ReportWire

Tag: Life expectancy

  • Scott Adams, ‘Dilbert’ cartoonist and author who pushed on through cancellation, dies at 68

    [ad_1]

    Scott Adams, whose comic strip “Dilbert” satirized a certain kind of workplace culture for more than 30 years before its author was canceled because of his comments on race, died Tuesday morning after a battle with metastatic prostate cancer. He was 68.

    The announcement came via Adams’ YouTube channel, where he livestreamed daily until Monday morning.

    “Hi everyone. Unfortunately this isn’t good news. Of course he waited until just before the show started, but he’s not with us anymore,” his ex-wife, Shelly Adams, said through tears Tuesday morning.

    The cartoonist, whose extremely dry humor and heterodox political beliefs were on public display in recent years on his daily livestream “Coffee With Scott Adams,” spoke directly to his audience almost up to his death, getting some help from friends in his final days. .

    Adams revealed his Stage 4 cancer diagnosis in May 2025, shortly after former President Biden’s metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis went public.

    “Some of you have already guessed, so this won’t surprise you at all, but I have the same cancer Joe Biden has,” he said on his May 19, 2025, livestream. “I also have prostate cancer that has also spread to my bones, but I’ve had it longer than he’s had it. Well, longer than he’s admitted having it.”

    He noted that he and the former commander in chief both had “the bad kind” of prostate cancer.

    “There’s something you need to know about prostate cancer,” he said. “If it’s localized and it hasn’t left your prostate, it’s 100% curable. But if it leaves your prostate and spreads to other parts of your body … it is 100% not curable.”

    As May, Adams had been using a walker and dealing with terrible pain because, he said, the cancer had spread to his bones. Saying that the disease was “already intolerable,” he added, “I can tell you that I don’t have good days.” He said during a December show that he was “paralyzed” from the waist down in the sense that even though he had sensation, he couldn’t move any of those muscles.

    Given all that, he said, “my life expectancy is maybe this summer. I expect to be checking out from this domain sometime this summer.” But Adams outlived that prediction, livestreaming from his hospital bed during a stay for radiation treatment before Christmas and picking up again from his bed at home after that. Each show started off with the “simultaneous sip,” where Adams invited anyone watching to join him in a communal sip from the beverage of their choosing before he launched into reviewing the news of the day.

    Born Scott Raymond Adams on June 8, 1957, in Windham, N.Y., to a postal clerk father and a real estate agent mother, he started drawing cartoons when he was 6. Adams was valedictorian at Windham-Ashland-Jewett Central School, received his bachelor’s in economics from Hartwick College in Oneonta, N.Y., and then moved to California, where he earned a master’s in business administration at UC Berkeley.

    He proceeded to work for years at Crocker National Bank and Pacific Bell, holding the types of generic corporate office jobs his comic strip would use as fodder. While he was at PacBell, he awakened daily before dawn to try to figure out an alternative career. Cartooning won out.

    “Dilbert,” which launched in 1989, went from running in a handful of papers to, at its peak, appearing in more than 2,000 outlets in 57 countries and 19 languages. Adams received the National Cartoonists Society’s Reuben Award, the industry’s highest honor, in 1997. Page-a-day “Dilbert” calendars were top sellers for years, with more than 20 million calendars and “Dilbert” books in print.

    The comic took satirical aim at a micromanaged white-collar workplace and eventually grew into an empire that included a short TV series (mostly written by Adams), dozens of books and ubiquitous merchandise.

    Dilbert, the strip’s surrogate for Adams, interacted with characters including the Pointy-Haired Boss, the boss’ secretary Carol, co-worker Wally, who was trying to get fired so he would get severance, the competent but underappreciated Alice, hardworking but naive intern Asok, the clueless CEO, the evil HR chief Catbert and Dogbert, the smartest dog in the world.

    In addition to his numerous comic compilations, Adams’ books included business writing like “How to Lose Almost Every Time and Still Win Big” and “Win Bigly.”

    Adams married girlfriend Shelly Miles, a mother of two, in 2006, and the marriage lasted eight years. The two remained friends after their 2014 divorce, with Shelly ultimately reading Scott’s final message to viewers.

    In 2018, Adams learned that his stepson Justin, whom he said he had “raised from the age of 2,” was dead of an overdose at 18 after years of battling addiction. Adams fought back tears as he explained in his livestream that Justin’s decision-making abilities had suffered after a head injury sustained in a bike accident when he was 14.

    The cartoonist’s political views have been all over the map — he once called himself “a libertarian, minus the crazy stuff.” In 2016, he declared, “I don’t vote and I am not a member of a political party.” More recently he veered toward support for President Trump, whom he considered a great persuader of people.

    Then in February 2023, remarks Adams made on his podcast were interpreted as racist, leading to serious consequences in his career.

    During a midweek livestream, Adams had riffed off the results of a poll that asked whether people agreed with the statement “It’s OK to be white.” Among Black respondents, 26% disagreed and 21% said they were not sure — a total of 47% who didn’t think it was OK to be white.

    (The seemingly innocuous phrase “It’s OK to be white” had been co-opted in 2017 for an online trolling campaign aimed at baiting liberals and the media, the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement at the time. The phrase also has a history of use among white supremacists.)

