Social media: Benefits vs. negative impact

Over the last 20 years, social media has risen from relative obscurity to become a fully accepted and integrated part of everyday life. However, despite social media’s ubiquity, the research on how it affects mental health remains inconclusive.

Share on Pinterest
What do we really know about social media and mental health? Image credit: Colin Anderson/Stocksy.

So far, most research investigating the effects of social media on mental health has focused on the potential negative aspects.

For instance, a 2019 study involving 6,595 teenagers from the United States concludes that those who spend more than 3 hours per day on social media may have a higher risk of mental health problems than those who do not.

But the degree to which social media actually harms mental health is debatable. A recent review, available as a preprint, found that most studies investigating the link between social media and mental health demonstrate “weak” or “inconsistent” associations.

Another review found that while there may be a small negative association between social media use and mental health, the link is complex and depends on exactly how researchers define mental health and social media use.

Meanwhile, other research suggests that social media may even benefit mental health, especially for people belonging to LGBTQIA+ communities and those living with mental health conditions.

These conflicting findings make it challenging to navigate the research investigating the effects of social media on mental health and how best to use social media. With this in mind, Medical News Today sought the input of seven psychology experts at the intersection of social media and mental health.

“One promising area of research is the role of online peer networks, where it appears that connecting online with others who share similar mental health challenges can offer important benefits for feeling less alone, learning coping skills, and being able to offer/receive emotional or informational support from others,” Dr. John Naslund, Ph.D., an instructor in global health and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, told MNT.

Dr. Niklas Johannes, a postdoctoral researcher in the Adolescent Well-Being in the Digital Age program at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, agreed that social media might be linked to some mental health benefits. However, he added that more research is necessary to confirm the direction in which this connection lies.

“There’s a lot of research out there that suggests social media are a useful tool to stay connected to others. In fact, those who use social media more also report feeling more social support. However, all of this comes with a huge caveat: We simply don’t know about cause and effect. It’s just as plausible that heavy social media users make more friends or that those with a lot of friends use more social media. It’s also plausible that both are true,” he explained.

Other research suggests that “how” a person uses social media rather than “how much” may have a stronger association with mental health outcomes.

“There is evidence that routine social media use in the general population is positively associated with mental health and social well-being, as long as one is not ’emotionally invested’ in the media, in which case the outcomes are negative,” Dan-Mircea Mirea, a Ph.D. student in psychology and project coordinator at Mental Health for Romania, told MNT.

Dr. Gonneke Stevens, associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, agreed that “emotional investment” in social media use may be more indicative of mental health outcomes than how much a person uses it.

“[O]ur research suggests that not so much the intense use of social media, but social media use problems — that is, addiction-like symptoms such as feeling bad when social media use is restricted, loss of control over and preoccupation with social media, and conflicts with others because of the social media use — are associated with mental health problems.”

– Dr. Gonneke Stevens

“Indeed, we found that social media use problems predicted increases in mental health problems 1 year later — this was true for both depressive symptoms and ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] symptoms,” she added.

“For children and teens, I think the most compelling evidence is the research regarding cyberbullying on social media,” said Dr. Kya Barounis, a senior mental health researcher at the University of California, San Diego. “Cyberbullying is associated with symptoms of depression and suicidality. It may be a particular problem for youth who identify as sexual or gender minorities.”

Dr. Barounis also noted that social media use could displace other behaviors, such as sleep and exercise, which are “important for maintaining good mental health.” Researchers study this process through what is known as “displacement theory.”

To give an example, she said:“If a youth is staying up late each night on social media and not getting enough sleep, the lack of sleep can lead to feelings of irritability or depressed mood the next day.”

She cautioned, however, that this does not mean that social media use causes mental health conditions, noting that the relationship between chronic sleep problems and clinical depression in youth is complicated.

Dr. Naslund agreed that social media can perpetuate “targeted hate from others” or cyberbullying, which can have a negative effect.

He added that although research related to social media and mental health is generally mixed, “exposure to hateful content online — such as viewing or being targeted by derogatory content targeting race, ethnicity, or gender — is associated with poorer mental health and feelings of distress.”

Beyond the risk of cyberbullying and exposure to hate content, others say that it is important to interpret with caution any studies related to more generalized social media use because they are often based on unreliable data.

“There are multiple observational studies that find that social media use is negatively associated with mental health,” said Mirea.

“However,” he added, “there are also studies looking at similar datasets, or sometimes the same dataset with different methods, that find no effect. One study found only small negative associations between mental health and using digital/electronic technologies, including social media — about as large as regularly eating potatoes!”

“It seems that the conclusions are very much affected by how researchers analyze their data, which makes it hard to draw a concrete conclusion about to what extent social media has negative effects on mental health. A plausible explanation for these unclear findings is that social media use affects some people more and others less.”

