Fredonia moves forward with health initiative | News, Sports, Jobs

Fredonia moves forward with health initiative | News, Sports, Jobs
&#13
&#13

&#13

Submitted Photograph
Eric Kussin, founder of #SameHere, speaks to the Fredonia College Board at their past assembly.

&#13

Earlier this 12 months, Fredonia High University Principal Darrin Paschke pointed out seeking to get packages in the college to assist learners out in regard to their psychological health. Immediately after a recent in-assistance day at the university, just one these kinds of basis may possibly see its way into the Fredonia school district in the long run.

Spearheaded by Fredonia’s Chief Officer for Curriculum and Human Means Margie Wright, reps from the #SameHere Movement spoke to college and staff at the university, sharing who they are and what they’re about. Wright stated representatives from #SameHere, including founder Eric Kussin, held roundtables with the workers all as a result of the in-services working day, and the require for this arrives from basic college wellness.

“It came about with the concept of personnel mental wellness, student mental wellness, and having the stigmas out of factors,” she reported. “As directors, oftentimes there’s that wanting toward us to assistance and we know we want to, require to, but we’re not geared up to either.”

Kussin and #SameHere Director of Universities David Hymowitz, equally of whom were being at Fredonia university, each and every have unique backgrounds as to how they obtained there. Hymowitz is a accredited social worker, providing him a classic route to a foundation like this, but Kussin’s route was different. He under no circumstances envisioned himself performing in the psychological well being field, and he acknowledges he is not a psychological wellness expert, but his concept and initiative are still capable of encouraging men and women.

“My mind and my overall body strike a brick wall,” mentioned Kussin. “I successfully stopped currently being a individual for two and a 50 percent years. … I in the long run ended up mastering about encounters I experienced as a child… and how the accumulation of what I went by way of about that time built up inside of me… So I was fortuitous sufficient to learn healing modalities.”

From there, using his track record working for skilled sporting activities groups, Kussin designed connections to develop #SameHere, with individuals ready to share stories and talking about what took place to folks, not where by they’re heading.

“Often when we converse about mental overall health and see companies appear into educational institutions, workplaces, and athletics teams to talk about this topic, we lead with terms like melancholy, stress, and psychological ailment,” reported Kussin. “What that does is turns off 80{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} of the place. That {cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} of the home suggests they are not in that class. Our message at #SameHere is these items happen to not one in five of us, but 5 in five of us who go as a result of difficult everyday living occasions.”

Kussin praised Wright and Fredonia for bringing #SameHere in to satisfy with the instructors 1st, since of how educational facilities have dealt with mental health and fitness in the earlier. Instead of supplying shows on certain matters, offering a qualifications of how existence impacts folks and where by that qualified prospects, the group staying spoken to is fewer sectioned off. Kussin stated he’s seeking ahead to coming back again to Fredonia in the foreseeable future.

“I got a chance to get the job done with the instructors now,” said Kussin. “I’m hunting ahead to coming again and working with college students, operating with mothers and fathers, and applying technologies we have to connect everyone else by means of applications. … Making a group that is linked by means of a information aspect of issues.”

Fredonia Superintendent Dr. Bradley Zilliox explained the faculty weighed Kussin’s presentation and basis through a pair distinctive perspectives, including exactly where the directors are in this and how they can help themselves, and how they’ll be equipped to proficiently enable students by way of problems they come upon.

“I like the word system,” Zilliox explained. “This is the platform we’re likely to work from on the two levels. … We glance forward to functioning jointly and we just can’t wait to have you in entrance of our learners.”

School board President Brian Aldrich likened psychological overall health instruction to the instruction of all other topics the school teaches, declaring it’s just as vital to educate college students in this classification. “We train literature, we educate looking through, we train mathematics and social sciences,” mentioned Aldrich. “And but, this is sort of a core factor that’s really advantageous.”

For far more info about #SameHere and specifically their college software, take a look at https://samehereglobal.org/samehere-universities/.

&#13 &#13
&#13

&#13
&#13

Today’s breaking news and more in your inbox

&#13
&#13

&#13
&#13
&#13
&#13
&#13

Do mental health conditions increase dementia risk?

Do mental health conditions increase dementia risk?

An older adult drinking a hot drink on a sofaShare on Pinterest
A new review investigates inbound links amongst psychological overall health and dementia. Rob and Julia Campbell/Stocksy
  • A substantial new research finds an association among psychological well being situations and dementia later on in life.
  • Though study has not established a causal website link, psychological wellness difficulties continue being a predictor of dementia.
  • Effectively addressing psychological wellbeing situations may help cut down the likelihood of dementia for older grown ups.

As of 2020, there ended up in excess of 55 million people today all over the world residing with dementia, with an estimated 10 million new scenarios just about every calendar year. Industry experts estimate that an individual develops the problem each 3 seconds.

For decades, scientists have suspected a relationship amongst mental overall health ailments previously in lifestyle and dementia afterwards on, although the outcomes of this kind of investigations have been inconsistent.

Now, scientists from the College of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Duke College in Durham, NC, and the University of Auckland in New Zealand have posted a extensive-phrase examine of 1.7 million individuals from New Zealand aged 21–60 many years.

The integrative character of the country’s national overall health program allowed the study’s authors to follow individuals throughout 30 a long time — from 1988 to 2018 — linking hospital information and inhabitants databases.

The study finds that psychological health and fitness disorders are strongly involved with dementia later in everyday living.

The research appears in JAMA Psychiatry.

Though the review reveals a sturdy statistical association concerning mental wellbeing problems and dementia, a longitudinal review these as this simply cannot demonstrate that previously psychological health problems bring about dementia.

The study’s direct author is Dr. Leah Richmond-Rakerd, an assistant professor in the Division of Psychology at the College of Michigan. She advised to Medical News Right now a few causes why such a robust affiliation may possibly exist:

“There could be shared danger things for the two psychological [health conditions] and dementia, this sort of as shared genetics. It may also be that people working experience a brain vulnerability that displays up as mental wellness problems previously in existence, and demonstrates up as dementia later in lifestyle.”