    “If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with white people … that’s a hate group. And I don’t want anything to do with them,” Adams said in his usual deadpan delivery. “And based on how things are going, the best advice I could give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people. Just get the f— away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. ’Cause there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed.”

    He continued, still deadpan, “So I think it makes no sense whatsoever, as a white citizen of America, to try to help Black citizens anymore. It doesn’t make sense. There’s no longer a rational impulse. And so I’m going to back off from being helpful to Black America, because it doesn’t seem like it pays off. Like, I’ve been doing it all my life and the only outcome is I get called a racist.”

    Within days, amid backlash about Adams’ comments, “Dilbert” was dropped by a number of newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times. Then his syndicator, which had provided “Dilbert” to outlets that published the comic, shed him as a client entirely. And Penguin Random House slammed the door shut when it nixed publication of his book “Reframe Your Brain,” which would have come out that fall, and removed his back catalog from its offerings.

    Adams discussed his own cancellation after the fact, saying a few days later on his livestream that he had been using hyperbole, “meaning an exaggeration,” to make a point. He said the stories that reported his comments had used a trick: “The trick is just to use my quote and to ignore the context which I helpfully added afterwards.”

    But he said that nobody would disagree with his two main points, which had been to “treat all individuals as individuals, no discrimination” and “avoid anything that statistically looks like a bad idea for you personally.” He also disavowed racists.

    Adams wound up self-publishing “Reframe Your Brain” in August 2023 with a dedication that read, “For the Simultaneous Sippers (Thank you for saving me.).”

    Even after his excommunication from the mainstream, Adams’ weekday morning livestreams regularly garnered tens of thousands of views on YouTube and were also viewable on Rumble, where the cartoonist had gone to avoid speech restrictions on YouTube at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The description on one of his video accounts read, “If you enjoy learning how to be more effective in life while catching up with the interesting news, this is the channel for you.”

    [ad_2]

    Christie D’Zurilla

    Source link

  • Unbelievable facts

    Unbelievable facts

    [ad_1]

    Hawaii has the highest life expectancy in the United States, with residents living an average of…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No Link Between Light Drinking and Longer Life, Study Finds

    No Link Between Light Drinking and Longer Life, Study Finds

    [ad_1]

    Research published Thursday offers a sobering rebuttal to the idea that booze can be life-extending. In a new review of the data, scientists failed to find high-quality evidence that people who drink light to moderate amounts of alcohol are likely to live longer than people who abstain from drinking. The findings suggest that there isn’t really a truly safe level of alcohol consumption.

    For many years, there’s been a steady drip of studies suggesting that light to moderate drinking can be beneficial to our longevity and health, particularly when it comes to our hearts. Other recent research is increasingly finding contradictory evidence, however, while some scientists have criticized the methodology of these rosier studies. 

    The sick abstainer effect

    One major criticism has revolved around people who quit drinking alcohol. Some abstainers rarely consumed alcohol during their lives, while others are former heavy drinkers who quit due to health issues caused by their alcohol use. Scientists run the risk of skewing comparisons between abstainers and moderate drinkers by including individuals who abstain due to health issues in the general group. Since those with health issues are likely to be sicker than average, this can unfairly favor moderate drinkers.

    Scientists from the University of Victoria in Canada tried to correct for this and other gaps in their newest review of the evidence, published Thursday in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

    “Unlike past attempts, we focused on identifying and testing study characteristics that may bias estimates of mortality risk, providing a more robust analysis of the available data,” study author James Clay, a postdoctoral research fellow at the university’s Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, told Gizmodo in an email.

    Controlling for bias

    Clay and his team looked at more than 100 studies that followed people’s health over time and included information on their reported level of drinking. When the team analyzed the data as a whole, they found a small association between a longer life and low-volume drinking (defined as anything between one drink a week and up to two drinks a day). They then divided the studies into those considered higher or lower quality research and analyzed them separately. Higher quality research, for example, included studies that excluded former drinkers from the abstainer group or started tracking people at a younger age. And when they only looked at the higher quality data, a different picture emerged.

    “Essentially, when we carefully controlled for potential biases, the supposed health benefits of low-volume alcohol consumption disappeared,” Clay explained.

    The team’s findings aren’t the first to question the idea of healthy drinking, even for our hearts. But according to the researchers, there is still an ongoing debate over the issue. By trying to identify and account for these potentially flawed studies, they hope to push for a more honest appraisal of alcohol’s risks, which can also include cancer and liver disease.

    “Our findings suggest that the perceived health benefits of low-volume drinking are likely a result of biased study designs. Therefore, it indicates that there may not be a truly safe level of alcohol consumption,” Clay said. “This challenges the notion that moderate drinking is beneficial and highlights the need for updated guidelines that accurately reflect the health risks associated with any level of alcohol consumption.”

    Earlier this February, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that annual alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. have climbed as of late, with an average 178,307 deaths during 2020 to 2021. And while the greatest health risks of alcohol come from binge or chronically heavy drinking, it’s likely that most drinkers could benefit from cutting down on the booze at least a tad.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Cara

    Source link

  • Rosa, Monterey Bay Aquarium’s oldest otter and a social media star, dies at 24

    Rosa, Monterey Bay Aquarium’s oldest otter and a social media star, dies at 24

    [ad_1]

    Rosa, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s oldest sea otter and one of its social media stars, died Wednesday, the aquarium said in a statement.