– Dan-Mircea Mirea

To give an example of how difficult it can be to interpret studies on the mental health effects of social media, Dr. Craig Sewall, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pittsburgh, told MNT:

“The strongest evidence indicating that social media can have negative effects on mental health — that I am aware of — comes from a randomized experiment that examined the impact of Facebook deactivation on well-being among a large sample of U.S. adults. This study found that, overall, the group that deactivated their Facebook account experienced increased levels of subjective well-being compared with the group that did not.”

“However, there are a couple of important limitations to this study. First, the ‘treatment effect’ — that is, the effect of deactivating Facebook — was very small. Second, the sample of participants was older, so it’s not clear how these results would apply to younger people,” Dr. Sewall noted.

“And, finally, it’s unclear whether the effects observed for deactivating Facebook would be consistent across other social media platforms, as there are many differences between Facebook and TikTok, for example.”

Best to look at the different aspects of social media separately

For some people, it is also difficult to establish whether social media has positive or negative effects on mental health because it is unclear to which platform or platforms the terms “social media” refer.

Dr. Jacob T. Fisher, assistant professor at the Institute of Communications Research and the College of Media at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told MNT:

“I just don’t really know that we have compelling evidence for ‘social media,’ in a general sense, having adverse effects on mental health. ‘Social media,’ as a descriptor, covers a vast range of platforms and services, each of which is very different from one another, enabling and incentivizing very different sorts of behaviors. To add to this, both social media platforms and how people use social media have changed drastically over the years.”

“In this sense,” he said, “trying to define the ‘effect [of] social media on well-being’ is a lot like trying to determine the ‘effect of food on health’ — the question is so broad so as to be essentially unanswerable.”

“In my opinion,” Dr. Fisher added, “a better approach would be to break apart the different features and design decisions that comprise social media platforms — how information is presented, how the algorithm amplifies or suppresses content, the behavioral engineering involved in how a platform solicits (or even demands) our attention — and start to investigate the influence of those things on well-being.”

“A central issue here is that social media platforms refuse to share data that can begin to answer these questions with researchers like my colleagues and me,” he explained.

“There are two completely different stories being told about the effects of social media on well-being,” said Dr. Sewall. “In the popular media — where the vast majority of people get their information on this subject — the story is often some version of ‘social media is bad, especially for younger people.’”

Yet, he cautioned, “[t]he evidence cited in these popular media pieces is often cherry-picked, oversimplified, and overinterpreted — giving the impression to readers that social media causes harm to well-being.”

“On the other hand, in the scientific literature — which has a much smaller, niche readership — the story is much more complicated. The fundamental complexity of the issue combined with a litany of methodological issues and contradictory findings make it difficult, if not impossible, to conclude anything with confidence,” Dr. Sewall added.

“If anything, our best evidence to date suggests that social media does not have a meaningful impact on well-being. However, this story — that it’s very complicated, and there’s a lot we don’t know — does not generate many clicks,” he explained.

Dr. Barounis added that much research on the topic is based on people having symptoms of mental health issues, as opposed to receiving a formal diagnosis. “It’s really important to distinguish between symptoms of mental health problems versus a diagnosis of a mental health problem,” he explained. “One can have a few symptoms without having a full diagnosis. So far, a lot of researchers have examined the relationship between social media use and symptoms of depression or anxiety (as measured on a survey) in typically developing youth.”

“It is a mistake to interpret a positive relationship in these studies’ results as evidence that social media use causes youth to meet all of the criteria for a diagnosis of clinical anxiety or depression. Also, there is a measurement issue. Self-reports of time spent on social media may not be very accurate,” she explained.

To help navigate through exaggerated claims and confusing literature, Mirea recommended four points to bear in mind when looking into the link between social media and mental health:

  1. Follow trustworthy sources (academic journals or trusted outlets): You shouldn’t have to play the detective every time you see a scientific claim. Fortunately, if your sources are reputable, most of the work is being done for you.
  2. Avoid clickbait-sounding headlines: Good reporting would never trade accuracy for the prospect of attracting your attention. Also, be cautious if an article uses words that a scientist (especially one in the social or clinical sciences) would never use — such as that something is “a fact” or that they “proved” something.
  3. Be wary of ideological content [and] your own biases: Ask yourself: “Do I want this to be true, or the opposite?” If so, then be extra careful when assessing the information.
  4. Ask an expert friend, if you have one: If you’re in doubt about the scientific aspects of a claim and you’re not sure how to assess it, think of someone you know that might be able to help (such as someone that majored in that field in college — e.g., biosciences for COVID-19 studies or psychology for mental health studies).

Dr. Barounis recommended that parents or caregivers of children and adolescents “talk with their children about cyberbullying and take steps to address it if it is occurring.”