Dr. Archana Singh-Manoux, who was not associated in this review, advised MNT that she agrees that this rationalization is attainable.

Nonetheless, “it is a lot more possible that [having a mental health condition] early in lifestyle [may set] you on pathways that direct to adverse well being outcomes. This may well include things like harmful behaviors, [difficulties with managing] self-wellbeing treatment, noncompliance to therapy, poverty, side effects of medication, and many others.”

Dr. Singh-Manoux is a principal investigator of the epidemiology of growing old and neurodegenerative conditions at the Université de Paris in France.

“It’s essential to notice, though,” claimed Dr. Richmond-Rakerd, “that even if psychological wellbeing conditions are not a causal hazard factor for dementia, the existence of a mental health problem is even now an crucial indicator of danger.”

“The mental [health conditions] thought of in the examine,” stated Dr. Singh-Manoux, “were: material use, psychotic, temper, neurotic (i.e., anxiousness), physiological disturbance, temperament, developmental, behavioral, and unspecified diseases.”

As the lead author of a preceding analyze checking out a website link amongst melancholy and dementia, Dr. Singh-Manoux noted:

“It is significant to individual these findings from experiments that look at the association in between depressive signs and dementia, specifically experiments based on older grown ups. This is because depressive symptoms are prevalent in the preclinical section of dementia, and any affiliation is possible to be due to ‘reverse causation.’”

In other phrases, despair in more mature grown ups may possibly be an early indication of dementia, fairly than evidence that depressive signs are a hazard aspect for dementia.

The research observed that psychological overall health disorders were related with subsequent Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, as perfectly as other early- and late-onset dementias.

Of the total group researched, researchers recognized 3.8{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} (64,857) of individuals as getting a psychological wellbeing affliction, even though 2{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} (34,029) experienced a analysis of dementia.

Just about 6{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} of people today with mental wellness situations made dementia in the course of the observation period of time. Between individuals with no mental health and fitness disorders, only 1.8{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} produced dementia.

The affiliation persisted throughout all genders and age teams.

The scientists also determined that socioeconomic deprivation or earlier persistent actual physical health conditions ended up not considerable elements.

“We were being stunned to uncover that mental well being problems had been a a great deal stronger predictor of dementia than persistent bodily diseases,” reported Dr. Richmond-Rakerd.

“This reinforces the need to have,” stated Dr. Richmond-Rakerd, “to imagine about dementia prevention earlier in the daily life program for the reason that mental health conditions have a tendency to peak in young adulthood, although persistent physical illnesses do not ordinarily arise until eventually later on in lifetime. Supporting youthful people’s mental overall health could be a window of opportunity to support lessen the burden of dementia in older grown ups.”

MNT asked Dr. Richmond-Rakerd what kind of study she would like to see that could build or refute a causal connection among mental health conditions and dementia. She replied:

“One insightful approach would be to detect effective randomized scientific trials of psychiatric interventions and follow up the participants who obtained the intervention to see if in afterwards existence they are faring greater in conditions of their cognitive health and are protected against dementia. This would provide evidence that psychological overall health problems are a causal hazard issue.”

On the other hand, stated Dr. Singh-Manoux, “Establishing causality wherever dementia is worried is challenging thanks to the extensive interval more than which dementia develops — probably as lengthy as 15–20 decades. [Randomized controlled trials], the gold normal method to establish causality, are clearly not beneficial.”

This still left Dr. Singh-Manoux with much more faith in longitudinal scientific studies like Dr. Richmond-Rakerd’s:

“Thus, well-performed longitudinal reports, with a very long adhere to-up, are critical.” She extra, “Another technique is Mendelian randomization, the place genes are used as instruments to check causality in the affiliation among an exposure and an consequence.”

Mental health risk increases for COVID-19 survivors

Mental health risk increases for COVID-19 survivors

Green and red overlayed images of someone's head in portraitShare on Pinterest
Mental health risk increases even after mild COVID-19. Jonathan Knowles/Getty Images
  • A study tracking COVID-19 survivors found them more likely to develop mental health issues than other people over the year following diagnosis.
  • The researchers saw an increased risk even for those whose COVID-19 was mild enough that they did not require hospitalization.
  • Conditions the researchers investigated included anxiety, depression, opioid use, and cognitive decline.

Researchers continue to investigate the long-term health effects of COVID-19, or “long COVID.”

Using databases from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), a new study catalogs a range of mental health issues in the 12 months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study finds that people who have survived COVID-19 are at increased risk of mental health issues in the first year after the illness.

The study’s senior investigator is Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development service at the VA Saint Louis Health Care System and a clinical epidemiologist and assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis. In an opinion piece published alongside the research, he says:

“The body of evidence on long COVID — from our work and others — suggests the need to reframe our thinking about SARS-CoV-2. It is not only a respiratory virus; it is a systemic virus that may provoke damage and clinical consequences in nearly every organ system — including mental health disorders and neurocognitive decline.”

Psychiatrist Dr. Maura Boldrini of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City is the lead author of the article “How COVID-19 Affects the Brain.” She commented on the new study for Medical News Today:

“This is a large study that sheds light on the prevalence of symptoms that reflect brain involvement in post-COVID patients. These symptoms can be classified by the [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] into psychiatric categories, but their pathogenesis is unknown.”

Dr. Noortje Uphoff is a research fellow at the University of York in the United Kingdom and the lead author of a related review published in August 2021.

“The strengths of the study,” Dr. Uphoff told MNT, “are that many patients are included, COVID-19 patients are compared to people without evidence of the infection, and data were collected for a year. Whereas many studies measure mental health outcomes such as self-reported symptoms, in this study, medical records of diagnoses and prescriptions were used.”

