ReportWire

Tag: University of British Columbia

  • Study: Cannabis May Be Effective Harm Reduction Tool To Ease Stimulant Cravings | High Times

    Study: Cannabis May Be Effective Harm Reduction Tool To Ease Stimulant Cravings | High Times

    [ad_1]

    Despite the skewed messaging of the past suggesting that cannabis is a gateway drug or will lead to the use and abuse of more addictive and harmful substances, many today understand that cannabis may be utilized as a harm reduction tool. 

    Whether its individuals looking to reduce or eliminate their use of opioids for medical reasons or people who use drugs seeking relief from withdrawal symptoms and cravings, research is increasingly finding that cannabis may help.

    In one of the more recent studies on the topic, researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) took a closer look at cannabis use and managing cravings to stimulant drugs. Ultimately their findings, published in the journal Addictive Behaviors, indicated that cannabis is not only widely used to manage stimulant cravings but that it may be an effective strategy to reduce stimulant use.

    Cannabis as Harm Reduction for Other Drug Use

    Researchers note how medical and recreational cannabis reform has opened the door for other conversations, namely how cannabis use interacts with other higher risk substances and that cannabis substitution is a commonly utilized method of harm reduction. 

    Given today’s ongoing drug toxicity crisis and the prevalence of fentanyl contamination in a number of substances, researchers say that investigating cannabis as a substitute for stimulant use could have “important public health and harm reduction appliances among people who use drugs at a heightened risk of overdose and other drug-related harms.”

    To further analyze how cannabis use may affect people using stimulant drugs, researchers collected data from three cohorts in Vancouver, Canada: the At-Risk Youth Study (ARYS), the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study (VIDUS) and the AIDS Care Cohort to Evaluate Exposure to Survival Services (ACCESS).

    Researchers used a cross-sectional questionnaire alongside logistic regression models to analyze the relationship between cannabis use to manage stimulant cravings as well as self-reported changes in the frequency of stimulant use. A total of 297 participants reported cannabis and stimulant use over the past six months and were included in the study. 

    Cannabis a Common Strategy to Reduce Stimulant Use

    Of the participants, 45.1% reported that they used cannabis to manage stimulant cravings and 77.6% of those participants said that cannabis use indeed decreased their use of stimulants, including powder cocaine, crack cocaine and methamphetamines. 

    Researchers noted that cannabis use to manage cravings was significantly associated with reduced stimulant use specifically among those who used crystal meth daily, though it was not significantly associated with reduced stimulant use among crack cocaine users.

    While the study doesn’t provide all the answers, lead author Dr. Hudson Reddon noted the importance of the results.

    “Our findings are not conclusive but do add to the growing scientific evidence that cannabis might be a beneficial tool for some people who want to better control their unregulated stimulant use, particularly for people who use crystal meth,” Dr. Reddon said. “This suggests a new direction for harm reduction strategies among people who use drugs.”

    Adjacent Research and the Push for Further Investigation

    While it’s surely an adjacent but far different issue, myriad research has explored the topic of cannabis as means to limit or replace opioids for medicinal use. 

    Recent studies have found that cannabis may be comparable to opioids in treating pain while providing more holistic relief and that patients largely reduce or fully replace opioid use after beginning a medicinal cannabis regimen. Another recent study also found that CBD curbed opioid cravings in rats.

    There is far less research available regarding the relationship between cannabis and recreational drug use and abuse, though the UBC study’s findings are still echoed in past studies. 

    A 2021 study similarly found that cannabis is commonly used as a harm reduction strategy to substitute for stimulants and opioids. Another 2023 study found that cannabis was often utilized as a harm reduction strategy for those who had difficulty accessing addiction treatment or those using substances where effective treatments are limited.

    Dr. Zach Walsh, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, called the findings of the UBC study “promising” while emphasizing the need for further research on the topic.

    “[The findings] underscore the need for more comprehensive studies to understand the full potential of cannabis in the context of the overdose crisis,” Dr. Walsh said.