She further explained: “Parents can also monitor their child’s use to see if it is displacing healthier behaviors, like sleep and exercise. Simple steps, like limiting use before bedtime and charging mobile devices outside the bedroom, can help prevent social media use from disrupting sleep.”

“In terms of the pandemic, parents should remind youth that a lot of their friends and followers on social media may be feeling slightly anxious or depressed during these uncertain times. Youth can support these friends and followers by refraining from posting content that could be misinterpreted in a negative way (i.e., a joking comment in reaction to someone’s post that might come across as mean-spirited) or content that could increase anxiety.”

– Dr. Kya Barounis

Due to a lack of consensus on whether and how social media relates to mental health, some experts say that it is difficult to make specific recommendations.

“Unfortunately, the scientific evidence isn’t strong enough to make specific recommendations,” said Dr. Johannes. “I’d advise, just like with any other activity, to observe what’s good for the user. If I feel like I’m comparing myself with others and it isn’t good for me, then take more breaks and maybe focus on different functions of social media. If I feel lonely and know that going on social media makes me feel connected, go for it. It’s rather obvious advice, I’m afraid.”

For others, using social media with an intention clearly in mind is key to avoiding getting swept up in any of its potentially harmful effects — from wasting time to damaging mental well-being.

“I’d suggest that the best way for people to use social media is to use it intentionally,” said Dr. Fisher. “Like lots of big businesses, social media platforms frequently incentivize mindlessness on the part of their users because it makes it easier for them to make money (both from showing you advertisements and collecting more data about you).”

“Curate who you follow, how much time you spend on the platform(s), etc., and do your best to cultivate a healthy relationship with the platforms you use,” he added.

“Something that is becoming clear from recent studies is that the effects of social media, or certain aspects of social media use, can differ significantly from person to person,” said Dr. Sewall. “So, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach.”

“However, in general, I’d say the best way to use social media is to make sure you are getting out of it what you are intending. That is, if you are intending to use social media as a way to stay connected with others, or as a form of entertainment, or whatever, try to be mindful about whether the way you are using social media in that instance is helping you meet that intention,” he concluded.

Could treating microclots relieve symptoms?

A young person on a comfy chair staring at the ceiling next to a windowShare on Pinterest
New exploration implies that antiplatelet remedy and anticoagulants may well aid take care of people today with extended COVID. Tara Moore/Getty Visuals
  • Experts know minor about the fundamental mechanisms of extensive COVID irrespective of common stories about it since close to the start of the pandemic,
  • This deficiency of information has produced diagnosing and building therapies for this ailment demanding.
  • COVID-19 impacts the lining of the blood vessels, and scientists have investigated whether extensive COVID indicators could have links to this.
  • A team based in South Africa has produced preliminary effects of a treatment method regime making use of antiplatelet remedy and anticoagulants to address individuals with extended COVID.

Extensive COVID describes the long-term and debilitating indicators experienced by persons with COVID-19 that last for additional than 4 weeks just after the resolution of the preliminary infection.

These signs include things like fatigue, shortness of breath and chest ache, cognitive issues, heart palpitations, sleeplessness, tinnitus, and joint suffering.

The Facilities for Sickness Control and Prevention (CDC) has regarded as very long COVID a incapacity due to the fact July 2021.

Most individuals with COVID-19 get much better within 12 months, but scientists do not know how prolonged the issue could very last. Nor do they know accurately how several persons may well acquire lengthy COVID. On the other hand, estimates suggest in excess of 20{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} of people today who take a look at good for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that results in COVID-19, could proceed to knowledge serious indications.

Researchers have tiny comprehending of the mechanisms driving the affliction, which has produced it tough for them to produce treatments.

Very last yr, a workforce from Stellenbosch University in South Africa posted effects of blood plasma examination, which disclosed that a lot of men and women with extensive COVID had microclots.

These microclots were complicated to detect working with conventional plasma investigation methods and resisted the body’s potential to dissolve coagulated blood. The scientists also observed that the clots “trap” inflammatory molecules.

This do the job fashioned the foundation of the so-referred to as microclot design, which proposes that small clots in the blood capillaries that avert oxygen from reaching the tissues may lead to lengthy COVID signs or symptoms.

Now, the identical group has introduced a preprint outlining information of a even more cohort of 845 men and women with extensive COVID.

The team analyzed blood samples from 70 folks with verified extensive COVID to detect microclots.

The authors also outlined a 1-month-very long twin antiplatelet treatment for 24 men and women with long COVID. The therapy involved the contributors having 75 milligrams (mg) of Clopidogrel and 75 mg of Aspirin after every single day ahead of breakfast.

They also acquired 5 mg of the immediate oral anticoagulant Apixiban twice every day and 40 mg each and every working day of a proton pump inhibitor termed Pantoprazole. They took Pantoprazole 50 percent an hour prior to consuming their primary meal to defend the stomach.

The contributors took these medications under demanding medical supervision to mitigate intense side results.

