Tag Archives: guidelines

Evanston, Illinois raises COVID transmission level to ‘high’ as cases climb; Recommendations issued based on CDC guidelines

EVANSTON, Ill. (WLS) — Evanston is now at a “high” COVID community level, as defined by the CDC, due to rising hospitalizations, not just case numbers.

Over the past seven days, Evanston has reported 397 new confirmed COVID-19 cases, up from 305 the week prior.

US COVID death toll reaches 1 million; Biden marks grim milestone

As a result, Evanston’s Health and Human Services has made the following recommendations based on CDC guidelines:

-Wearing a mask indoors in public irrespective of vaccination status including K-12 schools and other indoor public settings
-Wearing a mask or respirator that provides greater protection if you are a high risk individual for severe disease
-Wearing a mask if you have symptoms, a positive test, or have had an exposure to someone with COVID-19

-Socializing outdoors if possible and avoiding poorly ventilated indoor settings
-Getting tested before attending a family or public event. Home tests are ideal for this purpose
– Contacting your doctor right away to get treatment for COVID-19 if you are diagnosed
– Staying up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
– Following CDC recommendations for isolation and quarantine, including getting tested if you are exposed to COVID-19 or have symptoms of COVID-19.

Could COVID mask mandates return?

People flocking to restaurants in the north suburb Friday evening were seemingly unconcerned about rising COVID cases.

“We’ve been vaxxed, double vaxxed, triple vaxxed, and now it’s time to start getting on with life,” resident Mike Joyce said.

“I’m not too worried about it,” Christina Joyce said. “People already are very much experienced about how to protect themselves.”

Despite the elevated risk, Evanston’s Health and Human Services Director Ike Ogbo said the city is not bringing back mask mandates.

“But, we also have that in our tool box, if we continue to see a sustained high transmission rate in Evanston,” Ogbo said.

Instead, public health officials strongly recommend masking indoors, regardless of vaccine status and urge residents to get up to date with vaccination and boosters.

Ogbo said the same advice goes to Evanston Township High School students who are attending their prom this weekend.

“With any big event comes issues with contracting COVID,” Ogbo said. “That is why it’s necessary for individuals to follow these public health initiatives.”

Across our area, only Kenosha and Racine counties in Wisconsin are at a “high” community level. Other Chicago area counties are at “medium” or “low” risk, with the city of Chicago also at “medium.”

City officials say hospitalizations would need to double to go to the next level.

“It is possible we can go to high, but I don’t think it is imminent in the next week certainly,” Chicago Dept. of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady said. “But this is why we asking while we are at “medium” to put masks back on try to gather outside if you can.”

At the state level, officials said mask mandates are not being discussed.

“If we get in high, we’re going to ask people to be really careful and avoid indoor crowded spaces when possible,” said Dr. Amaal Tokars, acting director of Illinois Dept. of Public Health.

Cases and hospitalizations have been on the rise, but COVID-related deaths remain at a pandemic low. Officials credit the vaccine and effective treatments, and say now is the time to get vaccinated and boosted if you have not already.

Copyright © 2022 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.



Read original article here

New on NIL: College leaders urge NCAA to enforce new guidelines

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.—Inside the Hyatt Regency at Gainey Ranch, the lavish resort on the outskirts of Phoenix, dozens of the most powerful people in college sports milled about, parading through the expansive lobby and basking in the sun on the terrace. But, the majority landed deep within conference meeting rooms, searching for answers to what’s become the latest seismic quandary in the industry—the rapidly escalating donor-fueled bidding war for college football and men’s basketball players.

“This is the time we have to put our stake in the ground. Enough! This is not acceptable,” frustrated Colorado athletic director Rick George says. “What we’re doing is not good for intercollegiate athletics, and it has got to stop.”

College leaders are strongly urging the NCAA enforcement team to begin investigating what they deem to be obvious recruiting violations, past and present. Donor-led collectives that have struck deals with players before they sign binding letters of intent are violating rules, says George, one of the leaders of an NCAA working group that will soon publicize additional NIL guidelines. 

George is one of many college sports officials looking to enforce stronger NIL-related guidelines around recruiting. 

Ron Chenoy/USA TODAY Sports

Additional NIL guidelines, which the NCAA working group are currently finalizing, are expected to help regulate these deals that officials say are encouraging current players to remain on their teams and inducing recruits to sign with their schools, a developing situation Sports Illustrated detailed Monday. On Tuesday, SI reported on the impending release of the guidelines, which could happen as early as next week. George and Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, also on the working group, confirmed the existence of the draft of guidelines.