    [ad_2]

    Keegan Williams

    Source link

  • Malnutrition linked to antibiotic resistance spike, study finds.

    Malnutrition linked to antibiotic resistance spike, study finds.

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — University of B.C. researchers have uncovered startling connections between micronutrient deficiencies and the composition of gut microbiomes in early life that could help explain why resistance to antibiotics has been rising across the globe.

    The team investigated how deficiencies in crucial micronutrients such as vitamin A, B12, folate, iron, and zinc affected the community of bacteria, viruses, fungi and other microbes that live in the digestive system.

    They discovered that these deficiencies led to significant shifts in the gut microbiome of mice—most notably an alarming expansion of bacteria and fungi known to be opportunistic pathogens.

    Importantly, mice with micronutrient deficiencies also exhibited a higher enrichment of genes that have been linked to antibiotic resistance.

    “Micronutrient deficiency has been an overlooked factor in the conversation about global antibiotic resistance,” said Dr. Paula Littlejohn, a postdoctoral research fellow with UBC’s department of medical genetics and department of pediatrics, and the BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute. “This is a significant discovery, as it suggests that nutrient deficiencies can make the gut environment more conducive to the development of antibiotic resistance, which is a major global health concern.”

    Bacteria naturally possess these genes as a defence mechanism. Certain circumstances, such as antibiotic pressure or nutrient stress, cause an increase in these mechanisms. This poses a threat that could render many potent antibiotics ineffective and lead to a future where common infections could become deadly.

    Antibiotic resistance is often attributed to overuse and misuse of antibiotics, but the work of Dr. Littlejohn and her UBC colleagues suggests that the ‘hidden hunger’ of micronutrient deficiencies is another important factor.

    “Globally, around 340 million children under five suffer from multiple micronutrient deficiencies, which not only affect their growth but also significantly alter their gut microbiomes,” said Dr. Littlejohn. “Our findings are particularly concerning as these children are often prescribed antibiotics for malnutrition-related illnesses. Ironically, their gut microbiome may be primed for antibiotic resistance due to the underlying micronutrient deficiencies.”

    The study, published this week in Nature Microbiology, offers critical insights into the far-reaching consequences of micronutrient deficiencies in early life. It underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address undernutrition and its ripple effects on health. Addressing micronutrient deficiencies is about more than overcoming malnutrition, it may also be a critical step in fighting the global scourge of antibiotic resistance.

    [ad_2]

    University of British Columbia

    Source link

  • Research On Cannabis, Yoga Suggests That Setting Influences Mental Health Benefits | High Times

    Research On Cannabis, Yoga Suggests That Setting Influences Mental Health Benefits | High Times

    [ad_1]

    In a recent study from the University of British Columbia, researchers have unveiled new insights into the relationship between cannabis consumption and yoga. The study indicates that individuals who practice yoga after using cannabis may experience enhanced mindfulness and a heightened sense of mysticality.

    The research, which originated as a psychology dissertation, examined “the impact of contextual factors during cannabis use on well-being outcomes.” The paper’s author, Sarah Elizabeth Ann Daniels, highlights a significant disparity: While research into psychedelic therapy often emphasizes the importance of setting and intention, this emphasis is notably less prevalent in studies related to cannabis. While cannabis connoisseurs understand that the plant, like shrooms, is indeed psychedelic, the stoner community doesn’t always place the same weight on integrating set and setting into cannabis use. Yoga, which often utilizes intention-setting, could offer one modality to change that. 

    “When researchers explore the use of other psychoactive drugs for mental health treatment, there’s a strong focus on factors outside the direct effects of the drug, like mindset, environment, and behavior,” Daniels says. “This is because evidence suggests that these elements can dramatically influence therapeutic outcomes.” 

    The study underscores the importance of the context in which people enjoy cannabis. Its conclusions suggest that the environment and activities, aka the set and setting, invoked while under the influence of cannabis may play a pivotal role in shaping the user’s experience. Drawing a parallel with the world of psychedelics, the research supports the psychedelic-approved conviction that the setting and mindset during cannabis consumption can significantly affect its therapeutic benefits. While the cannabis community is often discussed in terms of a potential model for psychedelics to follow, as weed first gained mainstream societal approval, perhaps it’s time to reverse this relationship and see what marijuana can learn from psilocybin, ketamine, and other substances which therapeutically endorse set and setting. 