The members furnished a record of indications before and immediately after treatment method, and the scientists took blood samples at the stop of the month of cure.

The team discovered that all 70 individuals experienced microclots in their blood and that all 24 men and women who gained the antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment documented enhancements in their prolonged COVID signs and symptoms they also observed a reduction of microclots.

It is important to notice that the paper has not but been peer-reviewed, it is not a medical demo, and there are no controls.

Prof. Amitava Banerjee, a cardiologist and professor of clinical information science at University University London, is the principal investigator of the Stimulate ICP analyze, which is at the moment looking for moral acceptance for a clinical trial.

The demo will, in component, look at how antihistamines, the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine, and the anticoagulant Rivaroxaban, a drug related to Apixiban, have an affect on men and women with extensive COVID.

He informed Professional medical News Nowadays in an interview:

“I believe we want to see trials of solitary brokers prior to we launch into triple agents. I have a great deal of expertise in cardiology of observing men and women on dual and triple treatment, and folks have a bleeding complication with that. So we have to be truly confident that we’re not causing harm […]. It appears to be a major step in this assessment to go straight to the triple therapy.”

Describing that a person of the challenges with learning extended COVID is that we never understand what the fundamental mechanisms are, he mentioned:

“We only have ‘what ifs.’ We have proof of microclots, […] we have proof of mast cell activation, which is where by the antihistamines fit in we have proof of irritation, which is where by Colchicine fits in. But there is possibly other issues at engage in as very well. So, we require to be both of those defining the disease and developing treatment options at the exact time.”

– Prof. Amitava Banerjee

Dr. Melissa Heightman, scientific direct for submit-COVID products and services at College University London Hospitals and co-principal investigator and scientific direct for the Stimulate IP research, explained in a briefing that even though the evidence for the microclot design was fascinating, concerns continue being answered:

“One of the matters about this [proposed] system is you would count on it to correlate really intently with the severity of the preliminary [SARS-CoV-2] an infection.” She clarifies that if there was more important endothelial personal injury, you could predict that there would be a better stress of microclots.

“Of system, that doesn’t match with our scientific working experience,” she continues, “where we can see a lot more severe or equally extreme sickness in people who ended up under no circumstances hospitalized with COVID-19, in contrast to article-hospital clients. So, that’s yet another problem I think we need to have to solution from these preliminary findings.”

Click in this article for dwell updates on the hottest developments with regards to the novel coronavirus and COVID-19.

Is there a new variant at large, and should we worry?

Social media was a short while ago energetic with information that scientists in Cyprus claimed to have located a new hybrid variant of SARS-CoV-2. Named Deltacron, it appears to be a combination of the Delta and Omicron variants. Having said that, other specialists have questioned no matter if this is genuinely a new variant, suggesting the acquiring could be due to contamination throughout laboratory testing. Health-related Information Nowadays seems to be at the arguments on equally sides.

Share on Pinterest
Is there a new SARS-CoV-2 variant on the loose? Graphic credit score: Jason Alden/Bloomberg by using Getty Photographs.

On January 7, experts in Cyprus noted that they had uncovered a new variant of SARS-CoV-2. The variant, named Deltacron, is explained to be a hybrid of Delta and Omicron.

The researchers are led by Dr. Leondios Kostrikis, a professor of Biological Sciences at the College of Cyprus.

Dr. Kostrikis noted that the variant has a Delta-like genome with Omicron traits. The group stated that Deltacron had been identified in 25 people today — some hospitalized and some in the local community.

The identification of Deltacron led to widespread news protection and a great deal discussion on social media, but industry experts have questioned the findings.

Dr. Jeffrey Barrett, Director of the COVID-19 Genomics Initiative at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in the United Kingdom, believes the findings are because of to a lab mistake.

“This is virtually certainly not a organic recombinant of the Delta and Omicron lineages,” he claims. “The evident Omicron mutations are located exactly and completely in a area of the sequence encoding the spike gene (amino acids 51 to 143) influenced by a technological artifact in specific sequencing techniques.”

Creating on Twitter, Dr. Tom Peacock, a virologist at Imperial College London in the U.K, also dismissed the results, indicating that “[t]he Cypriot ‘Deltacron’ sequences reported by several large media retailers search to be quite clearly contamination.”

In a separate tweet, he even so clarified that this was not due to very poor lab exercise, stating that it “happens to every sequencing lab at times.”

The evolutionary proof seems to back again up their opinions. A number of experts have mentioned that if Deltacron was truly a new recombinant variant, samples would cluster on the very same department of SARS-CoV-2’s phylogenetic tree.

Nevertheless, Deltacron seems randomly on quite a few branches, which industry experts say is a sure sign of contamination.

Nonetheless, Dr. Kostrikis defended his conclusions. He asserted that since Deltacron infection fees have been bigger in hospitalized sufferers than in nonhospitalized individuals, the contamination hypothesis was much less probable.