The guidance clarifies existing NCAA bylaws that prohibit boosters from being involved in recruiting. Any booster or booster-led collective that has been found to have associated with prospects about recruiting—on another college team or in high school—will be found to have violated NCAA rules and put the booster’s school at risk of sanctions, George says. In addition, a booster, or booster-run collectives, “cannot communicate with a student-athlete or others affiliated with a student-athlete to encourage them to remain enrolled or attend an institution.”

“Just because we have NIL, it doesn’t eliminate the rules,” George says. “Everybody is like, ‘It’s NIL!’ I am totally in favor of NIL done right. It’s really good. [Athletes] should be able to monetize their NIL, but a lot of what’s going on out there is not NIL.”

Since the NIL concept began last July, college officials say there is well-documented evidence that boosters and collectives have arranged deals with prospects, many striking agreements before recruits signed with their new school. There is evidence of some boosters even hosting prospects at their homes and flying them to visit campuses, which all constitutes NCAA violations, leaders say.

“What’s happening now—I only know what I hear—is the inducements violate rules,” Smith says. “Hopefully this passes Monday and will give more clarity and guidelines. But then, [NCAA] enforcement has to enforce. The schools need to enforce, as well. At the end of the day, you have an institutional responsibility to enforce.”

The guidelines introduce more clarity to an interim NIL policy that provided only vague guidance that boosters are now skirting—if violations are found over the past 10 months since NIL first began, the NCAA should investigate those schools for sanctions.

“One-hundred percent,” George said. “We have to look at these deals. The NCAA has got to look at them, and if they are not within our guidelines, then hold them accountable and be firm.”

The enforcement staff has to be “ready to go” once the guidelines are released, says another Power 5 athletic director who requested anonymity. “They need to hit them and hit them hard and fast.”

However, it may be complicated.

NCAA enforcement has been less willing and perhaps unable to enforce existing bylaws, George and Smith say. For one, the organization is concerned that any enforcement will spark a bevy of antitrust legal challenges. Secondly, the NCAA enforcement staff is ill-equipped for a full-scale nationwide inquiry. It is down 15-20 members from COVID-19 pandemic layoffs. Smith says the association plans to eventually replace people.

In a warning shot at the NCAA itself, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told SI on Wednesday if the NCAA does not start enforcing existing bylaws, leaders will find an alternate solution but did not specify what those solutions could be. Amid the uncertainty, Kliavkoff and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey traveled to Washington D.C. on Thursday for meetings with key U.S. senators in hope of further encouraging them to pass federal NIL legislation, which many believe will be the only practical solution for the latest mess but is unlikely to pass this year. 

Scroll to Continue

The NCAA enforcement’s staffing situation, which does not allow it to deeply pursue violators “is the biggest issue” the organization has, George says. But industry experts contend any enforcement will invariably generate lawsuits from wealthy donors. Given last summer’s Supreme Court loss in the Alston case and a bevy of state laws protecting the boosters themselves, what can the NCAA actually do?

“If they punish the kids, they will have lawyers lining up,” says Arizona-based sports attorney Greg Clifton. “There will be a class action lawsuit within 48 hours.”

Booster collectives have struck hundreds of deals since last July, and many of the donor-led groups have already pooled more than $5 million in a pseudo-player salary pool tagged for NIL. Boosters who spoke to SI say they are in compliance with their respective state laws governing NIL and/or the NCAA’s interim policy and they have proof to back that up.

“The NCAA has always said no pay-for-play and inducements and that’s what we’re seeing,” says Tom McMillen, president of LEAD1, an organization representing FBS athletic directors. “The NCAA could come down and … I just don’t know how you terminate deals. What are the enforcement mechanisms? Make kids ineligible?”

Sankey was one of the Power 5 commissioners to visit with lawmakers in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.

Vasha Hunt/USA TODAY Sports

Many boosters and collectives are managed by platforms such as Opendorse that assure they remain in compliance by tracking all athlete deals. Several are managed by sports agents and savvy attorneys who have kept documentation of their communication and the quid pro quos.

“I do think if the NCAA is able to go after the schools in some manner based on what the collectives are doing as representatives of a school’s athletics interest, that could put a stop to some of the inducement stuff going on right now,” says Mit Winter, a sports attorney who advises several collectives. “But if the NCAA declares an athlete ineligible, it’s likely that a lawsuit would ensue. Same with boosters and collectives.”