The new study appears in the BMJ. Neither Dr. Boldrini nor Dr. Uphoff was involved in the new study.

The researchers analyzed health data from 153,848 veterans who had survived 30 days or more after receiving a positive PCR test result between March 1, 2020, and January 15, 2021. The research team followed their health until November 30, 2021.

The researchers also collected data from two control groups: 5,637,840 veterans who had not contracted SARS-CoV-2 during the same period, and 5,859,251 individuals who used the Veterans Health Administration during a period before the pandemic.

Dr. Uphoff cautioned MNT:

“As the study authors point out, their study sample was not representative of populations across the world. These were retired veterans, mostly white men, who had access to healthcare.”

The authors of the study calculated the post-COVID-19 incidence of developing various mental health issues by comparing outcomes for COVID-19 survivors with those of the control groups.

The overall risk of developing any mental health issue increased to 64.38 additional cases per 1,000 people after 1 year.

The researchers reported the following increased risk of incident mental health cases per 1,000 people in the year following COVID-19:

  • anxiety disorders: 11.06 additional cases
  • depressive disorders: 15.12 additional cases
  • stress and adjustment disorders: 13.29 additional cases
  • use of antidepressants: 21.59 additional cases
  • use of benzodiazepines: 10.46 additional cases
  • opioid prescriptions: 35.90 additional cases
  • opioid use disorders: 0.96 additional cases
  • other (non-opioid) substance use disorders: 4.34 additional cases
  • neurocognitive decline: 10.75 additional cases
  • sleep disorders: 23.80 additional cases.

While risks were higher for those hospitalized for COVID-19, the study also found that “risks were evident even among those who were not admitted to hospital during the acute phase of COVID-19.”

“The symptoms are most likely due to brain inflammation,” said Dr. Boldrini.

“We know brain inflammation is present in major depressive disorder and dementias,” she continued, “and brain symptoms are found in other inflammatory diseases like [systemic lupus erythematosus]. Even in people with mild COVID-19, there can be a protracted inflammatory response that disrupts brain vasculature and neurotransmitters synthesis, including serotonin.”

Dr. Uphoff suggested stress as an additional potential factor, saying, “It is easy to imagine why infection with [SARS-CoV-2] could cause distress.”

Dr. Uphoff added: “Not only do many patients experience symptoms of illness, ranging from inconvenient to severe, but self-isolation at home causes disruption to people’s lives. On top of this, worries about passing on the infection to loved ones and about the potential severity of the illness are likely to affect well-being at least in the short term.”

“As physicians,” said Dr. Boldrini, “we need to understand better the mechanisms of vascular strokes and protracted inflammation and their damage in the brain so that we can repair it.”

Dr. Boldrini concluded with a plea for help:

“As patients, I would encourage people to volunteer for research studies — clinical and brain imaging ones — and in the event of death, it is crucial that families donate the brain to research so we can study it. Medicine has made the most progress [studying] human organs after death. That’s what we do in my lab. We need brains to be donated so we can understand mechanisms of brain disorders and find new treatments.”

U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate Surged in 2020 | Healthiest Communities Health News

U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate Surged in 2020 | Healthiest Communities Health News

The amount of maternal mortality in the U.S. enhanced by approximately 20{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} from 2019 to 2020 in a opportunity indication of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impression on maternal wellness results.

In complete, 861 women of all ages in 2020 reportedly died either throughout or within just 42 times of the finish of their being pregnant, in contrast with 754 ladies in 2019 and 658 in 2018.

The report’s findings are centered on information gathered from the CDC’s Nationwide Essential Studies Procedure, and encompass maternal deaths connected to a pregnancy or its management. Deaths from accidental or incidental leads to are not bundled.

Maternal mortality rates in 2020 enhanced throughout all age and racial groups in the report, with the over-all surge fueled closely by a spike in the costs for both of those Hispanic and Black females. Black gals experienced the optimum maternal mortality amount of the 3 racial or ethnic teams involved in the report, at 55.3 deaths for each individual 100,000 are living births. That price was just about a few periods larger than the 19.1 fatalities per 100,000 births among the white girls – a bigger disparity than in 2019 – and far more than three times greater than the charge of 18.2 deaths per 100,000 amid Hispanic women.

Nonetheless the maternal loss of life price amongst Hispanic women of all ages saw the most significant enhance from 2019 to 2020, soaring by 44{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} more than that year in contrast with improves of 26{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} among Black gals and 7{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} between white women.

By age, women 40 and older had both equally the greatest mortality price and the biggest raise from 2019. The maternal mortality rate for ladies 40 and older was 107.9 fatalities for each 100,000 reside births in 2020, a 43{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} boost from 2019 and 7.8 moments increased than the rate of 13.8 for each 100,000 are living births for gals below the age of 25.

For years, the U.S. has experienced what can only be explained as a bad record in maternal health outcomes when compared with other wealthy nations. A 2020 analysis by The Commonwealth Fund located that the 2018 U.S. maternal mortality charge of 17.4 deaths for every 100,000 are living births was extra than double the latest charges of a greater part of other created nations around the world examined.

Tracking data from the CDC reveals 82 fatalities between pregnant women of all ages with the condition reportedly transpired in 2020. And although the most recent figures do not delineate irrespective of whether deaths transpired in connection with COVID-19, they appear amid issue about both of those the direct and oblique health and fitness hazards the COVID-19 pandemic has posed for expecting ladies.

The CDC warns that expecting or lately expecting people today are extra probable to develop into severely sick from COVID-19. A CDC analyze revealed in November and centered on Mississippi also identified a bigger mortality level amid ladies with a coronavirus infection for the duration of being pregnant – none of whom had been completely vaccinated – compared with girls of reproductive age who had a coronavirus infection.