In addition, the samples identified as Deltacron have been processed in several sequencing treatments in additional than one nation, lessening the probability of lab mistakes, he noted.

The Cyprus team has due to the fact reported one more 52 conditions of Deltacron to the Cyprus Mail. The Cyprus health and fitness minister also defended the conclusions, saying that the groundbreaking analysis built him “proud of our experts.”

Though several gurus have dismissed the statements that Deltacron is a new hybrid variant, other individuals are ready to wait for much more evidence.

Talking to Healthcare Information Today, Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of infectious ailments at the Vanderbilt University Health care Center, Nashville, TN, commented that “[f]urther nearby epidemiological investigation in Cyprus is warranted to sort this out. The world definitely is observing.”

“Deltacron has captivated a good offer of fascination in the COVID scientific neighborhood. Whether it is, in fact, a new variant that has emerged as a final result of a combination of Delta and Omicron viruses from a simultaneous infection in a human or whether or not it transpired due to the fact of a laboratory incident continue to remains to be identified.”

– Dr. William Schaffner

Irrespective of whether that proof will be forthcoming from Cyprus, or elsewhere, is open to query. MNT contacted Dr. Kostrikis but was nevertheless awaiting a response when this article went to push.

In the meantime, the Cypriot health authorities have mentioned that the new variant is not just one of problem. So, even if Deltacron does exist, what very little evidence there is so significantly suggests we really should not be also worried about it.

For stay updates on the hottest developments relating to COVID-19, click on in this article.

Do vitamin D supplements reduce cancer, cardiovascular risk?

Vitamin D capsules in sunlightShare on Pinterest
A new study searches for links between vitamin D supplements, cancer, and heart disease. Raymond Forbes LLC/Stocksy
  • Initial research has suggested that vitamin D may reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and cancer.
  • However, there have been few large, higher-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to corroborate this.
  • A recent RCT examined the effects of vitamin D supplementation in Finland.
  • It found no association between vitamin D supplementation and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.

Vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium, which improves bone strength. Among other roles, it also contributes to the functioning of muscles, nerves, and the immune system.

Many scientists have set out to understand how vitamin D deficiency and supplementation may influence disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is some evidence that vitamin D may help protect against respiratory tract infections, for example.

Over the past 2 years, researchers have also explored whether vitamin D reduces the risks associated with COVID-19. Although investigations are ongoing, there seems to be some evidence that these supplements might improve intensive care unit admission rates.

Two other areas of particular interest are vitamin D’s potential effects on cardiovascular disease and cancer risk. However, few RCTs have looked into this. These types of studies are the gold standard for identifying causal relationships in scientific research.

A recent study, which appears in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, goes some way toward addressing this knowledge gap.

Speaking with Medical News Today, Vimal Karani, a professor of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics at the University of Reading, in the United Kingdom, confirmed that there has been a gap between the initial research and findings from clinical trials.

Prof. Karani was not involved in the recent study but has worked with some of its authors.

He explained that past large epidemiological studies “have established a link between vitamin D deficiency and the risk of [cardiovascular disease] traits in various ethnic groups.” This, he said, suggests that vitamin D supplements might lower cardiovascular risk.

“However,” he continued, “clinical trials have not provided convincing evidence of the blood pressure-lowering effect of vitamin D supplementation.”

Prof. Karani said that there could be a wide range of reasons for this, including “differences in the sample size, duration of supplementation, dose of the supplementation, age of the participants, geographical location, sun exposure, and the outcome measures. Further research is required to replicate the findings in multiple ethnic groups.”

To provide further evidence of the relationship between vitamin D, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, the researchers behind the present study conducted the Finnish Vitamin D Trial.

This took place between 2012 and 2018, and it was double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled.

“When we started to plan the trial, there was a lot of evidence from observational studies that vitamin D deficiency would be associated with nearly all major chronic diseases, such as [cardiovascular disease], cancer, type 2 diabetes, and also mortality,” said Dr. Jyrki Virtanen in an interview with Medical News Today.

Dr. Virtanen is an associate professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Eastern Finland, and a co-principal investigator of the study.

“Also, we had shown that among [the] Eastern Finnish population, low vitamin D content of the body was associated with higher risk of mortality and glucose metabolism disturbances. However, these kinds of studies do not give evidence for causality.”

“At that time, there was little evidence from RCTs that improvement of [the] vitamin D status of the body with vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of diseases.”

“Therefore, our aim was to start a long-term vitamin D supplementation trial in Finland, where vitamin D insufficiency had been quite prevalent due to the long winter, and investigate whether vitamin D supplementation could reduce the risk of major chronic diseases and death.”

The researchers looked at data from 2,495 people, including male participants 60 years or older and female participants who were postmenopausal and 65 years or older. The participants also had no history of cardiovascular disease or cancer.