A plague on the NCAA for years, potential litigation was the primary reason the association abandoned plans last summer to implement a more permanent policy governing NIL, opening the door for wealthy donors to creatively maneuver around vague interim guidelines.

Now, as boosters for elite Power 5 programs bankroll football teams in a high-priced bidding war, the organization is shifting into attack mode. It raises more questions than answers.

“Whether it’s possible to un-ring the bell, it remains to be seen,” says Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who is also on the working group. “It seems we would have been infinitely better off had we gone ahead and implemented the guardrails.”

George and several administrators were against the NCAA’s decision to eschew the permanent policy. “We shouldn’t have abandoned it,” he says. At the behest of the NCAA’s legal team and in a plan proposed by commissioners Sankey and Jim Phillips (ACC), as well as four other league executives, the plan was tabled.

“We pulled the police officers off the highway and everyone is now going 90 miles an hour,” Smith says. “Now we’re trying to put the officers back on the highway.”

Will the vehicles slow down?

“I don’t think all of the collectives will decide ‘OK, we’re going to listen to the NCAA now,’” Winter says. “With as much time and money they’ve spent putting them together, they aren’t going to want to stop. It’s a really interesting situation.”

More College Sports Coverage:



Read original article here

Obese adults should drink less alcohol than guidelines state because of greater risk, experts warn

Bottles on the wall: higher fat levels appear to ‘amplify’ the harmful effects of alcohol 

Guideline drinking limits should be set lower for fat people as alcohol causes them greater harm, experts say.

Overweight boozers who follow the UK’s recommendations of no more than 14 units a week are three times more likely to develop some cancers than those who are slim.

A University of Sydney study examined data on 400,000 UK adults aged between 40 and 69 and looked at how many developed alcohol-related cancer during a 12-year period. 

They found higher fat levels appeared to ‘amplify’ the harmful effects of alcohol. Compared to ‘never drinkers’ with the lowest body fat, those with the most fat who drank within alcohol limits were 53 per cent more likely to develop cancers including oral, throat, larynx, liver, bowel, stomach and breast.

But those with the least body fat who drank within limits were only 19 per cent more at risk.

People with the most fat who drank above limits were 61 per cent more likely to get cancer.

Overweight drinkers who follow UK recommendations are three-times more likely to develop some cancers than those who are slim

Dr Elif Inan-Eroglu, who led both studies at the University of Sydney, said: ‘Alcohol drinking guidelines should consider the obesity levels of people.

‘People with obesity, especially those with excess body fat, need to be more aware of the risks around alcohol consumption.’

The UK’s chief medical officers advise men and women drink no more than 14 units a week on a regular basis, spread over three or more days.

How much alcohol is too much?

To keep health risks from alcohol to a low level, the NHS advises men and women not to regularly drink more than 14 units a week.

A unit of alcohol is 8g or 10ml of pure alcohol, which is about:

  • half a pint of lower to normal-strength lager/beer/cider (ABV 3.6%)
  • a single small shot measure (25ml) of spirits (25ml, ABV 40%)

A small glass (125ml, ABV 12%) of wine contains about 1.5 units of alcohol.

But the NHS warns the risk to your health is increased by drinking any amount of alcohol on a regular basis. 

Short-term risks include injury, violent behaviour and alcohol poisoning.

Long-term risks include heart and liver disease, strokes, as well as liver, bowel, moth and breast cancer.

People who drink as much as 14 units a week are advised to spread it evenly over three or more days, rather than binge drinking.

Women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant are advised not to drink to reduce risks for the baby.

Source: NHS

But Dr Inan-Eroglu warned these guidelines are too general, adding: ‘If you have normal weight or if you have obesity, it doesn’t differ – but it should.’

Higher drinking allowances for people of a healthy weight could even act as ‘motivation’, she suggested because ‘if I eat less, I can drink more’.

Dr Inan-Eroglu added: ‘People with overweight and obesity should consume alcohol cautiously.

‘From a cancer-prevention standpoint, the safest level of alcohol consumption is total avoidance.’

The researchers adjusted their results to take into account other factors that might affect their findings, including age, sex, diet, education level, physical activity, smoking status, sleep duration, socioeconomic status, and existing cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes.

Tam Fry, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said: ‘This research will be bad news if you’re fat and have a hangover this morning – but it should teach you a lesson.

‘Since, mistakenly, manufacturers are not required to put calorie counts on the bottle of your favourite tipples, many people are oblivious to the quantity of calories they are consuming and leading to cancer.