    The southern sea otter, 24, had served as a surrogate mother for 15 otters, the most in the aquarium’s history. She outlived the life expectancy for her species in the wild, which is typically 15 to 20 years, according to a post by the aquarium on Facebook.

    Rosa was known for her blond head and “her signature head-all-the-way-back swimming style,” the aquarium wrote.

    “Rosa was one of our most playful sea otters, and even at 24 years old, she would still be seen frolicking and wrestling with the younger otters when she instigated it,” said Melanie Oerter, curator of mammals.

    “Rosa was usually found sleeping against the window while on exhibit with her chin tucked tight into her chest and her tail swishing back and forth,” she said.

    She first arrived as a “five-pound, four-week-old pup after being stranded as an orphan in September 1999,” and was released into the wild for several years, according to a page about Rosa on the aquarium’s website. She returned to the Monterey Bay Aquarium in 2002 after experts determined that she had become too accustomed to humans and was not suited for life in the wild.

    In the past several weeks, Rosa’s health deteriorated, and experts at the aquarium decided to euthanize her. “She passed away peacefully, surrounded by her caretakers,” according to the aquarium’s post.

    In the post, the aquarium called Rosa a “charismatic ambassador for her threatened species” who played “a leading role in the story of sea otter recovery from near-extinction during the fur trade.”

    [ad_2]

    Terry Castleman

    Source link

  • Guns, germs, and drugs are largely responsible for the decline in U.S. life expectancy

    Guns, germs, and drugs are largely responsible for the decline in U.S. life expectancy

    [ad_1]

    “America has a life expectancy crisis,” asserted a recent headline in The Washington Post. Why a crisis? Because American average life expectancy has been flat and then declining for the past decade or so.

    One bit of recent good news: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in November that average life expectancy at birth in 2022 was 77.5 years. While that is down from its 2014 peak of 78.8 years, the CDC notes that this is a post-pandemic increase of 1.1 years from its nadir of 76.1 years in 2021. The increase from 2021 to 2022, according to the CDC, “primarily resulted from decreases in mortality due to COVID-19, heart disease, unintentional injuries, cancer, and homicide. Declines in COVID-19 mortality accounted for approximately 84% of the increase in life expectancy.” While the big recent dip in American life expectancy was largely the result of the ravages of the COVID pandemic, the trend over the prior 10 years was basically flat.

    (MedPage Today)

    The Post article correctly noted that “the United States [was] increasingly falling behind other nations well before the pandemic.”

    (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)

    The Post asked numerous members of Congress, including all 100 Senators, what they thought about falling life expectancy. While many replied that it was a serious problem, the article concluded that it “is not a political priority.” The Post did acknowledge that “there also is no single strategy to turn it around.” Politics being the art of the possible, there is little that politicians can do at this point in biomedical history to significantly increase average life expectancy.

    Public health efforts beginning the the late 19th century to provide access to clean water and improved sanitation, improve food safety, and champion widespread vaccination against infectious microbes were chiefly responsible for the increase in average American life expectancy from just 47 years in 1900 to the mid-70s in that late 20th century. “In 1900, one in 40 Americans died annually. By 2013, that rate was roughly one in 140, a cumulative improvement of more than two thirds,” reported a 2016 analysis by University of Pennsylvania researchers.

    Today the leading causes of the deaths that mainly afflict older Americans are cardiovascular diseases, cancers, unintentional injuries, lower respiratory illnesses, and diabetes. Nostrums prescribed by politicians are not likely to have much effect on them.

    (CDC)

    Among other policies, the Post reported that many of the public health officials and lawmakers with which it spoke decried, “a health-care payment system that does not reward preventive care.” And why not? After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right? Not necessarily, according to a comprehensive analysis of preventive care studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2021. “General health checks were not associated with reduced mortality or cardiovascular events,” noted the researchers. This bolstered the findings of a similar analysis in 2019 by researchers associated with the non-profit medical evidence review collaborative Cochrane that concluded that “health checks have little or no effect on total mortality.”

    The Post article also suggested that fighting between congressional Democrats and Republicans has stymied “legislation linked to gains in life expectancy, including efforts to expand access to health coverage and curb access to guns.” As it turns out, various studies over the past two decades have calculated that lack of health insurance is associated with only a slightly higher risk of death.

    A 2009 study in the American Journal of Public Health reported estimates that the lack of health insurance among Americans ages 25 to 65 may have been responsible for between 18,000 and 45,000 (0.8 to 1.8 percent) of deaths annually. At the time, 46 million Americans under the age of 65 were uninsured; by 2023 that had dropped to 23 million. As health insurance coverage increased, U.S. life expectancy stagnated and then fell.

    What about guns? Unfortunately, the trends in both the rate and absolute number of firearm deaths—homicides, suicides, and accidents—have been upward over the past decade. The rate of firearm deaths hovered around 15 per 100,000 during the 1970s and 1980s and began to fall in the mid-1990s, reaching its lowest point at 10 per 100,000 in 2004.