    To investigate the role of context within a cannabis experience, a weed trip, if you will, Daniels orchestrated the experiment involving 47 participants. She instructed them to self-administer cannabis on two occasions, spaced one week apart. In one session, participants engaged in yoga, while in the subsequent session, they just did whatever they usually enjoyed doing while high. The most common activities cited included eating, viewing TV or films, performing household tasks, socializing, and other hobbies.

    The research evaluated participants based on several criteria, such as “state mindfulness,” “mysticality of experience,” and “state affect.”

    Regarding “state mindfulness,” Daniels sought to gauge levels rooted in “both traditional Buddhist and contemporary psychology models of mindfulnesses.” This measure illuminated participants’ awareness of their mental states and bodily sensations. On the other hand, the “mystical experience” metric looked at more profound moments – such as experiencing deep peace and tranquility and perceiving a distorted sense of time, a common occurrence for cannabis trips. 

    In her research, Daniels identified a marked enhancement in participants’ reported mindfulness when they combined cannabis use with yoga practice. Additionally, their “mysticality of experience” saw a notable uptick. Despite mysticality traditionally being more aligned with psychedelic substances, Daniels points out, “While cannabis is not considered a traditional psychedelic,” it has been observed that “recent evidence indicates that it shares many commonalities with psychedelic-induced altered states.”

    When it comes to “state affect,” which essentially gauges an individual’s emotional and mood state, Daniels found no significant variance between sessions with yoga and those without.

    Pairing cannabis and yoga is nothing new. Ancient yogis in India touted the benefits of hashish, and classes such as the LA-based Ganja Yoga invite people to partake to enhance their yoga experience. 

    Of those participating in the study, six were newcomers to yoga. Thirty individuals claimed to engage in yoga sporadically or occasionally, with the remaining 11 being regular or frequent practitioners. 72% of the participants, or 34 individuals, expressed interest in blending cannabis and yoga in the future. In a symbiotic relationship, yoga not only amplified their cannabis experience, but the inclusion of cannabis also heightened their appreciation for yoga. Daniels notes:

    “The most frequently reported theme was enhanced physical awareness, where 15 participants articulated a heightened cognizance of their body, its movements, and sensory experiences. Many described feeling more ‘in touch’ or ‘in tune’ with their bodily sensations and expressed that their awareness of movement and physical sensations was at a ‘deeper’ level than usual. Importantly, they emphasized that this was distinct from their regular (non-cannabis influenced) yoga or physical activity sessions.”

    Reflecting on her findings, Daniels suggests, “These results underscore the importance of considering context and offering guidance to those using cannabis for therapeutic purposes, with the aim of enhancing its positive impacts on mental health and well-being.”

    The primary takeaway from the study is that going forward when prescribing cannabis (although you don’t need a doctor to implement this information), physicians should consider set and setting as part of cannabis consumption. 

    “Physicians have long identified a lack of clarity on the optimal approach to prescribe cannabis for therapeutic use,” the study reads. “Offering precise behavioral guidance and educating about the influence of environment and mindset can potentially optimize the benefits and reduce the downsides of therapeutic cannabis use. Given the favorable response to the yoga component, recommending yoga or similar mindful exercises might be highly beneficial.”

    [ad_2]

    Sophie Saint Thomas

    Source link

  • Canada, US: Braiding Indigenous Rights & Endangered Species Laws

    Canada, US: Braiding Indigenous Rights & Endangered Species Laws

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Climbing caribou numbers in northeastern British Columbia prove that collaborations between Indigenous and colonial governments can reverse decades-long declines, but focus needs to shift to culturally meaningful recovery targets, a consortium of researchers and community members say in a new paper published this week in Science.