“When we think about all of the stressors that a human being felt even prior to the pandemic, incorporating all of these other matters on major, it is no shock that we see an additive impact of the pandemic creating feelings of unsafety,” states Kristina Wint, senior software supervisor for reproductive and maternal wellbeing and wellness at the Affiliation of Maternal and Kid Overall health Packages. “Many folks think that televisits is a little something that has been filling in the gaps, and it definitely has, but they are just a Band-Support on a broader and even bigger concern on how (we can) be certain that people are ready to obtain the care that they need to have.”

Microplastics in food: Health risks and solutions

Microplastics in food: Health risks and solutions

Globally, 322 million metric tons of plastics had been produced in 2016, of which 60{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} supplied the food stuff and beverage industry for food packaging. These plastics have an array of chemical compounds, which include stabilizers, lubricants, fillers, and plasticizers.

Publicity to some environmental problems, these kinds of as warmth, will cause plastic to break into lesser fragments called microplastics, which can migrate into food items.

One-use h2o bottles, to-go containers, meals cans, and storage wraps are illustrations of widespread plastic-based food stuff packaging that includes microplastics.

Heating foodstuff in plastic packaging, extensive storage moments, and the variety of plastic packaging a human being utilizes all have an effect on the amount of the microplastics and their damaging chemicals that migrates into foods.

The microplastic chemical substances current in foodstuff are a mixture of people that companies deliberately add, these as fillers and stabilizers, and all those that accumulate as byproducts, these types of as residues and impurities.

Some widespread microplastics current in foods contain:

  • bisphenol A (BPA): Manufacturers use this plasticizer to make polyvinyl chloride, the “parent” plastic of lots of merchandise.
  • dioxin: This is a byproduct of herbicides and paper bleaching, which contaminate the setting.
  • phthalates: These make plastics additional flexible, clear, and durable and are current in several varieties of food stuff packaging.
  • polyethylene and polypropylene: These make packaging light-weight and resilient and are the most common plastics current in foods and the surroundings.

Microplastics uncovered in scaled-down portions in food stuff include things like BPA and BPF, mono-(3-carboxypropyl), mono-(carboxyisononyl), and mono-(carboxyisoctyl).

Microplastics are the fragments of stabilizers, lubricants, fillers, plasticizers, and other substances that companies use to give plastics their attractive houses, these as transparency, versatility, and durability.

Having said that, industry experts have categorized a lot of of these chemical compounds as harmful and destructive to human health and fitness.

Under, we go over some of the potential risks of microplastics in larger detail.

Disrupting hormones

Scientists take into consideration at the very least 15 of the chemical substances producers use to make plastic packaging to be endocrine disruptors.

Endocrine disruptors are structurally identical to some hormones in the human body — this kind of as estrogen, testosterone, and insulin — and mimic and disrupt their normal capabilities, main to adverse overall health outcomes and growing a person’s threat of chronic circumstances.

In individual, investigate has demonstrated that publicity to BPA plays a purpose in infertility in males and females alike, as well as in the development of polycystic ovary syndrome.

BPA competes with estrogen and testosterone for their receptors, reducing the amount of these hormones available for reproductive health and fitness.

Rising danger of continual ailment

Research carries on to exhibit that extensive-term publicity to endocrine-disrupting microplastics increases the chance of creating variety 2 diabetic issues and heart sickness.

Specialists affiliate higher blood degrees of dioxins, phthalates, and BPs with pre-disease states of inflammation, impaired fasting glucose, insulin resistance, and obesity, significantly elevating the likelihood of sort 2 diabetic issues.

Some investigate suggests that exposure to these microplastics in food stuff will cause as a lot hurt to a person’s health and raises their danger of long-term ailments to the same degree as adhering to an unbalanced food plan.

Impairing immune health and fitness

A 2020 overview identified that the greater irritation induced by publicity to microplastics potential customers to bad gut overall health and, by extension, weakened immunity.

The gut performs an crucial job in immunity, with 70–80{cfdf3f5372635aeb15fd3e2aecc7cb5d7150695e02bd72e0a44f1581164ad809} of the body’s immune cells staying in the intestine. This signifies that any issue that has an effect on intestine health and fitness interferes with immune health as effectively.

Persistent exposure to microplastics in the gut is toxic to immune cells, leading to dysbiosis — a disruption to the intestine microbiota — and primary to an overgrowth of “bad” microorganisms.

Exploration associates dysbiosis with the growth of this sort of situations as Parkinson’s illness.

What’s more, the floor of microplastics may perhaps harbor destructive micro organism that further more compromise immune wellness.

Microplastics are considerable in the natural environment, an result researchers attribute to the large international creation of plastics and common air pollution.

Investigate suggests that an typical particular person in the United States may consume about 50,000 particles of microplastics from food stuff on your own for each year.

This determine raises to an estimated 90,000 in individuals who routinely eat plastic-primarily based bottled water, and to 120,000 when contemplating the inhalation of microplastics from non-foods sources.

The authors of a 2019 research identified an average of 20 microplastics for every 10 grams of stool samples from eight contributors.

These results counsel that the total of microplastics that persons appear into get hold of with and consume is substantially higher than authorities when expected.

Whilst getting rid of your exposure to microplastics might not be feasible, you can check out to minimize the sum of microplastics you appear into make contact with with and consume.

In this article are some ideas:

1. Restrict highly processed foods

Investigate associates consumption of remarkably processed meals — this sort of as hamburgers, all set-to-consume usefulness foods, French fries, ice cream, soda, and canned foods — with higher levels of phthalate microplastics in the human body. This impact is extra pronounced in kids.

Industry experts even further speculate that the small dietary excellent of really processed meals, combined with the hazardous outcomes of the microplastics existing in people food items, may possibly be dependable for the enhancement of serious problems, like heart disease.

The option: Pick out complete foods and minimally processed food items additional generally and restrict or remove remarkably processed foodstuff from your diet regime. This will support reduced degrees of endocrine-disrupting microplastics in the overall body.