    (Pew Research)

    The rate of firearm mortality in the U.S. remained slightly over 10 per 100,000 over the next decade when in 2014 it began to rise, hitting in 2021 14.6 per 100,000, a rate last seen in the bad old days of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

    Deaths from suicide have consistently been greater than those from homicide. In 2022, for example, the number of people who killed themselves using firearms reached 26,993 whereas those killed by others numbered 19,592. Most gun deaths occur at earlier ages, thus proportionately lowering the U.S. population’s overall life expectancy. A 2018 study in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine calculated that firearm deaths between 2000 and 2016 reduced U.S. average life expectancy by 2.48 years. The researchers argued that other health gains during that period masked this countervailing downward life expectancy trend. And it does coincide with the slow-down in life expectancy increase that began around 2010.

    What could politicians do about this? Setting aside constitutional issues, a 2023 comprehensive analysis of various policies aiming to reduce gun violence by researchers at the RAND Corporation think tank found relatively weak evidence that any of them worked all that well. For example, with respect to reducing violent crime, the evidence for the efficacy of policies such as banning assault weapons, imposing firearm safety training requirements, and requiring licenses and permits was inconclusive. Supportive evidence did, however, suggest that child access prevention laws could reduce youth suicides, accidents, and some violent crime deaths; and limits on concealed carry and stand-your-ground laws might reduce violent crime deaths.

    The Post reported that some politicians pointed to the rising death toll from “lethal drug overdoses” as a significant factor in declining U.S. life expectancy. The Post did, however, acknowledge that drug deaths “are not solely responsible for the decline in life expectancy.” It is worth noting that opioid overdose deaths began truly soaring after 2010 when users turned to illicit heroin and fentanyl after the introduction of Food and Drug Administration–approved abuse-deterrent formulations.

    (CDC)

    So how much do drug overdose deaths contribute to the recent decline in U.S. life expectancy? A 2021 comprehensive review of factors affecting mortality trends in the U.S. between 1999 and 2018 found that average life expectancy would “have been 0.3 years greater were it not for increases in unintentional drug poisoning.” In a 2023 preprint article, two Johns Hopkins University researchers calculated that opioid overdose deaths between 2019 and 2021 reduced U.S. life expectancy by 0.65 years. If politicians and policy makers really want to make increasing life expectancy a priority, one huge step would be to actually end the war on drugs. A cease-fire in the drug war would likely reduce gun deaths too.

    The fact that Americans have been getting fatter has also contributed to the recent stalling of and then decline in U.S. life expectancy. A 2022 preprint by researchers associated with Oxford University and the University of Texas Austin calculates that properly accounted mortality from obesity is perhaps cutting U.S. life expectancy by 1.7 years.

    (Heliyon Kranjac & Kranjac)

    In a 2023 working paper, Socio-Behavioral Factors Contributing to Recent Mortality Trends in the United States, a team of demographers observed with considerable understatement that “hundreds of factors affect levels of mortality in every population.” They nevertheless gamely sought to identify possible factors for the changes in U.S. adult mortality over the period 1997–2019, using data from the National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) for years 1997–2018. The variables they examined included alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, health insurance coverage, educational attainment, mental distress, obesity, and race/ethnicity.

    Among other things, the authors, in line with earlier studies, concluded that “changes in health care coverage, as measured here, had a negligible effect” on U.S. life expectancy trends over the past two decades. The two biggest factors they identified as affecting U.S. life expectancy trends were that “mortality falls with rising educational attainment” while “increasing mental distress contributed to the stagnation of mortality improvement.” Between 1997 and 2019, the percentage of college graduates rose from 24 percent to 36 percent of the U.S. population age 25 and above. Research consistently shows that college graduates tend to be less obese, smoke less, and eat better. Rising mental distress among NHIS participants as measured using the K-6 scale, especially after 2008, correlated with increasing mortality rates.

    The nine-year difference in adult life expectancy between those Americans who are college graduates and those who are not is particularly striking.

    (Brookings Institution)

    However, the U.S. is not alone with respect to differential socioeconomic life expectancy outcomes. Even countries famed for their government-run universal health care systems such as France experience them. For example, the European Commission’s 2019 country health profile of France reports that life expectancy for men and women in the top 5 percent of income is 84.4 and 88.3 years compared to those in the bottom 5 percent, which average 71.7 years and 80 years, respectively. This correspondingly results in male and female socioeconomic life expectancy gaps of 13 years and 8 years. The report notes that the gap in longevity can be explained at least partly by differences in education and living standards.

    In the Post article, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) says that achieving Norway’s average life expectancy of 83 years should be our goal. It is worth noting that the life expectancy of adult American college graduates is 83.3 years, three years higher than the 80.3 years average for the relatively well-off countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    A 2019 report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health compared the average life expectancies of that country’s richest 1 percent with its poorest 1 percent. The report noted that “the differences in life expectancy between the one per cent richest and one per cent poorest in Norway were 14 years for men and 8 years for women.” A 2016 study in the JAMA reported essentially the same gap between America’s richest and poorest citizens. “The gap in life expectancy between the richest 1% and poorest 1% of individuals was 14.6 years for men and 10.1 years for women,” observed the researchers in JAMA.

    “It has surprised researchers and policy makers that even with a largely tax-funded public health care system and relatively evenly distributed income, there are substantial differences in life expectancy by income in Norway,” said Dr. Jonas Minet Kinge, senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, in a press release about the report.