    UBC Okanagan’s Dr. Clayton Lamb and West Moberly First Nation Chief Roland Willson co-lead the paper, Braiding Indigenous Rights and Endangered Species Law, alongside nine others for the influential journal.

    “Abundance matters. There are many cases where endangered species laws have prevented extinction, but the warning signs of decline can appear long before the laws take effect. People who live and work on the land see these changes – we need to listen and act with them to prevent declines,” says Lamb, a biologist and MITACS postdoc in UBCO’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science. “There is a large gap between what the laws see as species recovery and what communities need for health, food security, and cultural well-being.”

    The policy paper builds on collaborations between UBCO’s Lamb and Dr. Adam Ford, who have previously published research highlighting recovery efforts of the Klinse-Za caribou herd near the West Moberly and Saulteau First Nations. They also looked at evolving bison and salmon recovery efforts in North America.

    Researchers heard stories from West Moberly Elders about a “sea of caribou” once looking like “bugs on the landscape,” but only 38 animals remained in 2013. Those numbers climbed to 115 a decade later thanks to interventions led by Indigenous groups. While these early signs of recovery are cause for immense celebration, the herd remains much smaller than historic levels.

    “We need to move past a life support mentality for biodiversity,” says Ford, head of UBCO’s Wildlife Restoration Ecology Lab. “We must restore nature and the time-honoured ways people interact with the land.”

    Canada and the United States have endangered species laws that are designed to recover species abundance to levels that will minimize the chance of extinction, but these recovery targets do not take into account culturally meaningful abundance or distributions of plants and animals, the authors say.

    The paper highlights the current caribou count would only provide about three animals, or one meal per person, per year for Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations. The culturally significant count would require a herd of over 3,000 animals, an abundance more reflective of the historic “sea of caribou” level.

    Naomi Owens-Beek, manager of Treaty Rights and Environmental Protection for Saulteau First Nation, contributed to the research and the policy paper.

    She says the collaboration between Canadian and Indigenous leaders is essential to preserving traditional ways of life. Some Elders in the region have never tasted caribou, yet it was a staple of their ancestors and provided vital nutrition, material, spirituality, and a sense of place.

    “We looked out at the land and thought, ‘What do these caribou need to be once again the great herds our Elders spoke about?’ We first reduced predation to make sure the caribou weren’t lost. Now we’re focusing on protecting and restoring habitat,” she says.

    “Caribou habitat has long been mistreated, and now there’s so few caribou. These herds need space to thrive, and that’s why we’re working with the nations, the province of British Columbia and Canada, to heal these lands and increase the population so we can one day go back into the mountains and hunt caribou.”

    The paper also examined efforts to restore salmon and bison habitat in North America. Chief Willson says each species shows modest signs of recovery, but that isn’t nearly the progress needed.

    “Braiding Indigenous rights with laws protecting endangered species can enable nations to respect and safeguard the rights of Indigenous communities, curb the threat of species loss, and ultimately confer broad societal advantages,” he says.

    Lamb, Willson, Ford and Owens-Beek were joined by Allyson Menzies (School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph), Michael Price (Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University), Scott McNay (Wildlife Infometrics), Sarah Otto (Department of Zoology & Biodiversity Research Centre at UBC), Mateen Hessami (Wildlife Science Center—Biodiversity Pathways at UBCO), Jesse Popp (School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph) and Mark Hebblewhite (Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana).

    Permalink: https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2023/05/18/call-for-canada-to-braid-indigenous-rights-with-endangered-species-law/

    [ad_2]

    University of British Columbia’s Okanagan Campus

    Source link

  • Fish Growth Unaffected by Spawning

    Fish Growth Unaffected by Spawning

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Contrary to what is stated in biology textbooks, the growth of fish doesn’t slow down when and because they start spawning. In fact, their growth accelerates after they reproduce, according to a new article published in Science

     “Fish don’t have to choose between growth or reproduction because, in the real world, they don’t occur simultaneously but rather sequentially,” says University of British Columbia (UBC) fisheries researcher Dr. Daniel Pauly, co-author of the Science technical comment with Dr. Rainer Froese, senior scientist at Germany’s Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research.

