Tag: Study

Categories
Health

Lots of Reported Irregular Menstruation After Publicity to Tear Gasoline, Examine Finds

Hundreds Reported Abnormal Menstruation After Exposure to Tear Gas, Study Finds

At some point last summer there were just too many reports of protesters having abnormal menstrual cycles after exposure to tear gas for Britta Torgrimson-Ojerio, a nurse researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, to dismiss them as a coincidence.

A preschool teacher told Oregon Public Broadasting that if she inhaled a significant amount of gasoline at night, she would get her period the next morning. Other Portland residents spoke of weeks of periods and unusual spots. Transgender men described sudden periods defying hormones that had kept menstruation in check for months or years.

Dr. Torgrimson-Ojerio decided that she would try to find out if these anecdotes were outliers or representatives of a more common phenomenon. She interviewed around 2,200 adults who said they had been exposed to tear gas in Portland last summer. In a study published this week in the journal BMC Public Health, she reported that 899 of them – more than 54 percent of those who may be menstruating – said they had experienced abnormal menstrual cycles.

“Even though we can’t say anything scientifically specific about these chemical agents and a causal relationship with menstrual disorders,” said Dr. Torgrimson-Ojerio, “We can definitely say that in our study, most people with menstrual cycles or a uterus reported menstrual irregularities.” after reporting exposure to tear gas. “

Downstream effects such as fertility effects are not known, but “this is our call to action to ask our scientific community to address this issue,” she said.

Dr. Torgrimson-Ojerio was also interested in whether people had other problems more than a few hours after exposure to tear gas. She found that 80 percent of respondents had difficulty breathing, which was one of the most common complaints.

Kira Taylor, a professor of epidemiology and population health in the University of Louisville’s School of Public Health and Information Sciences who is doing a similar study, said Dr. Torgrimson-Ojerio’s study provided “some of the first solid evidence” for tear gas to be associated with menstrual disorders. It is also “the first study to document the longer-term effects of tear gas exposure in a large population,” she said.

Sven-Eric Jordt, Professor of Anaesthesiology, Pharmacology and Cancer Biology at Duke University Medical School, who was not involved in the study, welcomed the work.

Most of the research that police and government use to educate them about tear gas safety “are out of date, often 50 to 70 years old, and inconsistent with modern toxicological approaches,” he said. “Most of these studies were conducted on young healthy men at the time, either in the police or the military, rather than women or a general civilian population representing protesters.”

Dr. Torgrimson-Ojerio and her colleagues recruited respondents through social media and links on The Oregonian and Oregon Health Authority websites in July and August.

The researchers asked participants to explain exactly how their periods had affected after exposure to tear gas. Increased cramps, unusual spotting, and unusually intense or prolonged bleeding were the most common reactions. A number of people who normally don’t have periods because of hormone therapy or age have reported unexpected bleeding and blotches, said Dr. Torgrimson-Ojerio.

This study has limitations. It is not a random sample.

“It is possible that people who felt that their health was harmed by tear gas were more likely to react than people who were also exposed but did not have such harmful effects,” said Dr. Taylor. “This means that some of the numbers may be exaggerated.”

Because the subjects were allowed to participate anonymously, the researchers were unable to verify their accounts.

Nor can the study answer how or why tear gas may contribute to menstrual disorders, or the extent to which other factors are involved. The authors acknowledge that, for example, the high levels of stress and anxiety among protesters may also have contributed to the physical response.

“It is possible that pain, stress, dehydration, and exertion play a role,” said Dr. Jordt. Alternatively, tear gas can act as an “endocrine disruptor” and impair normal hormone function.

“The tear gas agent CS, which is sometimes used by the police, is a chlorinated chemical compound and creates additional chlorinated by-products when burned in the canisters used by the police,” he said. “Exposure to chlorinated chemicals can affect menstrual health.”

Alexander Samuel, a molecular biologist in France, has been researching similar issues since French protesters began reporting menstrual disorders.

He mentioned two additional areas for research: whether tear gas is metabolized to cyanide, which can lead to heavy menstrual bleeding, and what role a traumatic event can play in changing menstrual cycles.

Suspicions of tear gas and menstruation arose more than a decade ago during the Arab Spring protests, noted Dr. Jordt firmly.

In 2011, Chile also banned the use of tear gas after a study found that CS gas could cause miscarriages and harm young children. Three days later, Chilean police lifted the ban and insisted that the type of tear gas used was completely safe.