The participants either took a placebo, vitamin D at a dosage of 1,600 international units (IU) each day, or vitamin D at a dosage of 3,200 IU each day.

Compared with the placebo, neither dosage of vitamin D reduced the incidence of cardiovascular disease or cancer in this cohort, the team determined.

One factor that complicated this analysis was that the participants tended to have high levels of vitamin D at the start of the study. This, the authors believe, stems from the implementation of policies to fortify foods with vitamin D in Finland, which began in 2003–2011.

“It is likely that vitamin D supplementation does not provide major health benefits, especially in populations where the vitamin D situation is already good at the start of the trial.”

– Dr. Jyrki Virtanen

“A ‘problem’ with most large vitamin D supplementation trials has been that the starting levels of vitamin D have been pretty high in a large part of the study populations,” explained Dr. Virtanen.

“This may reflect the well-known fact that people who take part in these kinds of studies tend to be more health-conscious and more interested in their health, so they are, on average, healthier than the average population.”

“They may have a better diet and are more likely to take supplements and exercise, which all are associated also with higher serum vitamin D levels,” he told MNT.

“Those who might benefit from the vitamin D supplementation — i.e., those with low serum vitamin D levels — are a small minority in the trials. It is tricky to target this deficient population, though, because for ethical reasons it would not be possible to screen people and only admit people with low vitamin D levels in the trial. It would not be ethical to keep a part of the study population, the placebo group, deficient [in] vitamin D for several years.”

MNT spoke with Prof. Sean Strain, Dr. Emeir McSorley, and Dr. Pamela Magee, of the Nutrition Innovation Centre for Food and Health, at Ulster University, in Northern Ireland.

They explained that despite the low recruitment levels — the study authors had hoped to recruit 30,000 participants — the results showed some signs that vitamin D had health benefits.

“Even though recruitment was challenging and didn’t meet expectations, there is some indication that the cohort investigated had lower incidence of both [cardiovascular disease] and cancer, compared to national statistics, which would have been gathered prefortification.”

“This may indicate that improvements to vitamin D status nationally are having benefits to the overall health of the population over and above the well-known bone and muscle health effects. Because of the low numbers recruited, the cohort may not be nationally representative, and care should be taken when interpreting these findings,” said the scientists.

According to Prof. Karani: “The unique feature of this RCT was the use of two different vitamin D doses to see the dose-response effect over a period of 5 years. Despite the large doses, the study failed to see any effect of the supplementation on lowering the incidence of [cardiovascular disease] and cancer.”

“The findings have significant public health implications,” continued Prof. Karani. “However, the findings cannot be generalized to other populations, given that [the] Finnish population is a well-known example of an isolated population, where multiple bottlenecks resulting from consecutive founder effects have led to the gene pool of current-day Finns.”

Dr. Virtanen said that while there is some evidence of broader health benefits from vitamin D supplementation, there were also conflicting findings.

“At the moment, there is no consensus [about] what would be the optimal vitamin D intake and [whether it is] the same for all health outcomes and for all people. For example, there is some evidence that high-dose vitamin D supplementation may modestly reduce the risk of cancer death, but not overall cancer incidence.”

“And although there, so far, is no evidence that vitamin D supplementation could prevent [SARS-CoV-2] infection, it is well-documented that those, especially with the severe form of COVID-19, have low serum vitamin D levels.”

“It is also possible that this is a consequence of the [SARS-CoV-2] infection rather than the cause, because it is known that acute infection leads to lower serum vitamin D levels, and many of the COVID-19 patients are overweight or obese or have a chronic disease like type 2 diabetes, which all are associated with lower serum vitamin D levels,” explained Dr. Virtanen.

Prof. Strain, Dr. McSorley, and Dr. Magee highlighted the role that vitamin D may play in a healthy immune system.

“There is recent strong evidence that vitamin D supports your immune system, and given the global pandemic, it does appear that those who are vitamin D replete don’t have as severe a response to COVID-19 as those who are deficient — and importantly, recover quicker.”

“Vitamin D plays a key role in musculoskeletal health. Vitamin D can be obtained via sunlight and dietary sources. However, a vitamin D supplement may be required to meet the recommended dietary intakes — that is, 600 IU per day in the United States for those aged 1–70 years, and 800 IU per day for those over 70 years — in order to maintain a sufficient status.”

“Supplementation may be particularly relevant in populations residing at northerly latitudes, where vitamin D cannot be synthesized from sunlight during the winter months, and in populations that spend little time outdoors and/or obtain limited amounts of vitamin D from food sources.”

“It is very difficult to obtain vitamin D from food intake alone, unless that food is fortified with vitamin D. Furthermore, those with illnesses that affect vitamin D absorption may require vitamin D supplementation,” said the scientists.

