americans, young and old, have long since moved beyond the pandemic in their daily life, and may not want to think about the topic long enough to schedule another shot. The fact that people are fed up with COVID and all of the arguments it spawned is a “major drag on uptake of the vaccine,” Noel Brewer, a professor who studies health behavior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told me. Along with many other adults, seniors have also been thrown off by changes in what the shot is called and when it’s recommended for which groups. Buttenheim doesn’t think that people are particularly afraid of this year’s dose. “This is not, like, Back off,” she said. “It’s like, Oh, there is one?

    Another theory holds that the CDC is responsible for this indifference, by pushing yearly COVID shots on people of all ages, including those for whom the net benefits of further vaccination are hard to see. In the U.K., where a much narrower group of people is eligible for updated COVID shots, uptake among seniors has been almost double what it is in the U.S., at 70 percent. That’s not because the British health-care system is better organized than ours—or not only on account of that. Even in that context, British seniors only get their flu shots at a rate that’s slightly higher than American seniors do.

    The broader rollout could contribute to the problem, Rupali Limaye, an epidemiologist who studies health communication at Johns Hopkins University, told me: “When it’s a blanket recommendation, it does dilute the message.” The CDC’s messaging on COVID shots has the benefit of being simple, but at the cost of being less persuasive for the people who are at highest risk. Then again, all Americans above the age of six months are advised to get the flu shot, and more or less the same proportions do so every year. That’s a product of our training, Brewer told me: “The U.S. has invested for decades in developing the habit of getting an annual flu shot. Older adults know that this is the thing they need to do, and they are used to it.”

    Even more important than the habit of getting flu shots is the habit of supplying them. Local clinics, businesses, and retirement communities know how to give these vaccinations (and they understand how the costs will be covered); they’ve been doing this for years. Buttenheim told me that her university sets up a flu-shot clinic every fall, where she can usually get immunized in less than 90 seconds. But the equivalent for COVID shots is yet to become routine. Where the vaccines are available, appointments have been canceled over missing doses or mix-ups with insurance. Government efforts to improve access were delayed.

    With the end of the pandemic emergency, obtaining a COVID shot has simply gotten harder, no matter your intentions or beliefs. “The very well-structured and scaffolded process for getting those vaccines before has just evaporated,” Buttenheim said. For the uptake rates to turn around, a new, post-emergency system for delivery might have to be established, with less confusion over cost and coverage. Even that development alone would do a lot to end the geriatric vaccine crash. If COVID shots could be made as standardized and reflexive as the ones for flu, seasonal vaccination rates might start rising once again, at least until about two-thirds of people over 65 are getting shots. That’s the rate we see for flu shots, and probably an upper limit, Brewer said: “We won’t do better than that.”

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • The Left Can’t Afford to Go Mad

    The Left Can’t Afford to Go Mad

    [ad_1]

    The Trump years had a radicalizing effect on the American right. But, let’s be honest, they also sent many on the left completely around the bend. Some liberals, particularly upper-middle-class white ones, cracked up because other people couldn’t see what was obvious to them: that Trump was a bad candidate and an even worse president.

    At first, liberals tried established tactics such as sit-ins and legal challenges; lawyers and activists rallied to protest the administration’s Muslim travel ban, and courts successfully blocked its early versions. Soon, however, the sheer volume of outrages overwhelmed Trump’s critics, and the self-styled resistance settled into a pattern of high-drama, low-impact indignation.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Rather than focusing on how to oppose Trump’s policies, or how to expose the hollowness of his promises, the resistance simply wished Trump would disappear. Many on the left insisted that he wasn’t a legitimate president, and that he was only in the White House because of Russian interference. Social media made everything worse, as it always does; the resistance became the #Resistance. Instead of concentrating on the hard work of door-knocking and community activism, its members tweeted to the choir, drawing no distinction between Trump’s crackpot comments and his serious transgressions. They fantasized about a deus ex machina—impeachment, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the pee tape, outtakes from The Apprentice—leading to Trump’s removal from office, and became ever more frustrated as each successive news cycle failed to make the scales fall from his supporters’ eyes. The other side got wise to this trend, and coined a phrase to encapsulate it: “Orange Man Bad.”

    The Trump presidency was a failure of right-wing elites; the Republican Party underestimated his appeal to disaffected voters and failed to find a candidate who could defeat him in the primary. Once he became president, the party establishment was content to grumble in private and grovel in public. But the Trump years demonstrated a failure of the left, too. Trump created an enormous reservoir of political energy, but that energy was too often misdirected. Many liberals turned inward, taking comfort in self-help and purification rituals. They might have to share a country with people who would vote for the Orange Man, but they could purge their Facebook feeds, friendship circles, and perhaps even workplaces of conservatives, contrarians, and the insufficiently progressive. Feeling under intense threat, they wanted everyone to pick a side on issues such as taking the Founding Fathers’ names off school buildings and giving puberty blockers to minors—and they insisted that ambivalence was not an option. (Nor was sitting out a debate, because “silence is violence.”) Any deviation from the progressive consensus was seen as a moral failing rather than a political difference.