    “Fish use only 10% to 20% of their energy for each of these two activities, the rest being mainly devoted to other activities, such as darting about when predators approach,” adds Dr. Pauly, who leads the Sea Around Us research initiative at UBC. “This means that reducing the movement rate, given the same food and oxygen consumption, can easily produce the savings required for growth or reproduction. This is the reason, incidentally, why fish farmers raise fish which have been selected to be calmer than their wild congeners.”

    The comment is a response to a previous study which erroneously claims growth ceases when fish reproduce because they dedicate all of their energy to such activity.

    Based on a growth equation widely used in fisheries science, the authors of the initial paper claimed that the growth of the Atlantic horse mackerel from the North Sea stock slows down with the onset of reproduction. Yet, they did not report on the size at which this fish actually matures and spawn.

    Dr. Pauly and Dr. Froese revisited the study and included maturation and spawning trends. Their work demonstrated that the very evidence advanced to support the traditional, textbook claim shows the contrary: horse mackerel actually grow faster after spawning for the first time.

    “This case is not unique,” Dr. Pauly says. “If we ran the numbers using the growth parameters and size at first maturity available for hundreds of fish in FishBase, the online encyclopedia of fish, we would get the same s results.”

    According to the comment, there’s a lack of support for the notion that reproduction impacts growth, even in mammals. “Pets that are neutered or spayed exhibit the same growth trajectories as their parents,” says Dr. Froese. “Also, the dominant males in harem-building species, such as sea lions, don’t cease growing and they become bigger than bachelors, even though they are dedicating a lot of their resources to reproduction.”

    In fish, the oxygen needed for growth is supplied by gills surfaces through which water must flow – a bit like the wind through blinds. Gill surface area grows in two dimensions, that is, in length and width, but they cannot keep up with fish’s bodies, which grow in three dimensions, length, width and depth. Thus, as fish get bigger, they have less gill surface area and their gills provide less oxygen per unit volume or weight.

    “There is a point when the growth of individual fish leads to a decline in its relative gill surface area, which generates a critical level of oxygen supply. This ‘tells’ the fish that it has reached a stage in which it should mature and spawn,” says Dr. Pauly. “When a fish spawns, it loses gonadal tissue that previously had to be supplied with oxygen and thus its relative gill area increases, which facilitates renewed growth until the next spawning season.”

    [ad_2]

    University of British Columbia

    Source link

  • Pandemic Babies’ Microbiomes Are Bound to Be Different

    Pandemic Babies’ Microbiomes Are Bound to Be Different

    [ad_1]

    In the spring of 2021, Brett Finlay, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia, offered the world a bold and worrying prediction. “My guess is that five years from now we are going to see a bolus of kids with asthma and obesity,” he told Wired. Those children, he said, would be “the COVID kids”: those born just before or during the height of the crisis, when the coronavirus was everywhere, and we cleaned everything because we didn’t want it to be.

    Finlay’s forecast isn’t unfounded. As James Hamblin wrote in The Atlantic last year, our health relies on a constant discourse with trillions of microbes that live on or inside our bodies. The members of the so-called microbiome are crucial for digesting our food, training the immune system, even greasing the wheels of cognitive function; there does not seem to be a bodily system that these tiny tenants do not in some way affect. These microbe-human dialogues begin in infancy, and the first three or so years of life are absolutely pivotal: Bacteria must colonize babies, then the two parties need to get into physiological sync. Major disruptions during this time “can throw the system out of whack,” says Katherine Amato, a biological anthropologist at Northwestern University, and raise a kid’s risk of developing allergies, asthma, obesity, and other chronic conditions later in life.

    The earlier, more intense, and more prolonged the interruptions, the worse. Infants who receive heavy courses of antibiotics—which can nuke microbial diversity—are at greater risk of developing such problems; the same is roughly true for babies who are born by C-section, who formula feed, or who grow up in nature-poor environments. If pandemic-era mitigations re-create even an echo of those effects, that could spell trouble for a whole lot of little kids who may have lost out on beneficial microbes in the ongoing effort to keep nasty ones at bay.