    So why did U.S. life expectancy trends slow and then peak in 2014? And what, if anything, can policy makers and politicians realistically do to make increasing it a priority? As noted above, the big recent dip largely resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2023 Scientific Reports article “estimated that US life expectancy at birth dropped by 3.08 years due to the million COVID-19 deaths” between February 2020 and May 2022. But let’s set aside that steep post-2020 downtick in life expectancy resulting from nearly 1.2 million Americans dying of COVID-19 infections.

    A 2020 study in Health Affairs chiefly attributed the 3.3-year increase in U.S. life expectancy between 1990 and 2015 to public health, better pharmaceuticals, and improvements in medical care. By public health, the authors meant such things as campaigns to reduce smoking, increase cancer screenings and seat belt usage, improve auto and traffic safety, and increase awareness of the danger of stomach sleep for infants. With respect to pharmaceuticals, they cited the significant reduction in cardiovascular diseases that resulted from the introduction of effective drugs to lower cholesterol and blood pressure.

    So a big part of what propelled increases in U.S. life expectancy is the fact that the percentage of Americans who smoke has fallen from 43 percent in the 1970s to 16 percent now. Smoking is associated with higher risks of cardiovascular diseases and cancers, rates of which have been dropping for decades. In addition, the rising percentage of Americans who are college graduates correlated with increasing life expectancy.

    However, since the 2004 peak, countervailing increases in the death rates from drug overdoses, firearms, traffic accidents, and diseases associated with obesity contributed to the flattening of U.S. life expectancy trends.

    A 2021 comprehensive analysis of the recent stagnation and decline in U.S. life expectancy in the Annual Review of Public Health (ARPH) largely concurs, finding that “the proximate causes of the decline are increases in opioid overdose deaths, suicide, homicide, and Alzheimer’s disease.” Interestingly, the U.S. trend in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence has been downward since 2011. In addition, the ARPH review noted that “a slowdown in the long-term decline in mortality from cardiovascular diseases has also prevented life expectancy from improving further.” So enabling and persuading more properly diagnosed Americans to take blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering medications would likely boost overall life expectancy.

    Hectoring members of Congress to make increasing life expectancy a “political priority” does not change the fact that there simply are no “silver bullet” policies available for achieving that goal.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Bailey

    Source link

  • Life Expectancy With COPD

    Life Expectancy With COPD

    [ad_1]

    There’s no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to predicting someone’s life span with COPD. A lot depends on your age, health, lifestyle, and how severe the disease was when you were diagnosed, plus the steps you’ve taken to lessen the damage afterward.

    COPD is a disease with a lot of moving parts,” says Albert A. Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association. “It’s not a death sentence by any means. Many people will live into their 70s, 80s, or 90s with COPD.”

    But that’s more likely, he says, if your case is mild and you don’t have other health problems like heart disease or diabetes. Some people die earlier as a result of complications like pneumonia or respiratory failure.

    COPD Severity and Life Expectancy

    Doctors use a classification system called the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease (or GOLD) system to determine how severe your COPD is. It’s based on how much air you can forcefully exhale in 1 second after blowing into a plastic tube called a spirometer. You’ll also hear this called a forced expiratory volume (FEV1) test.

    The classifications are based on results for an adult your same age, gender, and ethnic group but without COPD. So if your airflow was 80% of someone’s airflow who doesn’t have COPD, you’d be at GOLD or Stage 1. There four stages:

    In general, the higher your number on the GOLD system, the more likely you are to have problems with or even die from COPD.

    Symptoms and Severity

    Do you have trouble breathing? Have you been hospitalized for COPD flare-ups, which doctors call exacerbations? Doctors look at your symptoms and put you in one of four categories, A-D. The most serious would be GOLD D (high symptom severity and high exacerbation risk).

    Smoking Plays a Role

    Smoking is the leading cause of COPD. One study found a small drop in life expectancy (about 1 year) for people with COPD who had never smoked. But there was a much larger reduction for current and former smokers. For men age 65 who smoke, the drop in life expectancy is:

    • Stage 1: 0.3 years
    • Stage 2: 2.2 years
    • Stage 3: 5.8 years
    • Stage 4: 5.8 years

    This is in addition to the 3.5 years of life all smokers, whether they have COPD or not, lose to the habit.

    The same study also found that women who were current smokers and at Stage 2 lost about 5 years of their lives at Stage 3 and 9 years of their lives at Stage 4.

    The BODE Index

    Another system doctors use to measure life expectancy with COPD is the BODE Index, which stands for:

    • Body mass: Are you obese or overweight?
    • Airflow obstruction: How much air can you forcefully exhale from your lungs in 1 second (the FEV1 test).
    • Dyspnea: How hard is it to breathe?
    • Exercise capacity: How far can you walk in 6 minutes?

    The higher your BODE score, the greater your risk for death from COPD. This test is considered more accurate than just the FEV1 score.

    Can Medication Help?

    Right now there aren’t any medicines that cure COPD. “We are still looking for drugs that can slow down the disease process itself and reverse inflammation in the airways,” Rizzo says. But there are bronchodilators (medications usually taken through inhalers) that can open your airways and improve shortness of breath.

    Corticosteroids can help control flare-ups. That’s important because more COPD hospitalizations are linked to a higher likelihood of death.