2. Decide on eco-pleasant packaging

Employing eco-friendly packaging lessens the publicity to and migration of microplastics in the meals offer.

The answer: Decide for the next:

  • glass storage containers, transportable bowls, and water bottles
  • stainless steel bento containers and reusable drinking water containers
  • bamboo lunch boxes, bowls, utensils, and pantry storage jars
  • rice husk bowls and storage containers

3. Use glass or stainless metal water bottles

Exposure to microplastics is nearly 2–3 times increased in folks who depend on their fluid intake from plastic drinking water bottles than in those who use alternate drinking water bottles.

This might be because of to the simple fact that warmth and for a longer time storage times that may well be popular with bottled h2o raise the migration of microplastics from packaging into the meals and water.

The option: Swap one-use or BPA-containing water bottles with glass or stainless metal kinds to minimize exposure to microplastics.

Microplastics are the fragments of stabilizers, lubricants, fillers, plasticizers, and other substances manufacturers use to give plastics their fascinating attributes, these as transparency, sturdiness, and adaptability.

Microplastics migrate into the meals supply and result in health concerns, such as elevated irritation, impaired fasting glucose, insulin resistance, variety 2 diabetes, and heart ailment.

Exposure to microplastics via foods is significant, but you can decrease it by restricting your intake of really processed food items, choosing eco-welcoming food stuff packaging, and changing plastic drinking water bottles with glass or stainless metal types.

Press Briefing by White House COVID-19 Response Team and Public Health Officials

Via Teleconference

11:06 A.M. EST

MR. ZIENTS:  Good morning, and thanks for joining us.  Today, we’ll start with an update from Dr. Walensky on the state of the pandemic and CDC’s COVID-19 surveillance efforts.

Dr. Walensky.

DR. WALENSKY:  Good morning.  Thanks, Jeff.  I’d like to start by walking you through today’s data. 

The current seven-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, a decrease of about 44 percent over the previous week. 

The seven-day average of hospital admissions is about 13,000 per day, a decrease of about 25 percent over the previous period.

And the seven-day average of daily deaths are at about 2,400 a day, which is an increase of about 3 percent over the prior week. 

This week, we reached a tragic new mark of 900,000 deaths in this country from COVID-19. 

Each week, I share with you the burden of disease in the United States, including case counts, hospital admissions, and the number of deaths.  Much of the data I readily share is because we have made huge strides in our ability to effectively monitor this virus, and new tools allow us to prepare and react to an evolving virus and inform response measures in near real time. 

Today, I’d like to walk you through just a few of the layers of surveillance we have in place, some that we have been expanding and developing over the past two years and others that are bedrocks of our public health work. 

Let’s start at the local community level where our biggest question is: Can we quickly identify spikes in cases?  As people with COVID-19 shed the virus, testing in wastewater or our sewage systems can help us monitor COVID-19 in communities and provide an early warning of increased COVID-19 cases to help communities prepare. 

Last week, CDC publicly released national wastewater surveillance data, tracking more than 400 testing sites across the country in 212 communities, which we will double to more than 800 testing sites in the next four weeks. 

On this map, you can see the testing sites that we monitor and trends in the levels of the virus.  Communities in blue have decreasing levels of virus, while communities in red and orange have increasing levels. 

This is a powerful tool that, when paired with traditional public health surveillance, can help us identify where the disease is spreading and how best to distribute resources. 

We’ve also made significant progress in syndromic surveillance, defined by the ability to identify symptoms and cases that are suggestive of COVID-19 disease.  Through syndromic surveillance, we can answer questions about disease severity and patient populations with the highest burdens of disease — crucial information to inform guidance and prevention measures. 

More than 6,000 healthcare facilities across the country, representing over 70 percent of emergency departments, contribute data to our syndromic surveillance and help us understand where and how the virus is having an impact. 

In addition to monitoring where the virus is and how disease presents in the community, our genomic surveillance can quickly identify variants so that we can understand their impact.  Each week, CDC analyzes genomic sequences from all 50 states and uses these sequences to understand the spread of variants across the country. 

On this slide, you can see the projections of variant proportions for the last 14 weeks.  Omicron, shown in pink and purple, now represents nearly 100 percent of viruses circulating in the United States. 

Our cohort studies and state-level surveillance data provide detailed and regular reports of how our vaccines are working in the real world among diverse populations, giving us faster and better data to know that our vaccines are working against new and emerging variants. 

You’ve heard me discuss many of these platforms before, like our hospital surveillance through CDC’s COVID-NET and IVY; our collaboration with seven integrated healthcare and public health research centers through VISION; surveillance of infection is essential in frontline workers in HEROES-RECOVER; and our nationwide surveillance of vaccine effectiveness in children and young adults in overcoming COVID-19. 

Taken together, these studies provide us an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of how vaccines are working with participations in sites nationwide. 

And importantly, COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under the most intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in the United States’ history. 

Our nationwide vaccine safety networks — such as V-safe, which provides personalized and confidential health check-ins via text message — and other systems — such as VAERS, the Clinical Immunization Safety project, and the Vaccine Safety Datalink — empower us with the data of any rare side effects or reactions after vaccination or boosting.

This is a huge amount of data.  CDC — along with our partners across government; state and local jurisdictions; academia; and healthcare — has cast a wide and comprehensive net over the country to follow the virus and its impacts in real time. 

And we will continue these data as our guiding — using these data as our guiding source as we look to what comes next.

I know there will come a time when we move from a phase of crisis to a point where COVID-19 is not disrupting our daily lives.  And as we all look forward to this next step, I want to instill in everyone that moving forward from this pandemic will be a process that’s led by our surveillance and our data. 

I’m confident that CDC and our public health partners are well positioned to lead the way. 

Thank you.  And now, with that, I will turn things back over to you, Jeff. 

MR. ZIENTS:  Thanks, Dr. Walensky. 