Categories
Health

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 94 % efficient at stopping hospitalization in older adults, a examine finds.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 94 percent effective at preventing hospitalization in older adults, a study finds.

Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna coronavirus vaccines prevent 94 percent hospitalization of fully vaccinated adults aged 65 and over, according to a small study published Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The results, which are in line with clinical trial results, are the first real evidence from the US that the vaccines protect against severe Covid-19. Older adults are at the highest risk of being hospitalized and dying from the disease. More than 573,000 people have died from the virus across the country, according to a New York Times database. As of Wednesday, 142.7 million people had received at least one dose of one of three federally approved vaccines, including about 98 million people who were fully vaccinated.

“These results are encouraging and welcome news for two-thirds of people 65 and older who are already fully vaccinated,” said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, in a statement. “Covid-19 vaccines are highly effective and these real world results confirm the benefits of clinical trials preventing hospitalizations among the most vulnerable.”

The study is based on data from 417 patients enrolled in 24 hospitals in 14 states between January 1 and March 26. About half were 75 years or older.

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two shots three to four weeks apart. Older adults who were partially vaccinated – that is, received a dose of the vaccine more than two weeks earlier – were 64 percent less likely to be hospitalized with the coronavirus than unvaccinated seniors, the researchers reported.

The vaccines did not reduce hospitalization rates in people who received their first dose less than two weeks earlier. It takes time for the body to build an effective immune response, and people are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after the last dose in the series.

“This also underscores the persistent risk of serious illness shortly after vaccination, before a protective immune response has been achieved, and increases the need for vaccinated adults to continue physical distancing and prevention behaviors,” the scientists wrote.

Categories
Health

Food plan and Train Throughout Being pregnant Impacts Little one’s Well being, Examine Says

Diet and Exercise During Pregnancy Impacts Child’s Health, Study Says

For the new study, which was published in the Journal of Applied Physiology in March, scientists from the University of Virginia Medical School and other institutions first gathered a large group of mice. Some of the males and females were allowed to eat high-fat and high-calorie diets, which led to obesity and metabolic problems, while others stayed at their usual weight on normal food.

Next, the mice teamed up with obese animals of both sexes, which mated with mice of normal weight, so theoretically one parent in each mating could leave the young with unhealthy habits and metabolism. Some normal weight animals without metabolic problems also mated to produce control offspring.

Finally, some mothers, including the obese, jogged on small exercise bikes during the resulting pregnancies, voluntarily walking up to seven miles a week in the early stages of their three-week pregnancy.

The researchers then tracked the metabolic health and underlying genetic activity of the offspring until they reached adulthood. This second generation ate normal food and lived normal lives with laboratory mice.

However, many developed several metabolic problems as adults, including obesity, insulin resistance, and other disorders of their blood sugar control. These conditions were most pronounced in male children of obese mothers and in both male and female children born to obese fathers.

Interestingly, the underlying genetics of their conditions differed according to the gender of the parents. Mice born to obese mothers showed unusual activity in a number of genes known to be involved in inflammation. Those born to obese fathers did not.

In other words, the genetic inheritance of mothers and fathers “works in different biological ways,” says Zhen Yan, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Skeletal Muscle Research at the University of Virginia Medical School, who oversaw the new study.

Categories
Health

Single dose cuts an infection charge by 65%, examine finds

Single dose cuts infection rate by 65%, study finds

James Shaw, 82, receives Oxford University / AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine from advanced nurse Justine Williams on January 4, 2021 at Lochee Health Center in Dundee, Scotland, UK.

Andy Buchanan | Reuters

LONDON – A single dose of the Covid-19 vaccine from Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech drastically reduces the risk of infection in adults of all ages, British researchers have found.

Two studies published on Friday analyzed more than 1.6 million nasal and throat swabs from 373,402 people between December and April. The data was collected as part of the ongoing Covid-19 infection survey carried out by Oxford University, the UK Office for National Statistics and the UK Department of Health and Welfare.

The researchers found that 21 days after a single dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, new Covid infections – both symptomatic and asymptomatic – had decreased by 65%.

Symptomatic infections decreased by 74% three weeks after a single dose of either vaccine, while asymptomatic cases decreased by 57%, the data showed.

A second dose of vaccine reduced the overall infection rate by 70%, reducing symptomatic Covid infections by 90% and asymptomatic cases of the virus by 49%.

The researchers compared these effects to the natural immunity obtained from infection with the virus.

However, they warned that the fact that vaccinated people could still be infected – even if those infections were mostly asymptomatic – meant “transmission possible”.