    If you’re constantly low on oxygen, your doctor might prescribe supplemental oxygen. You’ll get a device you can take with you anywhere to help you breathe.

    And you have to have access to care in the first place. Rizzo says more studies are looking at COPD in terms of gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Someone with COPD who doesn’t have access to health care and doesn’t have insurance is more likely to have complications and die early, even if their diagnosis is the same as someone from a higher income level.

    Early Diagnosis Can Make a Difference

    An early diagnosis can also greatly improve your life expectancy. “Probably half the people with COPD had the disease for a number of years before they were diagnosed,” Rizzo says. “They didn’t bring it to the attention of their physician because they thought the cough and the shortness of breath were related to being overweight, out of shape, and still smoking.”

    Also, doctors have to diagnose COPD correctly by ordering the right tests, he says.

    Rizzo also points to studies under way figure out why some people are more likely to get COPD than others. A study started this year by the National Institutes of Health and supported by the American Lung Association will look at lung function in 25-35-year-olds (lung function reaches its peak in the mid-20s) and figure out what changes over the course of their lifetime. “We want to notice when an individual develops findings of COPD, what may have led to it, and what we can learn from that to improve survival,” he says.

    Make Lifestyle Changes

    While there isn’t a drug to take care of COPD, there are many lifestyle changes you can make that will slow disease progression and improve your chances of living a longer life. You can:

    Once you’ve been diagnosed with COPD, follow your doctor’s advice to stop smoking, exercise, and take any medications prescribed. “And most important, stay active,” Rizzo says. “Walking is the best exercise for lungs, so walk on a regular basis.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Another Big Drop in U.S. Life Expectancy in 2021

    Another Big Drop in U.S. Life Expectancy in 2021

    [ad_1]

    By Ernie Mundell 

    HealthDay Reporter

    THURSDAY, Dec. 22, 2022 (HealthDay News) — The average American’s expected life span at birth took another big hit in 2021, according to final data on death rates for that pandemic year.

    Whereas in 2019 the average American could have expected to live an average of 78.8 years, life expectancy declined to 77 years in 2020, and then to 76.4 years in 2021, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    That’s the shortest estimated U.S. life expectancy since 1996, the agency noted.

    Of course, the toll taken by COVID-19 — which has so far killed over 1.1 million Americans — is largely to blame for the decline. But the CDC reports that fatal overdoses from illicit drugs such as fentanyl also rose sharply in 2021.

    Seen another way, “the death rate for the entire U.S. population increased by 5.3%,” the CDC added, “from 835.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 2020 to 879.7 in 2021.”

    Women can still expect to live longer than men: In 2021, the average female could expect to live to 79.3 years of age, on average, and males to 73.5.

    As to what is killing Americans most, heart disease remained the leading cause of death in 2021 (about 174 deaths for every 100,000 people), followed by cancer (about 147 deaths per 100,000) and then COVID-19 (about 104 deaths per 100,000), the CDC said.

    The other top 10 causes of deaths, in order, were unintentional injuries, stroke, COPD and other chronic respiratory diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, liver disease and kidney disease.

    A second report issued by the CDC looked at the continued rise in drug overdose deaths in the United States, using data from 2001 through 2021.

    The news was grim: Driven by the opioid abuse epidemic, and deadly fentanyl in particular, drug overdose deaths took another sizable jump, from 28.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 to 32.4 in 2021.

    “The rate of drug overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone [drugs such as fentanyl, fentanyl analogs and tramadol] increased 22%,” the CDC said, “from 17.8 [per 100,000 people] in 2020 to 21.8 in 2021.”

    But fentanyl wasn’t the only culprit: Overdose deaths linked to cocaine also rose by 22% from 2020 to 2021, and meth-related fatal overdoses rose by a full third, the agency added.

    There was one piece of good news — deaths from heroin abuse fell by 32% over the same time period, the CDC report found.

    Both reports were published as Data Brief from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.

    More information:

    For help battling a substance abuse issue, reach out to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service’s (SAMHSA) free national helpline.

     

    SOURCES: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, news release, Dec. 22, 2022; NCHS Data Brief, Dec. 2022

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Warning Signs About the First Post-pandemic Winter

    Warning Signs About the First Post-pandemic Winter

    [ad_1]

    This fall, unlike the one before it, and the one before that, America looks almost like its old self. Schools and universities are in session; malls, airports, and gyms are bustling with the pre-holiday rush; handwashing is passé, handshakes are back, and strangers are packed together on public transport, nary a mask to be seen. On its surface, the country seems ready to enjoy what some might say is our first post-pandemic winter.

    Americans are certainly acting as if the crisis has abated, and so in that way, at least, you could argue that it has. “If you notice, no one’s wearing masks,” President Joe Biden told 60 Minutes in September, after proclaiming the pandemic “over.” Almost no emergency protections against the virus are left standing; we’re dismantling the few that are. At the same time, COVID is undeniably, as Biden says, “a problem.” Each passing day still brings hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations; untold numbers of people continue to deal with long COVID, as more join them. In several parts of the country, health-care systems are struggling to stay afloat. Local public-health departments, underfunded and understaffed, are hanging by a thread. And a double surge of COVID and flu may finally be brewing.