    More than a year and a half after Finlay’s original prediction, children are back in day care and school. People no longer keep their distance or avoid big crowds. Even hygiene theater is (mostly) on the wane. And if the wave of respiratory viral illness now slamming much of the Northern Hemisphere is any indication, microbes are once again swirling between tiny hands and mouths. But for the circa-COVID kids, the specter of 2026 and Finlay’s anticipated chronic-illness “bump” still looms—and it’ll be a good while yet before researchers have clarity on just how much of a difference those months of relative microbial emptiness truly made.

    For now, “we are in the realm of speculation,” says Maria Gloria Dominguez Bello, a microbiologist at Rutgers. Scientists don’t understand how, or even which, behaviors may affect the composition of our inner flora throughout our life span. Chronic illnesses such as obesity and asthma also take time to manifest. There’s not yet evidence that they’re on the rise among children, and even if they were, researchers wouldn’t expect to see the signal for at least a couple of years, perhaps more.

    Finlay, for one, stands by his original prediction that the pandemic will bring a net microbiome negative. “We underwent a massive societal shift,” he told me. “I am sure we will see an effect.” And he is not the only one who thinks so. “I think it’s almost inevitable that there has been an impact,” says Graham Rook, a medical microbiologist at University College London. If the middle of this decade passes without incident, Rook told me, “I would be very surprised.” Other researchers, though, aren’t so sure. “I don’t think we have doomed a generation of kids,” says Melissa Manus, an anthropologist and microbiome researcher at the University of Manitoba. A few scientists are even pondering whether the pandemic’s ripple effects may have buoyed the microbiomes of the COVID kids. Martin Blaser, a microbiologist at Rutgers University, told me that, “with any luck,” rates of asthma and obesity might even dip in the next few years.

    When it comes to the pandemic’s potential fallout, researchers agree on just one thing: COVID babies undoubtedly had an unusual infancy; on average, their microbiomes are bound to look quite different. Different, though, isn’t necessarily bad. “It’s not like there is one golden microbiome,” says Efrem Lim, a microbiologist at Arizona State University. Take Liz Johnson’s sons, born in March 2018, August 2020, and March 2022. All three were born vaginally, in the same hospital, with the assistance of the same midwife; all of them then breastfed; and none of them has undergone an early, concerning antibiotic course. And still, “they all started off with different microbiomes,” she told me. (As a microbiome researcher at Cornell focused on infant nutrition, Johnson can check.)

    That’s probably totally fine. Across the human population, microbiomes are known to vary wildly: People can carry hundreds of bacterial species on and inside their bodies, with potentially zero overlap from one individual to the next. Bacterial communities aren’t unlike recipes—if you don’t have one ingredient on hand, another can usually take its place.

    Johnson’s middle son, Lucas, had a starkly different birth experience from that of his older brother—even, in many ways, from that of his younger brother. Lucas was born into a delivery room full of masked faces. In the days after his arrival, no family members came to visit him in the hospital. And although his brothers spent several of their early months jet-setting all around the world with their mother for work trips, Lucas stayed put. “Hardly anybody even knew he was born,” Johnson told me. But throughout his first two years, Lucas still breastfed and had plenty of contact with his family at home, as well as with other kids at day care; he romped in green spaces galore. Yet Johnson and others can’t say, precisely, whether all of that outweighs the sanitariness and the uncrowdedness of Lucas’s earliest days. There would have been a cost to both overcaution and under-caution, “so we just tried to balance everything,” Johnson said. When it comes down to it, scientists just don’t know how much microbial exposure constitutes enough.

    Among COVID babies, microbiome mileage will probably vary, depending on what decisions their parents made at the height of the pandemic—which itself hinges on the sorts of financial and social resources they had. Amato worries most about the families that may have packaged a bunch of sanitizing behaviors together with more established cullers of microbiome diversity: C-sections, formula-feeding, and antibiotic use. Meghan Azad, an infant-health researcher at the University of Manitoba, told me that some new parents might have found it far tougher to breastfeed during the pandemic’s worst—a time when in-person counseling resources were harder to access, and employment was in flux. Chronically poor diets and stress, which many people experienced these past few years, can also chip away at microbiome health.