The study found that vaccines had a similar effect in reducing infection rates in adults of all ages. Their ability to reduce infection was also similar, regardless of whether the participants had long-term health conditions or not.

What about antibody resistance?

The scientists also looked at the effects of Covid vaccinations on participants’ antibody levels.

They found that older adults – especially those over 60 – who had never been infected with Covid had a lower immune response to a single dose of vaccine than those who had previously been infected with the virus.

Antibody responses to two doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine were high in all age groups. The data showed that older adults were able to achieve antibody levels similar to those who received a vaccine dose after a previous Covid infection.

Too few people in the UK had received two doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine for researchers to assess the effects on antibody response. However, it was found that immune responses to a first dose differed between the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine.

Antibody levels rose more slowly after a single dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine than after the Pfizer-BioNTech alternative. However, after a dose of the latter, antibody levels fell more rapidly, especially in older adults, so patients achieved antibody levels similar to those seen after an initial dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

Although immune responses differed between age groups, the scientists emphasized that there was no group that did not respond to either vaccine. However, a small number of people – less than 5% – had poor immune responses to both vaccines.

Important to get the second dose

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been approved for use in the UK, India and several other countries, but has been temporarily suspended in some markets amid concerns that it could be linked to rare blood clots. Global health officials have stated that the benefits of giving the vaccine continue to outweigh the risks.

The WHO recommends an interval of eight to 12 weeks between the first and second dose of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.

The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine is also given in several countries, including the United States. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends receiving a second dose of the vaccine three weeks after the first.

In February, the UK started a study to see if mixing doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines could be effective.

Sarah Walker, professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at Oxford University and chief investigator and academic director of the Covid-19 infection survey, said Friday that scientists are still not sure how strong and how long an antibody response is. was needed for long-term protection against Covid.

David Eyre, associate professor at Oxford University’s Big Data Institute, added that the results released on Friday highlighted the importance of a second dose of vaccine for increased protection.

Categories
Business

CDC recommends pregnant ladies get Covid vaccine after examine reveals it is secure

CDC recommends pregnant women get Covid vaccine after study shows it's safe

A health worker doses the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine to a pregnant woman on January 23, 2021 at Clalit Health Services in the Israeli Mediterranean coastal city of Tel Aviv.

Jack Guez | AFP | Getty Images

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend Covid-19 shots for pregnant women after preliminary data from the largest study of coronavirus vaccine use in expectant mothers showed that Pfizer and Moderna shocks were effective for both women and men are safe for their babies.

The researchers did not find “obvious safety signals” in any of the 35,691 women followed in the peer-reviewed study published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. The data used in the study were self-reported and the ages of the participants ranged from 16 to 54 years.

“No safety concerns for third trimester vaccinees or safety concerns for their babies were observed,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky on Friday. “Therefore, CDC recommends pregnant people to receive Covid-19 vaccines.”

Researchers used the V-Safe Post-Vaccination Health Checker monitoring system, the V-Safe Pregnancy Register, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to characterize the initial safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant women.

Pregnant women were more likely to report injection site pain than those who weren’t, but fewer other side effects such as headache, myalgia, chills, and fever. Of the 827 participants who completed their pregnancies, the miscarriage rates were the same as before the pandemic.

The results are preliminary and only cover the first 11 weeks of the US vaccine rollout from December 14th to February 28th.

Pregnant women are more likely to be hospitalized and have a higher risk of death if they become infected with Covid-19. According to CDC data, vaccination is particularly important for this population group. Pharmaceutical companies have not included pregnant women in early efficacy and safety studies, but recent studies suggest that the vaccines are safe for them.

The researchers said “more longitudinal research, including tracking large numbers of women who were vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is needed to inform mother, pregnancy and child results.”

Categories
Health

Research Finds Many With Delicate Covid Have New Illnesses Months Later

Study Finds Many With Mild Covid Have New Ailments Months Later

Most adults who test positive for the coronavirus do not need to be hospitalized, but usually seek medical help in the months that follow. Two-thirds of those who do this develop a state of health that they did not have before.

These are the findings of a study conducted by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente, which included approximately 3,171 members of the Kaiser Permanente Georgia Integrated Health System. More than half were black.

The message for patients is that even with mild Covid-19, “months after initial diagnosis, new or persistent symptoms may appear,” said Dr. Alfonso C. Hernandez-Romieu, Infectious Disease Specialist at the CDC and the lead author of the study. “And it’s important that people make sure they see their doctors,” he said to express their concerns.