    So we can call this winter “post-pandemic” if we want. But given the policy failures and institutional dysfunctions that have accumulated over the past three years, it won’t be anything like a pre-pandemic winter, either. The more we resist that reality, the worse it will become. If we treat this winter as normal, it will be anything but.


    By now, we’ve grown acquainted with the variables that dictate how a season with SARS-CoV-2 will go. In our first COVID winter, the vaccines had only just begun their trickle out into the public, while most Americans hadn’t yet been infected by the virus. In our second COVID winter, the country’s collective immunity was higher, but Omicron sneaked past some of those defenses. On the cusp of our third COVID winter, it may seem that SARS-CoV-2 has few plot twists left to toss us.

    But the way in which we respond to COVID could still sprinkle in some chaos. During those first two winters, at least a few virus-mitigating policies and precautions remained in place—nearly all of which have since come down, lowering the hurdles the virus must clear, at a time when America’s health infrastructure is facing new and serious threats.

    The nation is still fighting to contain a months-long monkeypox outbreak; polio continues to plague unvaccinated sectors of New York. A riot of respiratory viruses, too, may spread as temperatures cool and people flock indoors. Rates of RSV are rising; flu returned early in the season from a nearly three-year sabbatical to clobber Australia, boding poorly for us in the north. Should flu show up here ahead of schedule, Americans, too, could be pummeled as we were around the start of 2018, “one of the worst seasons in the recent past,” says Srinivasan Venkatramanan, an infectious-disease modeler at the University of Virginia and a member of the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub.

    The consequences of this infectious churn are already starting to play out. In Jackson, Mississippi, health workers are watching SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses tear through children “like nothing we’ve ever seen before,” says Charlotte Hobbs, a pediatric-infectious-disease specialist at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Flu season has yet to go into full swing, and Hobbs is already experiencing one of the roughest stretches she’s had in her nearly two decades of practicing. Some kids are being slammed with one virus after the other, their sicknesses separated by just a couple of weeks—an especially dangerous prospect for the very youngest among them, few of whom have received COVID shots.

    The toll of doctor visits missed during the pandemic has ballooned as well. Left untreated, many people’s chronic conditions have worsened, and some specialists’ schedules remain booked out for months. Add to this the cases of long COVID that pile on with each passing surge of infections, and there are “more sick people than there used to be, period,” says Emily Landon, an infectious-disease physician at the University of Chicago. That’s with COVID case counts at a relative low, amid a massive undercount. Even if a new, antibody-dodging variant doesn’t come banging on the nation’s door, “the models predict an increase in infections,” Venkatramanan told me. (In parts of Europe, hospitalizations are already making a foreboding climb.)

    And where the demand for care increases, supply does not always follow suit. Health workers continue to evacuate their posts. Some have taken early retirement, worried that COVID could exacerbate their chronic conditions, or vice versa; others have sought employment with better hours and pay, or left the profession entirely to salvage their mental health. A wave of illness this winter will pare down forces further, especially as the CDC backs off its recommendations for health-care workers to mask. At UAB Hospital, in Birmingham, Alabama, “we’ve struggled to have enough people to work,” says Sarah Nafziger, an emergency physician and the medical director for employee health. “And once we get them here, we have a hard time getting them to stay.”

    Clinical-laboratory staff at Deaconess Hospital, in Indiana, who are responsible for testing patient samples, are feeling similar strain, says April Abbott, the institution’s microbiology director. Abbott’s team has spent most of the past month below usual minimum-staffing levels, and has had to cut some duties and services to compensate, even after calling in reinforcements from other, already shorthanded parts of the lab. “We’re already at this threshold of barely making it,” Abbott told me. Symptoms of burnout have surged as well, while health workers continue to clock long hours, sometimes amid verbal abuse, physical attacks, and death threats. Infrastructure is especially fragile in America’s rural regions, which have suffered hospital closures and an especially large exodus of health workers. In Madison County, Montana, where real-estate values have risen, “the average nurse cannot afford a house,” says Margaret Bortko, a nurse practitioner and the region’s health officer and medical director. When help and facilities aren’t available, the outcome is straightforward, says Janice Probst, a rural-health researcher at the University of South Carolina: “You will have more deaths.”

    In health departments, too, the workforce is threadbare. As local leaders tackle multiple infectious diseases at once, “it’s becoming a zero-sum game,” says Maria Sundaram, an epidemiologist at the Marshfield Clinic Research Institute. “With limited resources, do they go to monkeypox? To polio? To COVID-19? To influenza? We have to choose.” Mati Hlatshwayo Davis, the director of health in St. Louis, told me that her department has shrunk to a quarter of the size it was five years ago. “I have staff doing the jobs of three to five people,” she said. “We are in absolute crisis.” Staff have left to take positions as Amazon drivers, who “make so much more per hour.” Looking across her state, Hlatshwayo Davis keeps watching health directors “resign, resign, resign.” Despite all that she has poured into her job, or perhaps because of it, “I can’t guarantee I won’t be one of those losses too.”


    This winter is unlikely to be an encore of the pandemic’s worst days. Thanks to the growing roster of tools we now have to combat the coronavirus—among them, effective vaccines and antivirals—infected people are less often getting seriously sick; even long COVID seems to be at least a bit scarcer among people who are up-to-date on their shots. But considering how well our shots and treatments work, the plateau of suffering at which we’ve arrived is bizarrely, unacceptably high. More than a year has passed since the daily COVID death toll was around 200; nearly twice that number—roughly three times the daily toll during a moderate flu season—now seems to be a norm.