    The cataclysms of 2020—the pandemic and the murder of George Floyd—might have snapped the left out of its reverie. Instead, the resisters buried their heads deeper in the sand. Health experts insisted that anyone who broke social-distancing rules was selfish, before deciding that attending protests (for causes they supported, at least) was more important than observing COVID restrictions. The summer of 2020 made a best seller out of a white woman’s book about “white fragility,” but negotiations around a comprehensive police-reform bill collapsed the following year. As conservative Supreme Court justices laid the ground for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, activist organizations became fixated on purifying their language. (By 2021, the ACLU was so far gone, it rewrote a famous Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote on abortion to remove the word woman.) Demoralized and disorganized, having given up hope of changing Trump supporters’ minds, the left flexed its muscles in the few spaces in which it held power: liberal media, publishing, academia.

    If you attempted to criticize these tendencies, the rejoinder was simple whataboutism: Why not focus on Trump? The answer, of course, was that a bad government demands a strong opposition—one that seeks converts rather than hunting heretics. Many of the most interesting Democratic politicians to emerge during this time—the CIA veteran Abigail Spanberger, in Virginia; the Baptist pastor Raphael Warnock, in Georgia; Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who promised to “fix the damn roads”—were pragmatists who flipped red territories blue. When it came to the 2020 election, Democrats ultimately nominated the moderate candidate most likely to defeat Trump.

    That Joe Biden would prevail as the party’s candidate was hardly a given, however. He defeated his more progressive rivals for the Democratic nomination only after staging a comeback in the South Carolina primary. He was 44 points ahead of his closest rival, Bernie Sanders, among the state’s Black voters, according to an exit poll. That is not a coincidence. These voters recognized that they had far more to gain from a candidate like Biden, who regularly talked about working with Republicans, than from the activist wing of the party. As Biden put it in August 2020, responding to civil unrest across American cities: “Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters?

    Biden is older now, and a second victory is far from assured. If he loses, the challenges to American democratic norms will be enormous. The withering of Twitter may impede Trump’s ability to hijack the news cycle as effectively as last time, but he’ll only be more committed to enriching himself and seeking revenge. I hope that the left has learned its lesson, and will look outward rather than inward: The battle is not for control of Bud Light’s advertising strategy, or who gets published in The New York Times, but against gerrymandering and election interference, against women being locked up for having abortions, against transgender Americans losing access to health care, against domestic abusers being able to buy guns, against police violence going unpunished, against the empowerment of white nationalists, and against book bans.

    The path back to sanity in the United States lies in persuasion—in defending freedom of speech and the rule of law, in clearly and calmly opposing Trump’s abuses of power, and in offering an attractive alternative. The left cannot afford to go bonkers at the exact moment America needs it most.


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “The Left Can’t Afford to Go Mad.”

    [ad_2]

    Helen Lewis

    Source link

  • How to Make Sense of This Fall’s Messy COVID Data

    How to Make Sense of This Fall’s Messy COVID Data

    [ad_1]

    It is a truth universally acknowledged among health experts that official COVID-19 data are a mess right now. Since the Omicron surge last winter, case counts from public-health agencies have become less reliable. PCR tests have become harder to access and at-home tests are typically not counted.

    Official case numbers now represent “the tip of the iceberg” of actual infections, Denis Nash, an epidemiologist at the City University of New York, told me. Although case rates may seem low now, true infections may be up to 20 times higher. And even those case numbers are no longer available on a daily basis in many places, as the CDC and most state agencies have switched to updating their data once a week instead of every day.

    How, then, is anyone supposed to actually keep track of the COVID-19 risk in their area—especially when cases are expected to increase this fall and winter? Using newer data sources, such as wastewater surveillance and population surveys, experts have already noticed potential signals of a fall surge: Official case counts are trending down across the U.S., but Northeast cities such as Boston are seeing more coronavirus in their wastewater, and the CDC reports that this region is a hotspot for further-mutated versions of the Omicron variant. Even if you’re not an expert, you can still get a clearer picture of how COVID-19 is hitting your community in the weeks ahead. You’ll simply need to understand how to interpret these alternate data sources.

    The problem with case data goes right to the source. Investment in COVID-19 tracking at the state and local levels has been in free fall, says Sam Scarpino, a surveillance expert at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Initiative. “More recently, we’ve started to see lots of states sunsetting their reporting,” Scarpino told me. Since the Pandemic Prevention Initiative and the Pandemic Tracking Collective started publishing a state-by-state scorecard of breakthrough-case reporting in December 2021, the number of states with a failing grade has doubled. Scarpino considers this trend a “harbinger of what’s coming” as departments continue to shift resources away from COVID-19 reporting.

    Hospitalization data don’t suffer from the same reporting problems, because the federal government collects information directly from thousands of facilities across the country. But “hospitalizations often lag behind cases by a matter of weeks,” says Caroline Hugh, an epidemiologist and volunteer with the People’s CDC, an organization providing COVID-19 data and guidance while advocating for improved safety measures. Hospitalizations also don’t necessarily reflect transmission rates, which still matter if you want to stay safe. Some studies suggest, for example, that long COVID might now be more likely than hospitalization after an infection.