“It is equally important,” he added, “that clinicians recognize that there can be these long-term effects and really make sure that they validate patients, treat them with empathy, and try to do their best to help them.”

Doctors need to monitor patients for Covid-19-related complications that can be very serious, such as blood clots, he said.

The study did not compare patients who tested positive for the coronavirus with patients who did not. As a result, the authors couldn’t tell whether people who recovered from mild Covid-19 cases made more doctor visits than those who never had the virus.

However, two-thirds of patients with mild illness sought medical help one to six months after their Covid-19 diagnosis, and about two-thirds of patients seeking treatment were diagnosed with an entirely new condition. The new diagnoses included cough, shortness of breath, heart rate disturbances, chest or throat pain, and fatigue, “which are likely to be persistent Covid-19 symptoms,” the study said.

Those who received more medical attention included adults ages 50 and older, women, and those with underlying health conditions. Black adults were also slightly more likely to seek care than others. Overall, however, the authors found that the number of visits decreased over time.

The potential for long-term complications, even after a mild course of the disease, underscores the need for preventive measures and vaccinations, said Dr. Hernandez-Romieu.

“There’s a lot we don’t know about post-Covid conditions,” he said. “Even if the majority of people don’t have severe Covid or end up in hospital, the potential for long-term health effects is really important.”

Categories
Health

A brand new research hints at a purpose the J.&J. and AstraZeneca vaccines could trigger blood clots in uncommon circumstances.

A new study hints at a reason the J.&J. and AstraZeneca vaccines may cause blood clots in rare cases.

An advisory group from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine hiatus be lifted for all adults while also putting up a warning sign about a rare but dangerous blood clot disorder. However, a central mystery remains: how could a vaccine given to nearly eight million people cause the side effect in just a few of them?

There’s no clear answer yet, but Dr. Andreas Greinacher, a researcher at the University Medical Center Greifswald in Germany, leads an attempt to find out. Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, he said he had an agreement with Johnson & Johnson to study the components of the vaccine to see if it could interfere with normal blood clotting under certain rare conditions.

“We just agreed that we’d like to work together,” he said.

It is possible, said Dr. Greinacher that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine can cause rare side effects through the same process that he suspects is responsible for similar side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. The main component of both vaccines are harmless viruses called adenoviruses, which invade human cells and deliver a coronavirus gene that later triggers an immune response.

On Tuesday, Dr. Greinacher and his colleagues published a report on how the AstraZeneca vaccines can trigger the side effect. The study has not yet been published in a scientific journal.

The scientists found that components of the AstraZeneca vaccine can adhere to a protein that releases platelets when blood clots form. These lumps of molecules could be viewed by the body as foreign invaders, the scientists speculated, triggering a cascade of reactions that turn platelets into dangerous clots.

Dr. Paul A. Offit, a vaccines expert at Philadelphia Children’s Hospital who was not involved in the study, found Dr. Greinacher fascinating, but far from the final word. “It throws a lot of opportunities,” he said.

Dr. Offit said it was not clear which of the many factors the researchers looked at could explain the rare blood clots in people vaccinated with AstraZeneca’s doses. “It’s like taking a sip from a fire hose,” he said.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Dr. Greinacher said the research could reveal ways the AstraZeneca vaccine can lower the risk of blood clots or treat the side effects. However, he stressed that the small risk of these side effects was outweighed by the protection that vaccines like AstraZeneca offer against Covid-19.

“Not being vaccinated is far more dangerous than being vaccinated and at risk for this adverse drug reaction,” he said.

Categories
Business

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

MIT researchers say you're no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study

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

Empty Center Seats on Planes Reduce Coronavirus Danger in Examine

Empty Middle Seats on Planes Cut Coronavirus Risk in Study

Leaving the center seats vacant during a flight could reduce passenger exposure to coronavirus in the air by 23 to 57 percent. This is what researchers reported in a new study that modeled how aerosolized virus particles spread in a simulated aircraft cabin.

“Next is always better in terms of exposure,” said Byron Jones, a mechanical engineer at Kansas Sate University and co-author of the study. “It’s true in airplanes, it’s true in cinemas, it’s true in restaurants, it’s true everywhere.”

However, the study may have overestimated the benefits of having empty center seats by ignoring the wearing of masks by passengers.