    Part of the problem is that many of these risk factors, Rook told me, will disproportionately coalesce among people of lower socioeconomic status, who already tend to have less diverse microbiomes. “I worry this will further increase the health disparity between the rich and the poor,” he said. Even SARS-CoV-2 infections themselves, which have continued to concentrate among essential workers and in crowded living settings, appear to alter the microbiome—a shift that may be temporary in adults, but potentially less so in infants, whose microbiomes haven’t yet matured into a stable state.

    Many families exist in a gray zone. Maybe they bleached their households often, but found it easier to breastfeed and cook healthful meals while working from home. Maybe their kids weren’t mingling with tons of other toddlers at day care, but they spent much more time rolling around in the backyard, coated in their pandemic puppy’s drool. If all of those factors feed into an equation that sums up to healthy or not, scientists can’t yet do the math. They’re still figuring out how to appropriately weigh each component, and how to identify others they’ve missed.

    Even in the absence of extra outdoorsiness or dog slobber, Lim isn’t very concerned about the behavioral mitigations people picked up. We’re all “exposed to thousands of microbes all the time,” Lim, who has a 1-and-a-half-year-old daughter, told me. Some extra hand-washing, masking, and time at home is nothing compared with, say, an antibiotic blitzkrieg. Even kids who stayed pretty cloistered “were not living in a bubble.” Some of the social sacrifices kids made may even have strange silver linings. Children no longer attending day care or preschool might have skirted a whole slew of other viral infections that would otherwise have gotten them inappropriate and microbiome-damaging antibiotics prescriptions. Antibiotic use in outpatient settings dropped substantially in 2020, compared with the prior year. Stacked up against the relatively minor toll of pandemic mitigations, Blaser told me, the plus of avoiding antibiotics might just win out. When antibiotic use declines, for example, so do asthma rates.

    Finlay and others are still keeping an eye out for signals that might start to appear in the next few years. Perhaps most at risk are kids whose families went into “hyper-hygiene mode” in the first couple months of their life, when microbes are crucial for properly calibrating the immune system’s anti-pathogen alarms. Miss out on those opportunities, and our body’s defensive cells might end up mistaking enemies for allies, or vice versa, sparking particularly severe infections or autoimmune disease. Once wired into a developing child, Finlay said, such changes might be difficult to reverse, especially for the youngest of the COVID cohort. But other experts are hopeful that certain microbial losses can still be recouped through some combination of diet, outdoor play, and socialization (with people who aren’t sick)—restorative interventions that, ideally, happen as early as possible. “The sooner we fix it, the better,” Blaser said.

    No one can choose precisely which microbes to be exposed to: Tactics that halt the transmission of known pathogens have a way of halting the transmission of benign bugs too. But context matters. It’s possible for microbe-inviting behaviors, such as outdoor play, to coexist alongside microbe-shunning tactics, such as ventilating indoor spaces when there’s a massive respiratory outbreak. The fact that we can influence microbial colonization at all is powerful. During the pandemic, mitigations that kept COVID at bay also cratered rates of flu and RSV. Now that those viruses are back, experts are pointing out that we already know how they can once again be stopped. And the choices that people made, and continue to make, to protect their families from pathogens shouldn’t be viewed as some harmful mistake, says Ariangela Kozik, a microbiologist at the University of Michigan.

    Pandemic kids can get on board with that concept too. Kozik’s now-7-year-old son was a toddler when the pandemic began; even amid society’s hygiene craze, he learned the joys of tumbling around in the dirt and playing with the family’s two dogs. “We talk about how not all germs are the same,” Kozik told me. Her son also picked up and maintained an infection-quashing habit that makes his mom proud: Every day, when he comes home from school, he makes a beeline for the sink to wash his hands. “It’s the first thing he does,” Kozik told me, “even without being asked.”

    [ad_2]

    Katherine J. Wu

    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