Prof. Strain, Dr. McSorley, and Dr. Magee suggested that the research could be developed by studying a population with low levels of vitamin D.

“This research needs to be undertaken in a suitable population, where many have a low vitamin D status and can therefore benefit from vitamin D supplementation.”

“It would be important to explore whether vitamin D supplementation can decrease the incidence of [cardiovascular disease] and cancers, as that would make a strong case for mandatory vitamin D fortification or promotion of fortified foods in the population.”

“There is some tantalizing evidence that the Finnish national [vitamin D] fortification program is having benefits by decreasing the incidence of [cardiovascular disease] and cancers, as well as the expected beneficial effects on bone health.”

“Another very important area that needs to be explored further is the link between sufficient vitamin D status and a fully functional immune system, especially in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic.”

As Prof. Karani notes, “A similar RCT with a longer duration of vitamin D supplementation is highly warranted in ethnically diverse populations to see if the findings from the present study could be generalized.”

Dr. Virtanen told MNT that his current focus is on further analyzing the results from the Finnish Vitamin D Trial.

“At the moment, we don’t have plans to start another vitamin D trial, but we are of course going to publish several other results from the Finnish Vitamin D Trial, for example effects [on] heart arrhythmias, infections, type 2 diabetes, falls and fractures, pain, [and] mood changes.”

What should the ‘new normal’ look like?

The shadow of an airplane on a busy roadShare on Pinterest
A recent viewpoint article discusses the future of COVID-19 policy. Orbon Alija/Getty Images
  • Governments of the world continue to discuss COVID-19 policies for the future.
  • Necessarily, these procedures and strategies have morphed as the pandemic has progressed.
  • A recent viewpoint article in JAMA compiles some experts’ thoughts about future national policies.

COVID-19 has affected many countries of the world immeasurably. Governments are coming to terms with the fact that SARS-CoV-2 may not go away, and countries face the need to consider their national strategies and implement appropriate risk assessments.

A recent viewpoint piece in JAMA presents three experts’ opinions about what officials should focus on as countries learn to move forward with COVID-19.

Three experts penned the piece:

  • Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist and bioethicist at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, who has served as special advisor for health policy to the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House.
  • Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
  • Dr. Celine R. Gounder, an infectious disease physician and epidemiologist at Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York, and a medical journalist.

Many scientists believe it is impossible to eradicate COVID-19. The authors of the JAMA article explain that “Infectious diseases cannot be eradicated when there is limited long-term immunity following infection or vaccination or nonhuman reservoirs of infection.”

For this reason, some experts are advocating for a reevaluation of goals and public health strategies moving forward. The authors of the recent article advocate for strategies that improve data collection, health response, and public trust.

The authors believe that humility is critical when creating and changing COVID-19 policies.

They note that there are multiple unknowns and that data will continue to evolve. A few key uncertainties include:

  • How long immunity from vaccinations or previous infections lasts.
  • Whether or not the virus will become seasonal.
  • The effectiveness of antiviral therapies in preventing long COVID.
  • Whether new variants, which may be more transmissible, virulent, or immune-evading, will arise.

The authors note that “[t]he goal for the ‘new normal’ with COVID-19 does not include eradication or elimination, e.g., the ‘zero COVID’ strategy.”

They explain that neither vaccines nor acquiring infection with the virus appear to give anyone lifelong immunity.

According to the long-term aspects of SARS-CoV-2, they note that nations need to look at SARS-CoV-2 in relation to the impact of other respiratory viruses. Policymakers then need to consider strategies that will help reduce the impact of these viruses overall.

The authors recommend establishing a risk threshold in line with other respiratory illnesses in years where the severity of these illnesses was high. They note that this threshold at peak weeks would help agencies know when to implement emergency measures.

It would also help healthcare systems plan what they need for surges and at a maintenance level. A risk threshold needs to consider three main factors:

  • weekly deaths
  • hospitalizations
  • community prevalence

Considering these factors, the experts recommend several vital elements for public policy and overall health promotion.

The authors note that policymakers need to determine their goals in relation to COVID-19 and then communicate them clearly to the public. Local governments can then adapt national recommendations at the local level.

Their piece notes four main components to help respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

  1. Accurate data collection: They recommend that data be as specific and comprehensive as possible and include information at the local, state, and national levels.
  2. A flexible public health workforce: They note that the healthcare system needs to deal with both ongoing problems and be further prepared to respond to emergencies. The workforce should include community healthcare workers and more school nurses who can help with the ongoing treatment of chronic diseases and with health promotion.
  3. Better flow of medical services: States need to implement systems that allow for resources and care to get to affected areas and help deal with surges and declines in COVID-19 cases. For example, states can allow healthcare workers to practice in other states and allow for billing across state lines.
  4. Increased trust in public health institutions and belief in collective action in service of public health: Public health data systems can improve to increase the general public’s faith in public institutions. Governments can also focus on informing the population about the benefits of public health policies. Helping create a workforce that can respond to COVID-19 would also be beneficial.

