Categories
Health

A Vaccine Aspect Impact Leaves Ladies Questioning: Why Isn’t the Capsule Safer?

Last month, as the Food and Drug Administration paused use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine to evaluate the risk of blood clots in women under 50, many scientists noted that clots associated with birth control pills were much more common.

The comparison was intended to reassure women of the vaccine’s safety. Instead, it has stoked anger in some quarters — not about the pause, but about the fact that most contraceptives available to women are hundreds of times riskier, and yet safer alternatives are not in sight.

The clots linked to the vaccine were a dangerous type in the brain, while birth control pills increase the chances of a blood clot in the leg or lung — a point quickly noted by many experts. But the distinction made little difference to some women.

“Where was everyone’s concern for blood clots when we started putting 14-year-old girls on the pill,” one woman wrote on Twitter.

Another said, “If birth control was made for men it’d taste like bacon and be free.”

Some women heard, on social media and elsewhere, that they should not complain because they had chosen to take birth control knowing the risks involved. “That just made me double down,” said Mia Brett, an expert in legal history focused on race and sexuality. “This is such a common response to women’s health care — that we point out something and it’s dismissed.”

The torrent of fury online was familiar to experts in women’s health. “They should be angry — women’s health just does not get equal attention,” said Dr. Eve Feinberg, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at Northwestern University. “There’s a huge sex bias in all of medicine.”

Dr. Feinberg and many of the women online acknowledge that contraceptives have given women control over their fertility, and the benefits far exceed the harms. Rebecca Fishbein, a 31-year-old culture writer, started tweeting about the inadequacy of birth control pills almost immediately after the announcement of the pause.

Still, “birth control is an incredible invention, thank God we have it,” she said last month in an interview. “I’ll fight anyone who tried to take it away.”

Contraceptives have also improved over the years, with intrauterine devices and oral options that offer an ultralow dose of estrogen. “Over all, it’s incredibly safe,” Dr. Feinberg said. “Everything that we do has risks.”

But Dr. Feinberg said it was crucial for health care providers to discuss the risks with their patients and coach them on worrisome symptoms — a conversation many women said they had never had.

Kelly Tyrrell, a communications professional in Madison, Wis., was 37 when doctors discovered potentially fatal blood clots in her lungs.

Ms. Tyrrell is an endurance athlete — wiry, strong and not prone to anxiety. In early 2019, she began waking up with a pain in her left calf. After one particularly bad morning, an urgent care visit revealed that she had high blood levels of “D dimer,” a protein fragment that indicates the presence of clots.

She had been taking birth control pills for 25 years, but none of the doctors made a connection. Instead, they said that given her age, fitness and the lack of other risk factors, her symptoms were unlikely to be from a blood clot. They sent her home with instructions to do stretches for her calf muscle.

When she felt a tightness in her chest while running in Hawaii after her grandmother’s funeral, doctors said the cause was probably stress and anxiety. In July 2019, she finished a 100K race in Colorado and assumed her aching lungs and purple lips were the result of running for 19 hours at a high altitude.

But she knew something was seriously wrong on the morning of Oct. 24, 2019, when she became short of breath after walking up a short flight of stairs.

This time, after ruling out heart problems, doctors scanned her lungs and discovered multiple clots. One had cut off blood flow to a portion of her right lung.

“I instantly burst into tears,” Ms. Tyrrell recalled. The doctors put her on a course of blood thinners — and told her never to touch estrogen again. Ms. Tyrrell switched to a copper IUD. Over time, she added, the incident had escalated into a sharp rage that was renewed by the Johnson & Johnson news.

“Part of my anger was that a medication that I took to control my fertility ended up threatening my mortality,” she said. “I’m angry that I hadn’t been counseled better about that risk, or even what to look for.”

Emily Farris, 36, was prescribed oral contraceptives at age 18 to help with migraines. In all of the conversations she has had with her many doctors over the years, “never once was blood clots brought up,” she said in an interview.

On Twitter, some critics pointed out that the inserts with birth control packs clearly describe the blood clot risk. “My response is a bit incredulous to that,” said Dr. Farris, a political scientist at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth.

The inserts for most medications have a long list of possible side effects, placing “a high burden for folks to try to sort through medical research, to sort through what probability and statistics mean,” she said.

Even with a Ph.D.-level education, “I can’t assess those risks,” Dr. Farris added. “I think most Americans need someone to translate what the legalese kind of pamphlet is into real terms.”

For Ms. Tyrrell, that elucidation came much too late. Her lungs have not felt the same since her diagnosis, but she is not sure whether that is because of lingering damage from a previous blood clot, new clots that she should be worried about or simply her age, she said, adding, “It’s never not on my mind anymore.”

Categories
Business

MIT researchers say you are no safer from Covid indoors at 6 toes or 60 toes in new research

Customers dine at Picos Restaurant, which was threatened after the announcement of its continued need for masks as the state of Texas prepares to lift its mask mandate and shut down business during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Houston, Texas to fully expand again. March 9, 2021.

Callaghan O’Hare | Reuters

The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is just as high at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet – even when wearing a mask. So, according to a new study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who are questioning the social distancing guidelines adopted around the world.

MIT Professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John WM Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating the risk of exposure to Covid-19 indoors that takes into account a variety of issues that have an impact could be transmission, including time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking, or singing.

Bazant and Bush question the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s long-standing Covid-19 guidelines and the World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States earlier this week has been.

“We don’t think the 6-foot rule is of much use, especially when people are wearing masks,” Bazant said in an interview. “It really has no physical foundation as the air a person breathes while wearing a mask tends to rise and fall elsewhere in the room, leaving you more exposed to the average background than a person in the distance.”