Now, let’s move to booster shots.  We know that there are a number of different ways to view progress on boosters, depending on which data set you’re looking at.

For example, some people assess boosters as a proportion of all adults who are fully vaccinated, while others look at the total U.S. adult population, even though not every adult is eligible for a booster shot yet.

So, before I turn to Dr. Fauci on the effectiveness of booster shots, I want to review how we assess the available data and use the best available data to measure the progress we’re making on getting people booster shots.

CDC data aggregated from state health departments shows that more than 90 million booster shots have been administered.  We know that that is likely undercounted as some people reported their booster as a first shot and others forgot their vaccination card altogether.

States have been matching data and have encountered some challenges across different channels, which has led to delayed reporting for booster shots in many states.

CDC is working with states to address these issues to improve the data.

At the same time, CDC conducts a weekly survey, which is a nationally representative survey of over 16,000 adults.  Looking at the CDC survey results, you get a more up-to-date picture of the progress we are making on boosters.

Based on the latest CDC survey, we estimate over two thirds  of all eligible adults and over 80 percent of all eligible seniors — those most at risk  and most vulnerable — have received a booster shot.

CDC’s survey results are consistent with the Kaiser Family Foundation survey which shows 70 percent of eligible adults report they’ve gotten a booster.

So, we have a strong foundation to build on, with most eligible adults boosted.

In fact, we estimate at least two out of three adult — eligible adults in the U.S. are now boosted — two out of three eligible adult Americans with a booster shot.

And across the last two months, we’ve made important strides on equity, with the majority of booster shots going to people of color, in a very improvement from the prior two months.

The significant progress we made on boosters is one of the reasons why we were able to confront Omicron with fewer disruptions to schools and businesses than in prior surges.  And we clearly need to keep driving this progress.

So , our message is clear: All eligible individuals should get their booster shot right away.  Booster shots are free.  They’re available at 90,000 convenient locations across the country and, as Dr. Fauci will discuss, critical to getting people the highest level of protection.

With that, over to you, Dr. Fauci.

DR. FAUCI:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  What I’m going to do now over the next couple of minutes is to just build on what Jeff said and talk to you, based on real data, why it is so critically important to get booster shots.

I’m going to talk about laboratory data, clinical trial data, and real-world data.

Next slide.

So there are multiple — and I can’t show them all — in vitro studies that show that COVID-19 vaccine booster doses markedly increase the neutralization of variants, including what we’re dealing with currently, namely Omicron.

Next slide.

This is the slide that shows the genomic mean titer of antibody, namely the proteins that neutralize the virus.  If you look at the far left-hand side of the slide, seven months after people receive a second dose and before the booster, look how low the response is to Omicron, which is the bar that has the red circles.  It’s 23.

One month after the booster, it goes way up into the highly protective zone of 850.  And even six months after the booster, it is still at a high level of 136 — way above what it was seven months after the second dose.  So, that’s representative laboratory data.

Next slide.

Now, a randomized controlled clinical trial showed the dramatic impact of the booster dose in preventing symptomatic disease.  And the data are really striking.  I’ll show you one clip of that on the next slide.

As you can see in red are individuals who’ve gotten two doses — it says placebo, but it’s two doses — without the booster.  And this is a  Pfizer study, but it really holds true with other products like Moderna.

If you look at the result in blue of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 following a booster shot, the difference is dramatic.

Next slide.

Now we’ll move to real-world effectiveness studies showing that booster doses reconstitute the waning protection, especially against severe disease, hospitalization, and deaths.

So, next slide.

So, here, we look at individuals less than six months after the second dose.  And on the  far left, you see when you’re dealing with Delta, it’s 90; when you’re dealing with Omicron, it’s 81.  But more than six months after the second dose, it wanes with Omicron to 57, holding up a bit better with Delta.

But after the third dose, you get protection at 90 percent with Omicron, which  is even better than after six months after the second dose.  Again, another example of the critical importance of boosting.

Next slide.

Here is another way of looking at it.  When you look at symptomatic disease and hospitalizations, again, when you’re dealing with Omicron, on the far left, the protection against symptomatic disease is quite low at week 25, following two doses.  If you look at the boost, it goes up substantially to 40 percent. 

But the critical data are on the right-hand part of the slide.  If you look at hospitalizations and look at two doses of the Pfizer BioNTech either at 2 to 4 weeks or 10 to 14 weeks, it’s still way up there at 75 percent.

Next slide. 

And again, if you look at CDC data, which shows a dramatic reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death for people who’ve received a booster dose, we can see that on the next slide. 

And this is a summary of data: If you compare a fully vaccinated person with one who has received a booster shot, and look at the monthly rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalizations during a timeframe of December 2021, there was a 45-fold higher likelihood of an unvaccinated person in the age range of 50 to 64, and a 51-fold higher likelihood of an unvaccinated age 65 and older of being hospitalized when you compare it to an individual with a boost.

Next slide.

When you look at death rate, again, the data are really rather striking.  If you look at unvaccinated in red and look at the death rate per 100,000 compared to a fully vaccinated person who’s not been boosted — showing you why vaccinations even without boosts are important.  But look what the booster does: It brings back the death rate per 100,000 to a remarkably low level. 

So, we can only come to one conclusion on the last slide: that  COVID-19 vaccines, booster shots can keep you out of the hospital and certainly can save your life.

Back to you, Jeff.

MR. ZIENTS:  Thanks, Dr. Fauci. 

Before we open for questions, I want to highlight how far we’ve come in our fight against COVID.

Last week, we learned the U.S. economy created 6.6 million new jobs in the President’s first year in office.  That’s the best 12 months of job creation in our nation’s history. 

Notably, this includes 467,000 jobs created in January and 510,000 in December.  Those were the two months when we were at the height of the Omicron surge.