“It’s important for us to know how aerosols spread in airplanes,” said Joseph Allen, a ventilation expert at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health who was not involved in the study. But he added, “I am surprised that this analysis is now being published and it makes a big statement that the center seats should be left open as a risk mitigation approach if the model does not take into account the effects of masking. We know that masking is the most effective measure to reduce emissions from inhalation aerosols. “

Although scientists have documented several cases of coronavirus transmission on airplanes, airplane cabins are generally low risk environments as they tend to have excellent ventilation and filtration.

Still, concerns about the risk of air travel have swirled since the pandemic began. Planes are tight environments, and full flights make social distancing impossible. As a precaution, some airlines have started keeping the center seats free.

The new paper, published Wednesday in the Weekly Report on Morbidity and Mortality, is based on data collected at Kansas State University in 2017. In this study, the researchers sprayed a harmless aerosol virus through two mock aircraft cabins. (One was a five-row section of an actual single-aisle aircraft, the other a model of a wide-bodied double-aisle aircraft.) The researchers then monitored how the virus spread in each cabin.

For the new study, researchers from the state of Kansas and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used the 2017 data to model how passenger exposure to a virus in the air would change if each middle seat was in one 20-row entrance cabin would remain open.

Depending on the specific modeling approach and the parameters used, keeping the middle seats empty reduced the overall load on the passengers in the simulation by 23 to 57 percent compared to a fully occupied flight.

“Some airlines have been working with a vacant seat policy and this study supports the effectiveness of this intervention in conjunction with other existing measures,” a CDC spokesman said in a statement emailed.

This reduction in risk resulted from increasing the distance between an infectious passenger and others, as well as reducing the total number of people in the cabin, reducing the likelihood that an infectious passenger would be on board at all.

The laboratory experiments on the spread of viruses in aircraft cabins were conducted several years before the current pandemic began and did not take into account any protection that wearing masks could provide.

Masking would reduce the amount of virus infectious passengers release into cabin air and would likely reduce the relative benefit of keeping the center seats open, said Dr. All.

Dr. Jones agreed. “In general, I would think that wearing a mask would make this effect a lot less pronounced,” he said. He also noted that mere exposure to the virus does not mean that anyone will be infected by it.

“To what extent a reduction in exposure could reduce the risk of transmission is not yet known,” said the CDC spokesman.

The cost-benefit analysis is difficult for airlines. However, from a purely health perspective, keeping the center seats open would be helpful to create a buffer between an infectious person and others nearby, according to Alex Huffman, an aerosol scientist at the University of Denver who was not involved in the study . “Removal is important, both for aerosols and for droplets,” he said.

Categories
Health

Sleeping Too Little in Center-Age Might Increase Dementia Threat, Examine Finds

Sleeping Too Little in Middle-Age May Raise Dementia Risk, Study Finds

The correlation was also whether or not people were taking sleeping pills and whether or not they had a mutation called ApoE4, which increases the likelihood of people developing Alzheimer’s disease, said Dr. Sabia.

The researchers did not find a general difference between men and women.

“The study found a modest, but I would say, somewhat important link between short sleep and risk of dementia,” said Pamela Lutsey, an adjunct professor of epidemiology and community health at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the research. “Short sleep is very common and can therefore be important on a societal level, even if it is only marginally linked to the risk of dementia. Short sleep is something that we are in control of and that you can change. “

As with other research in the field, however, the study had limitations that prevent it from being proven that inadequate sleep can lead to dementia. Most of the sleep data was self-reported, a subjective measurement that isn’t always accurate, experts said.

At one point, nearly 4,000 participants had sleep duration measured with accelerometers, and that data was consistent with their self-reported sleep times, the researchers said. However, this quantitative measurement came late in the study, when participants were around 69 years old, which made it less useful than if it had been obtained at a younger age.

In addition, most of the participants were white and better educated and healthier than the entire UK population. And when researchers rely on electronic health records to diagnose dementia, they may have missed some cases. They also couldn’t identify the exact types of dementia.

“It is always difficult to know what to draw from such studies,” wrote Robert Howard, professor of geriatric psychiatry at University College London, one of several experts who gave Nature Communications comments on the study. “Insomnia – which probably doesn’t need anything else to think about in bed,” he added, “shouldn’t worry about heading for dementia unless you fall asleep right away.”

There are compelling scientific theories about why not getting enough sleep could worsen your risk of dementia, especially Alzheimer’s. Studies have shown that cerebrospinal fluid amyloid, a protein that clumps up in plaques in Alzheimer’s disease, “increases when you are sleep deprived,” said Dr. Music. Other studies on amyloid and another Alzheimer’s protein, tau, suggest that “sleep is important in removing proteins from the brain or limiting production,” he said.