Public health and infectious disease expert Prof. Katharina Hauck, a professor in health economics at Imperial College London in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the paper, identified that these strategies focus on nations being prepared.

And when people have a prepared response, there is less need for mitigation measures, including lockdowns and mask wearing. She thinks these methods may help communities in the long run. She told Medical News Today:

“There is little doubt that the proposed measures prevent pandemic deaths and reduce the need for pandemic mitigation once an outbreak takes hold.”

“The global economic and social costs associated with closures of nonessential businesses and schools are estimated in the trillions; the mental health costs of reduced social contacts are unquantifiable. In comparison to pandemic mitigation, many societies will consider [pandemic preparedness] as bargain investments.”

She noted that COVID-19 has forced society to consider how mitigation factors affect communities, but focusing efforts on being prepared will help minimize the need and impact of mitigation factors. She explained to MNT:

“The pandemic forces us to navigate an agonizing trade-off between competing societal objectives. Society needs to put a price on life, and during a pandemic, the price is measured in terms of economically and socially costly pandemic mitigation and restrictions to personal liberties. [Pandemic preparedness] promises to alleviate that trade-off by reducing the need for pandemic mitigation.”

When it comes to the actions and goals of policies, governments should seek to promote the health and well-being of the population. For example, the authors note adopting strategies to increase vaccinations, collect accurate data, and improve public trust.

Focusing more on researching and developing therapeutics to help treat people with COVID-19 is also vital.

For instance, Dr. Arturo Casadevall, an infectious disease expert at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, explained to MNT that one of the treatment options some scientists are exploring is convalescent plasma therapy. Dr, Casadevall also noted that government agencies could help improve its availability and distribution.

Therefore, efforts from the government can focus on a variety of areas to help with the prolonged impact of COVID-19. These actions can focus on being prepared for surges and improving the overall treatment of the disease.

As the United States and other countries move forward into a new year, they must consider how to handle COVID-19. They must seek to look at all data and evaluate the effectiveness of policies.

The authors of the viewpoint note that the U.S. needs a strategic plan in the future to help reduce all costs associated with COVID-19. They conclude:

“Without a strategic plan for the ‘new normal’ with endemic COVID-19, more people in the U.S. will unnecessarily experience morbidity and mortality, health inequities will widen, and trillions will be lost from the U.S. economy. This time, the nation must learn and prepare effectively for the future.

As Covid deaths rise, many are still from delta, CDC says

Most described Covid-19 fatalities in the U.S. are nevertheless from the delta variant, not omicron, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Wednesday.

Covid deaths, dependent on a 7-day going common, have achieved 1,600 for each working day in the U.S., a 40 per cent increase more than the earlier 7 days, according to CDC info.

Whole protection of the Covid-19 pandemic

Walensky, talking at a White Home Covid-19 Reaction Workforce briefing, stated she expects most of people fatalities are continue to lagging deaths from the delta variant wave.

The omicron variant only just lately became the dominant pressure in the U.S., surpassing delta all-around mid-December. The new strain now accounts for an estimated 98.3 p.c of all new circumstances, according to CDC knowledge.

Community health officials will keep track of “deaths over the future various months to see the effect of omicron on mortality,” Walenksy said throughout the briefing. “Provided the sheer amount of conditions, we may well see deaths from omicron, but I suspect the fatalities we are observing now are nevertheless from delta.”

Omicron causes considerably less significant condition

Walensky’s reviews came a working day immediately after researchers released a new research primarily based on info from Kaiser Permanente Southern California that identified the omicron variant appears to bring about considerably less significant condition than past strains and shorter healthcare facility stays.

The examine, which was posted online to a preprint server and hasn’t been peer-reviewed but, seemed at just about 70,000 Covid people in California, the greater part of whom experienced health issues caused by the omicron variant.

Walensky cited the examine at the Wednesday briefing, expressing it stays dependable with data from South Africa and the United Kingdom and gives some knowing of what the U.S. can hope in coming weeks.

“The danger of hospitalization remains low — specifically between persons who are up to date on their Covid vaccines,” Walensky said. “On the other hand, the staggering increase in instances, over 1 million new cases each individual working day, has led to a substantial range of total hospitalizations.”  

Masks supply distinct stages of defense

While omicron may well be fewer serious, “the unexpected and steep increase in situations because of to omicron is resulting in unparalleled day by day scenario counts, illness, absenteeism and strains on our overall health treatment method,” she said.

The CDC is encouraging all Americans to use well-equipped masks to shield on their own and others in opposition to the new pressure.

She stated the agency is getting ready an update to its site on masks, noting that various masks and give various stages of protection.

Follow NBC Overall health on Twitter & Facebook.