The first time we faced a similar threat from COVID back in April of 2020, we lost around 20 million jobs in one month.  Even as we face the extremely transmissible Omicron variant and saw a record number of cases, businesses stayed open and our economy kept growing stronger.  That’s because we’re in such a different position today in terms of our ability to manage this virus. 

We have over 210 million people fully vaccinated and vaccines freely available.  And we have more tools like boosters, treatments, masks, and tests that give us additional layers of protection. 

Today, fully vaccinated and boosted Americans are able to keep living their lives safely, even when this virus throws us a curveball.  And we’re able to keep our kids in school and keep our businesses open.

As the President said on Friday, January was a tough month for this country, but we got through it together.  Over the past three weeks, daily cases are down over 65 percent; hospital admissions are down 40 percent.

The President’s COVID plan is working.  We’re moving toward a time when COVID won’t disrupt our daily lives, a time when COVID won’t be a constant crisis but rather will be something we can protect against and treat. 

With that, let’s open it up for a few questions.  Over to you, Kevin.

MODERATOR:  Thanks, Jeff.  We’ve got a lot of questions today.  So, let’s actually try to keep it to one question. 

First, let’s go to Zeke Miller at the AP. 

Q    Thanks.  In the last week, we’ve seen a number of Democratic-led — -run states move back towards normalcy, removing mask mandates.  New York is expected to follow today.  We saw Connecticut, other states lift mask requirements in schools. 

You’ve talked a lot about leading — the President trying to lead the nation out of the pandemic, but right now, the federal response seems to be following what a lot of states are doing.  Is the White House planning for emerging — bringing the country out of the pandemic?  And what would that plan look like?

MR. ZIENTS:  Well, thanks for the question.  So while cases and hospitalizations, as Dr. Walensky showed, are trending downward, we do remain focused on fighting the Omicron surge.  So, that’s priority number one. 

The President, as I just mentioned, has been clear that we’re moving toward a time when COVID won’t disrupt our daily lives, a time when COVID won’t be a constant crisis so we’re no longer fearing lockdowns and shutdowns, but getting back to safely doing what we all love.  In doing so, we will rely on the powerful set of tools that have been built: the vaccines, the booster shots, treatments, and testing. 

For the last several weeks, we’ve been working closely with Secretary Becerra, our team of doctors.  And the White House COVID Response Team under the President’s leadership is reaching out to governors and outside public health experts and doctors and local public health officials on steps we should be taking to keep the country moving forward. 

We know that in different areas of the country, cases have fallen more significantly, and this will lead to different approaches and different timing.  And we will continue to coordinate closely with state and local leaders. 

Next question.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Sabrina Siddiqui at the Wall Street Journal.

Q    Thank you so much.  This is a question for Dr.  Walensky.  I just want to follow up on current guidance around masks, because, you know, the last CDC recommendation was that there should be indoor masking in public settings where transmission is substantial or high.  According to CDC data, that appears to still be the entire country — the case in the entire country where community transmission is high.  So is that still the recommendation?

And furthermore, you’ve also recommended that there be universal masking in schools.  Is that — is that a recommendation you stand by as states are also moving to drop — or to lift mask mandates for teachers and students in schools?

MR. ZIENTS:  Dr. Walensky?

DR. WALENSKY:  Yeah, thank you, Sabrina.  So we certainly understand the need and desire to be flexible, and we want to ensure the public health guidance that we’re providing meets the moment that we’re in.

As we’ve discussed and as you noted, cases and hospitalizations are falling.  This is, of course, encouraging.  And that leads us, of course, to have us look at all of our guidance based on the latest data and the science and what we know about the virus. 

We also look, of course, as Jeff mentioned, to our hospitalizations, looking at the hospitals as a barometer of how they’re doing locally so those decisions can be made at the local level. 

And, of course, we at CDC will keep the public informed about our guidance, and we will clearly communicate those recommendations to the public if and when they are updated.

Thank you.

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question, please.

MODERATOR:  We’ll go to Cheyenne Haslett at ABC News.

Q    Hi, thank you.  Dr. Walensky, you mentioned the specific benchmarks on hospitalization that you’re looking to for when it will be a good time to change some of this guidance for unmasking, both in schools and generally in public for adults.  What exactly will that benchmark be?

DR. WALENSKY:  Right.  So, Cheyenne, we — you know, in part of our review of the surveillance, we look at wastewater, we look at cases, we look at hospitalizations — we’ve been reporting hospitalizations — we look at deaths.  And, of course, those decisions are made at the local level.

But at this time, we continue to recommend masking in areas of high and substantial transmission — that’s much of the country right now — in public indoor settings.  And so we’re, of course, taking a close look at this in real-time, and we’re evaluating rates of transmission as well as rates of severe outcomes as we look at updating and reviewing our guidance.

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question, please.

MODERATOR:  We’ll go to Victoria Knight at Kaiser Health News.

Q    Thanks so much for taking my question.  So, I’ve been talking to people who are immunocompromised, people who are disabled, living with chronic illnesses, and they’re all telling me that they’re feeling like they are being left behind, especially in light of a lot of states lifting their mask mandates, and they’re feeling like their needs are not being considered moving forward after Omicron.  So what is your message to them?  What do you expect them to do?  Do they need to just stay in their houses?  What is your message to people like that?

MR. ZIENTS:  Dr. Walensky?

DR. WALENSKY:  Right.  So this is among the considerations that we take into account as we work on all of our recommendations.  We, of course, have to make recommendations that are, you know, relevant for New York City and rural Montana.  We have to make recommendations that are met — relevant for the public, but also for the public who is immunocompromised and disabled.  And so, that — all of those considerations are taken into account as we work on our guidance. 

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question, please. 

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Kaitlan Collins at CNN.

Q    Thanks so much.  Dr. Walensky, you just said that you do continue to recommend masking indoors in areas of high transmission, and that you said that that’s most of the country right now.  So are you seeing any data that supports the decisions of these governors to drop mandates?  And when it comes to masking, should people be listening to the CDC or listening to their governors?