The important variable that the CDC and WHO have overlooked is the amount of time they spend indoors, Bazant said. The longer someone is in the house with an infected person, the greater the chance of transmission, he said.

Opening windows or installing new fans to keep the air moving could be just as effective or more effective than spending large sums of money on a new filtration system, he said.

Bazant also says the guidelines for enforcing indoor occupancy limits are flawed. He said that 20 people gathered for 1 minute is probably fine, but not over several hours, he said.

“Our analysis also shows that many rooms that have actually been closed do not have to be closed. Often the room is big enough, the ventilation is good enough, the time people spend together is so big rooms can be even at full capacity safely operated, and the scientific support for reduced capacity in these rooms really isn’t very good, “Bazant said. “I think if you enter the numbers, even now, for many types of rooms, you will find that no occupancy restrictions are required.”

Six feet of social distancing rules accidentally leading to closed businesses and schools are “just not sensible,” according to Bazant.

“That emphasis on distancing was really misplaced from the start. The CDC or the WHO never really provided a justification for it. They just said that this is what you have to do, and the only justification I know of is based on coughing and sneezing studies that look at the largest particles that could settle on the floor, and even if it’s very approximate, you can certainly have large droplets of greater or shorter range, “said Bazant.

“The distancing doesn’t help you that much and also gives you a false sense of security because you’re just as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet when you’re inside. Everyone in this room is about the same risk actually,” he noted.

Droplets laced with pathogens move through the air indoors when people are talking, breathing, or eating. Airborne transmission is now known to play a huge role in the spread of Covid-19 compared to the earlier months of the pandemic when hand washing was seen as the top recommendation to avoid transmission.

These droplets from the warm exhalation mix with body heat and air currents in the area and rise and travel across the room, no matter how socially distant a person is. According to the study, people seem to be more exposed to this “background air” than distant droplets.

For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 wears a mask and sings loudly in an enclosed room, a person sitting on the other side of the room is no better protected than someone just three feet from the infected person sitting person. Because of this, the time you spend in the confined area is more important than the distance from the infected person.

Masks generally prevent transmission by blocking larger droplets. Therefore, larger droplets don’t make up the majority of Covid infections as most people wear masks. The majority of people who transmit Covid do not cough or sneeze, they are asymptomatic.

Masks also prevent transmission indoors by blocking direct clouds of air. The best way to see this is when someone is exhaling smoke. Continuous exposure to direct infectious air plumes would result in a higher risk of transmission, although exposure to direct air plumes usually does not last long.

Even with masks on, such as when smoking, those in the vicinity are severely affected by the second-hand smoke that moves and lingers around the enclosed area. The same logic applies to infectious droplets in the air, according to the study. Indoors and when masked, factors besides distance can be more important to avoid transmission.

As for outdoor social distancing, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing it with your masks on is “kind of crazy”.

“When you look at the flow of air outside, the infected air is swept away and is very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded cases of outdoor transmission.” he said. “Crowded outdoor spaces could be a problem, but if people keep a reasonable distance of about 3 feet outside, I feel pretty comfortable with it even without masks.”

According to Bazant, this could possibly explain why states like Texas or Florida, where companies reopened with no capacity constraints, had no transmission spikes.

For variant strains that are 60% more transmissible, increasing ventilation by 60%, reducing the time spent indoors, or limiting the number of people indoors could offset this risk.

Bazant also said a big question will be when to remove masks and that the study’s guidelines can help quantify the risks involved. He also noted that measuring carbon dioxide in a room can also help quantify how much infected air there is, and therefore the risk of transmission.

“We need scientific information that is conveyed to the public in a way that is not only frightening but actually based on analysis,” said Bazant. After three rounds of intense peer reviews, he said it was the most review he had ever been through and he hoped it will influence policy now that it is released.

Categories
Health

Faculties vowed a safer spring, however then college students, and variants, arrived.

With nearly a year of coronavirus experience, executives at many universities across the United States have ushered in the new phrase of pledging not to repeat the mistakes of last year as infection rates rose at the sites and in the surrounding communities.

While most schools have committed to increasing the number of tests, it is an expensive proposition at a time when many are struggling financially and not all students test as often as recommended by public health experts.

Plans to keep the virus under control, for example at the University of Michigan, which had more than 2,500 confirmed cases by the end of the fall semester, included increasing testing, more online classes, restricting dorms to one inmate, and offering none Tolerance for rule violations. The school has announced more than 1,000 new virus cases since January 1.

Other universities across the country have also encountered obstacles to a smooth springtime, including the unexpected challenge of emerging variants that have been held in recent days at the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Miami, Tulane University in New Orleans, and the University of California were discovered. Berkeley – and the more common problem of unruly students.

At Vanderbilt University in Nashville, students returning after the winter break had to be tested on arrival and were then asked to avoid social interactions while waiting for results. But some had other ideas.

“We have identified a group of positive Covid-19 cases associated with students who do not adhere to the rules for arriving on site,” reported a campus-wide email on January 23, in which two student organizations for the violation of protocols was held responsible. “More than 100 students are now in quarantine.”

The foundation of most spring semester university plans is on reinforced testing to identify infected students before they show symptoms and then place them in isolation. The test spike has increased since July, when a study recommended testing students twice a week to better identify asymptomatic infections.

The American College Health Association later adopted the idea and issued guidelines in December. “For spring, we strongly recommend that all students be tested on arrival and twice a week if possible thereafter,” said Gerri Taylor, co-chair of the organization’s Covid-19 task force.

Ms. Taylor said her organization didn’t know what percentage of schools had accepted the recommendations, and a survey of colleges across the country found a variety of requirements ranging from voluntary testing to mandatory testing twice a week.