    For a better sense of how much the coronavirus is circulating, many experts are turning to wastewater surveillance. Samples from our sewage can provide an advanced warning of increased COVID-19 spread because everyone in a public-sewer system contributes data; the biases that hinder PCR test results don’t apply. As a result, Hugh and her colleagues at the People’s CDC consider wastewater trends to be more “consistent” than constantly fluctuating case numbers.

    When Omicron first began to wreak havoc in December 2021, “the wastewater data started to rise very steeply, almost two weeks before we saw the same rise” in case counts, Newsha Ghaeli, the president and a co-founder of the wastewater-surveillance company Biobot Analytics, told me. Biobot is now working with hundreds of sewage-sampling sites in all 50 states, Ghaeli said. The company’s national and regional dashboard incorporates data from every location in its network, but for more local data, you might need to go to a separate dashboard run by the CDC or by your state health department. Some states have wastewater surveillance in every county, while others have just a handful of sites. If your location is not represented, Ghaeli said, “the wastewater data from communities nearby is still very applicable.” And even if your county does have tracking, checking up on neighboring communities might be good practice. “A surge in a state next door … could very quickly turn into a surge locally,” Ghaeli explained.

    Ghaeli recommends watching how coronavirus levels in wastewater shift over time, rather than homing in on individual data points. Look at both “directionality” and “magnitude”: Are viral levels increasing or decreasing, and how do these levels compare with earlier points in the pandemic? A 10 percent uptick when levels are low is less concerning than a 10 percent uptick when the virus is already spreading widely.

    Researchers are still working to understand how wastewater data correlate with actual infections, because every community has unique waste patterns. For example, big cities differ from rural areas, and in some places, environmental factors such as rainfall or nearby agriculture may interfere with coronavirus tracking. Still, long-term-trend data are generally thought to be a good tool that can help sound the alarm on new surges.

    Wastewater data can help you figure out how much COVID-19 is spreading in a community and can even track all the variants circulating locally, but they can’t tell you who’s getting sick. To answer the latter question, epidemiologists turn to what Nash calls “active surveillance”: Rather than relying on the COVID-19 test results that happen to get reported to a public-health agency, actively seek out and ask people whether they recently got sick or tested positive.

    Nash and his team at CUNY have conducted population surveys in New York City and at the national level. The team’s most recent survey (which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed), conducted from late June to early July, included questions about at-home test results and COVID-like symptoms. From a nationally representative survey of about 3,000 people, Nash and his team found that more than 17 percent of U.S. adults had COVID-19 during the two-week period—about 24 times higher than the CDC’s case counts at that time.

    Studies like these “capture people who might not be counted by the health system,” Nash told me. His team found that Black and Hispanic Americans and those with low incomes were more likely to get sick during the survey period, compared with the national estimate. The CDC and Census Bureau take a similar approach through the ongoing Household Pulse Survey.

    These surveys are “a goldmine of data,” though they need to be “carefully designed,” Maria Pyra, an epidemiologist and volunteer with the People’s CDC, told me. By showing the gap between true infections and officially reported cases, surveys like Nash’s can allow researchers to approximate how much COVID-19 is really spreading.

    Survey results may be delayed by weeks or months, however, and are typically published in preprints or news reports rather than on a health agency’s dashboard. They might also be biased by who chooses to respond or how questions are worded. Scarpino suggested a more timely option: data collected from cellphone locations or social media. The Delphi Group at Carnegie Mellon University, for example, provides data on how many people are Googling coldlike symptoms or seeking COVID-related doctor visits. While such trends aren’t a perfect proxy for case rates, they can be a helpful warning that transmission patterns are changing.

    Readers seeking to monitor COVID-19 this fall should “look as local as you can,” Scarpino recommended. That means examining county- or zip-code-level data, depending on what’s available for you. Nash suggested checking multiple data sources and attempting to “triangulate” between them. For example, if case data suggest that transmission is down, do wastewater data say the same thing? And how do the data match with local behavior? If a popular community event or holiday happened recently, low case numbers might need to be taken with a grain of salt.

    “We’re heading into a period where it’s going to be increasingly harder to know what’s going on with the virus,” Nash told me. Case numbers will continue to be undercounted, and dashboards may be updated less frequently. Pundits on Twitter are turning to Yankee Candle reviews for signs of surges. Helpful sources still exist, but piecing together the disparate data can be exhausting—after all, data reporting and interpretation should be a job for our public-health agencies, not for concerned individuals.

    Rather than accept this fragmented data status quo, experts would like to see improved public-health systems for COVID-19 and other diseases, such as monkeypox and polio. “If we get better at collecting and making available local, relevant infectious-disease data for decision making, we’re going to lead healthier, happier lives,” Scarpino said.

    [ad_2]

    Betsy Ladyzhets

    Source link