DR. WALENSKY:  Kaitlan, we’ve always said that these decisions are going to have to be made at the local level and that policies at the local level will look at local cases, they’ll look at how local hospitals are doing, they’ll look at local vaccination rates.

And they, as I understand it, in many of these decisions are using a phased approach.  Not all of these decisions are being made to stop things tomorrow, but they’re looking at a phased approach.

And so, what I would say is: Again, they have to be done at the local level.  But I’m really encouraged that cases are continuing to drop dramatically, hospitalizations are continuing to drop dramatically as people are making these decisions and as we are working on our guidance.

So I’m encouraged to see those trends.

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question, please.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Sheryl Stolberg at the New York Times. 

MR. ZIENTS:  Sheryl?

Q    Can you hear me?

MR. ZIENTS:  Now we can, yes.

Q    Sorry about that.  Thank you for taking this question — it’s for Dr. Walensky.  Dr. Walensky, the states have been asking explicitly, governors have been asking explicitly for guidance from the CDC on mask-wearing and how to relax mitigation numbers. 

Is the CDC prepared to provide guidance to the governors?  And when will it do so?

DR. WALENSKY:  Sheryl, thank you.  And I’ll simply go back to: Yes, we are prepared.  We are working on that guidance.  We are working on, you know, following the trends for the moment. 

What I will say though is, you know, our hospitalizations are still high, our death rates are still high.  So, as we work towards that and as we are encouraged by the current trends, we are not there yet.

MR. ZIENTS:  Next question, please.

MODERATOR:  Let’s go to Kristen Welker at NBC.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks so much for doing this call.  I know that you have spoken in the past about the fact that we could be moving closer to having a vaccine for children under the age of five.  And obviously, when you look at some of the polling, it’s potentially concerning: Just 3 in 10 parents of children under the age of five say that they’ll get their child vaccinated. 

Can you update us on your latest efforts once those vaccines are approved to reach those parents who are still skeptical?  What should they know?  And why should they have confidence in the vaccines once they are approved?  What will your messaging be, and what are your latest outreach efforts?

MR. ZIENTS:  Well, Dr. Fauci, maybe you can do a minute or two on the under-five vaccine status.  And then I’ll talk some about both the operational issues and the — answering questions and building confidence work. 

Dr. Fauci.

DR. FAUCI:  Yeah.  Thank you, Jeff. 

Yes, the data from the trials on children from 6 months to 24 months, as well as those from 21 months to — up to the end of 4 years have been conducted by the pharmaceutical company, in this case, Pfizer. 

The data have been submitted to the FDA, and the FDA VRBPAC, or their advisory committee, will be meeting on February 15th.  I think people need to be assured that any decision that the FDA makes, as is historically always the case with them, will really be based on the scientific data of both safety and efficacy.  And we can assure you that the decision will be based on that. 

And if, in fact, approved, it will be approved on the fact that the data show clear efficacy and safety. 

So, I’ll go back to you, Jeff, for the rest of that question.

MR. ZIENTS:  Thanks, Dr. Fauci.  So, operationally, we will be ready once FDA and CDC make their recommendations.  As we talked about last week, this vaccine is specifically formulated for these young kids.  So, we’re launching a new program specially for kids under five.

The planning process is well underway.  CDC is working with states to help them prepare.  We’ve secured enough vaccine supply for all kids in this age group — all 18 million.  We have enough needles, syringes, and kits.  And these are all specially formulated, are made for this age group to send alongside the vaccine.

And we’re working closely, you know, with pediatricians and family doctors and children’s hospitals and pharmacies to make sure the vaccine is available at thousands of locations across the country — locations that parents know and trust. 

We can start packing and shipping the vaccine once FDA makes its decision.  So, we will be prepared for those parents that are eager to get their kids vaccinated. 

I think the second part of your question is — there are parents that are — that do have questions, and we need to answer those questions.  And we’ve learned through our efforts across the last year that the best messengers are local messengers — local community groups and leaders, doctors, and other health practitioners. 

So, we are working closely with HHS to line up that group and make sure that they have the materials that they need, the training they need to be able to answer the questions that parents have about getting their kids vaccinated. 

Next question, please.

MODERATOR:  Last question.  Let’s go to Josh Wingrove of Bloomberg.

Q    Hi there.  Thank you very much.  Dr. Fauci, can you talk a little bit more about what you think the data show now of the need for a shot beyond the third dose, beyond a booster?

As you know, boosters are being given as early as five months — we are approaching five months now — some of the — first folks who got it.

What do we know about how often or if further shots will be needed going forward, and in particular, whether we might need specific types of shots for any variant?  Thank you.

DR. FAUCI:  Yeah.  Yeah, thank you for that question.  That’s obviously an issue that have been followed very closely.  Because as I’ve said in answer to questions on previous press conferences — similar questions — is that you follow individuals for a period of time after the third dose and you measure a number of phenomenon.  You measure laboratory phenomenon, but you measure the real-world data on the efficacy in preventing, for example, hospital visits, as well as hospitalizations.

And I believe that you’re going to be hearing data about that as they — data become available.  And that should not be within a very long period of time. 

I think you should be appreciative of the fact that when you’re talking about any decisions that will be made — and I’m not anticipating any of that now — but that has to be put into the context of whom you’re talking about.

For example, there may be the need for yet again another boost — in this case, a fourth-dose boost for an individual receiving the mRNA — that could be based on age, as well as underlying conditions. 

So, I don’t think you’re going to be hearing, if you do, any kind of recommendations that would be across the board for everyone.  It very likely will take into account what subset of people have a diminished, or not, protection against the important parameters such as hospitalization.

MR. ZIENTS:  Thank you, everybody.  We look forward to the next briefing. 

11:37 A.M. EST

To view the COVID Press Briefing slides, visit: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/COVID-Press-Briefing-2.9.22-clean.pdf