    Part of the problem remains the nation’s failed approach to vaccines, says Avnika Amin, a vaccine epidemiologist at Emory University: The government has repeatedly championed shots as a “be-all and end-all” strategy, while failing to rally sufficient uptake. Boosting is one of the few anti-COVID measures still promoted, yet the U.S. remains among the least-vaccinated high-income countries; interest in every dose that’s followed the primary series has been paltry at best. Even with the allure of the newly reformulated COVID shot, “I’m not really getting a good sense that people are busting down the doors,” says Michael Dulitz, a health worker in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Nor can vaccines hold the line against the virus alone. Even if everyone got every shot they were eligible for, Amin told me, “it wouldn’t make COVID go away.”

    The ongoing dry-up of emergency funds has also made the many tools of disease prevention and monitoring more difficult to access. Free at-home tests are no longer being shipped out en masse; asymptomatic testing is becoming less available; and vaccines and treatments are shifting to the private sector, putting them out of reach for many who live in poor regions or who are uninsured and can least afford to fall ill.

    It doesn’t help, either, that the country’s level of preparedness lays out as a patchwork. People who vaccinate and mask tend to cluster, Amin told me, which means that not all American experiences of winter will be the same. Less prominent, less privileged parts of the country will quietly bear the brunt of outbreaks. “The biggest worry is the burden becoming unnoticed,” Venkatramanan told me. Without data, policies can’t change; the nation can’t react. “It’s like flying without altitude or speed sensors. You’re looking out the window and trying to guess.”


    There’s an alternative winter the country might envision—one unencumbered by the policy backslides the U.S. has made in recent months, and one in which Americans acknowledge that COVID remains not just “a problem” but a crisis worth responding to.

    In that version of reality, far more people would be up-to-date on their vaccines. The most vulnerable in society would be the most protected. Ventilation systems would hum in buildings across the country. Workers would have access to ample sick leave. Health-care systems would have excesses of protective gear, and local health departments wouldn’t want for funds. Masks would come out in times of high transmission, especially in schools, pharmacies, government buildings, and essential businesses; free tests, boosters, and treatments would be available to all. No one would be asked to return to work while sick—not just with COVID but with any transmissible disease. SARS-CoV-2 infections would not disappear, but they would remain at more manageable levels; cases of flu and other cold-weather sicknesses that travel through the air would follow suit. Surveillance systems would whir in every state and territory, ready to detect the next threat. Leaders might even set policies that choreograph, rather than simply capitulate to, how Americans behave.

    We won’t be getting that winter this year, or likely any year soon. Many policies have already reverted to their 2019 status quo; by other metrics, the nation’s well-being even seems to have regressed. Life expectancy in the U.S. has fallen, especially among Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Institutions of health are beleaguered; community-outreach efforts have been pruned.

    The pandemic has also prompted a deterioration of trust in several mainstays of public health. In many parts of the country, there’s worry that the vaccine hesitancy around COVID has “spread its tentacles into other diseases,” Hobbs told me, keeping parents from bringing their kids in for flu shots and other routine vaccines. Mississippi, once known for its stellar rate of immunizing children, now consistently ranks among those with the fewest young people vaccinated against COVID. “The one thing we do well is vaccinate children,” Hobbs said. That the coronavirus has reversed the trend “has astounded me.” In Montana, sweeping political changes, including legislation that bans employers from requiring vaccines of any kind, have made health-care settings less safe. Fewer than half of Madison County’s residents have received even their primary series of COVID shots, and “now a nurse can turn down the Hepatitis B series,” Bortko told me. Health workers, too, feel more imperiled than before. Since the start of the pandemic, Bortko’s own patients of 30 years, “who trusted me with their lives,” have pivoted to “yelling at us about vaccination concerns and mask mandates and quarantining and their freedoms,” she told me. “We have become public enemy No. 1.”

    At the same time, many people with chronic and debilitating conditions are more vulnerable than they were before the pandemic began. The policies that protected them during the pandemic’s height are gone—and yet SARS-CoV-2 is still here, adding to the dangers they face. The losses have been written off, Bortko told me: Cases of long COVID in Madison County have been dismissed as products of “risk factors” that don’t apply to others; deaths, too, have been met with a shrug of “Oh, they were old; they were unhealthy.” If, this winter, COVID sickens or kills more people who are older, more people who are immunocompromised, more people of color, more essential and low-income workers, more people in rural communities, “there will be no press coverage,” Hlatshwayo Davis said. Americans already expect that members of these groups will die.

    It’s not too late to change course. The winter’s path has not been set: Many Americans are still signing up for fall flu and COVID shots; we may luck out on the viral evolution front, too, and still be dealing largely with members of the Omicron clan for the next few months. But neither immunity nor a slowdown in variant emergence is a guarantee. What we can count on is the malleability of human behavior—what will help set the trajectory of this winter, and others to come. The U.S. botched the pandemic’s beginning, and its middle. That doesn’t mean we have to bungle its end, whenever that truly, finally arrives.

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link