‘Put simply, avoid binge drinking like the plague. You’ll be much healthier for it.’ Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said: ‘Alcohol is responsible for 46 new cancer cases every day in the UK.

‘This latest research is yet another reminder of the damage that alcohol can do to our health, and particularly underlines the combined cancer risk of obesity and calorie-rich alcohol.

‘It also highlights the urgent need for the government to ensure policies that reduce alcohol consumption are part of the wider Obesity Strategy.

‘We owe it to our nation’s health to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol and comprehensive restrictions on alcohol marketing and availability.’

Dr Alison Giles, chief executive of the Institute of Alcohol Studies, said: ‘The health community has known for years that alcohol causes cancer and that your risk increases even within the UK’s 14-unit guidelines.

‘We also know this risk increases with an higher body fat, so it’s good to see research looking at combined risk factors.

‘What is crucial is that people who drink alcohol understand these risks, and better product labelling and public health campaigns can raise awareness of this.

‘Healthcare professionals can also help people understand, by discussing alcohol consumption as a cancer risk factor with people living with obesity.

‘The alcohol industry will undoubtedly say this is ‘scaremongering’, when it’s simply a case of people having the right to know the health risks of alcohol in order to make informed decisions about what they consume.’

Matt Lambert, chief executive of alcohol trade body the Portman Group, said: ‘We believe in having clear information on pack that aids rather than alienates consumers.

‘It is likely that having varied guidance for people would be confusing, counterproductive and also potentially patronising.

‘We support the inclusion of CMO guidance on labelling which features on the vast majority of UK alcohol products. Equally nearly half of products show calories on labels which is more likely to be useful to someone looking at their diets.’

Read original article here

Task force’s updated guidelines do not recommend daily aspirin for heart health for most adults

The US Preventive Service Task Force has finalized its latest recommendations on low-dose aspirin regimens and now says people over 60 should not start taking a daily aspirin for primary prevention of heart problems, in most cases.

If you are between 40 and 59 years old, the USPSTF leaves it up to you and your doctor to decide whether you should take a daily aspirin in specific circumstances.

“If you are really healthy, if you’re a healthy 40-year-old with no major risk factors, you will do more harm than good with daily aspirin. Your risk of bleeding will exceed the benefits,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the new guidelines. “People need to understand that aspirin is not a completely benign or innocent therapy.”

But if you’ve had a heart attack, a stroke or other heart or circulation problems and your doctor has put you on daily aspirin, don’t stop taking it — instead, talk with them about what the new recommendations mean for you.

“In secondary prevention, aspirin is important. If you have a stent, if you’ve had a myocardial infarction or a stroke, for all of those people, aspirin works. It provides a modest but definite benefit,” Nissen said.

The USPSTF is a group of independent disease prevention and medical experts from across the country who make recommendations that help guide doctors’ decisions. Their recommendations also affect insurance companies’ reimbursement decisions.

Aspirin works by keeping your body from making certain natural substances that cause pain and swelling. It can also keep your blood from clotting, and that’s why doctors recommended it for years to prevent cardiovascular problems like heart attack or stroke.

According to the recommendations, published Tuesday in JAMA, your doctor might want to consider an aspirin regimen if you are in the 40-to-59 age range and you have a 10% or higher 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease.

This means your chance of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years is higher than normal, based on a calculation that includes factors like age, sex, race, cholesterol levels, blood pressure, medication use, diabetic status and smoking status. According to the task force, a daily aspirin only “has a small net benefit,” for this group specifically.

Studies drove shift in guidance

The basis for the updated recommendations is the task force’s review of several significant randomized clinical trials on low-dose aspirin use, which found an association with a lower risk of myocardial infarction and stroke but not a reduction in mortality. Low-dose aspirin was also associated with increases in the risk of bleeding.

The last time the task force updated these recommendations, in 2016, it suggested that daily aspirin could be of benefit in colorectal cancer prevention. But the updated guidelines say there is limited evidence that it reduces the risk of colorectal cancer risks or mortality from that cancer.

The 2016 guidelines said there was some merit in daily aspirin use for those 50 to 59 who had a 10-year risk of cardiovascular problems higher than 10%, who were expected to live longer than 10 years and who were not at higher risk of bleeding.

The 2016 guidelines also suggested that people 60 to 69 with a 10% or higher cardiovascular risk should make an individual decision about taking a daily aspirin.

Bleeding problems in people without high-risk conditions like peptic ulcer disease, NSAID use or corticosteroid use are rare, the task force notes, but the risk goes up with age. “Modeling data suggest that it may be reasonable to consider stopping aspirin use around age 75 years.”

Cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 killer in the US, accounting for more than 1 in 4 deaths, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“The more data we get, the more we’re seeing that even though the risk of coronary disease and heart attack goes up as you get older, the risk of bleeding seems to be going up even faster,” said Dr. James Cireddu, medical director of the Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute at University Hospitals Bedford Medical Center, who did not work on the guidelines.

Earlier changes to heart guidelines

These are not the only recommendations about daily aspirin use. The new USPSTF guidelines are now more in line with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines and its recommendations for the average person who has never had a cardiac event, according to Dr. Roger Blumenthal, who co-chaired the committee behind the ACC/AHA guidelines.

“When you look at all the studies that have been done recently, it seems that the modest benefit of aspirin and otherwise low-risk individuals is generally negated by the increase in long-term GI problems, bleeding with aspirin,” Blumenthal said. “While we said it could be considered to give aspirin to someone who never had a heart attack or stroke, that should probably be the last of the things on the priority list.”

Aspirin still could have some place in heart health, said Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, president of the American Heart Association.

“Aspirin might still make sense in some situations, where we’re not doing as good a job controlling cholesterol, blood pressure, for whatever reason,” Lloyd-Jones said. “Maybe the medications are too expensive or a health system in a country can’t distribute those things, aspirin might continue to make sense, but I think in many situations in this country, where if people have good access to health care and they are taking care of other risk factors, aspirin now makes a lot less sense.”

You can take other steps to help your heart health with just a little effort, said Dr. Roy Buchinsky, director of wellness at University Hospitals in Ohio, who was not involved in the new USPSTF guidelines.

“We always preach that DNA is not your destiny, meaning there are so many things we can do from a lifestyle perspective that can reduce chronic illness and your risk for a heart disease and stroke,” Buchinsky said.

He suggests a good diet with “real food” 90% of the time and 10% “fun food.” Aim for at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, get plenty of sleep and target stress. Don’t smoke, and keep drinking to a minimum. Medications for cholesterol, diabetes and high blood pressure can also help if needed, but he said it’s even better if a patient doesn’t need them.

“It’s a lot easier to prevent than cure,” Buchinsky said.

Read original article here

Better Ventilation Prevents COVID Spread. Are Companies Aware?

Americans are abandoning their masks. They’re done with physical distancing. And, let’s face it, some people are just never going to get vaccinated.

Yet a lot can still be done to prevent covid infections and curb the pandemic.

A growing coalition of epidemiologists and aerosol scientists say that improved ventilation could be a powerful tool against the coronavirus — if businesses are willing to invest the money.

“The science is airtight,” said Joseph Allen, director of the Healthy Buildings programat Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “The evidence is overwhelming.”

Although scientists have known for years that good ventilation can reduce the spread of respiratory diseases such as influenza and measles, the notion of improved ventilation as a front-line weapon in stemming the spread of covid-19 received little attention until March. That’s when the White House launched a voluntary initiativeencouraging schools and work sites to assess and improve their ventilation.

The federal American Rescue Plan Act provides $122 billion for ventilation inspections and upgrades in schools, as well as $350 billion to state and local governments for a range of community-level pandemic recovery efforts, including ventilation and filtration. The White House is also encouraging private employers to voluntarily improve their indoor air quality and has provided guidelines on best practices.

The White House initiative comes as many employees are returning to the office after two years of remote work and while the highly contagious BA.2 omicron subvariant gains ground. If broadly embraced, experts say, the attention to indoor air quality will provide gains against covid and beyond, quelling the spread of other diseases and cutting incidents of asthma and allergy attacks.

The pandemic has revealed the dangerous consequences of poor ventilation, as well as the potential for improvement. Dutch researchers, for example, linked a 2020 covid outbreak at a nursing home to inadequate ventilation. A choir rehearsal in Skagit Valley, Washington, early in the pandemic became a superspreader event after a sick person infected 52 of the 60 other singers.

Ventilation upgrades have been associated with lower infection rates in Georgia elementary schools, among other sites. A simulation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that combining mask-wearing and the use of portable air cleaners with high-efficiency particulate air filters, or HEPA filters, could reduce coronavirus transmission by 90%.

Scientists stress that ventilation should be viewed as one strategy in a three-pronged assault on covid, along with vaccination, which provides the best protection against infection, and high-quality, well-fitted masks, which can reduce a person’s exposure to viral particles by 95%. Improved airflow provides an additional layer of protection — and can be a vital tool for people who have not been fully vaccinated, people with weakened immune systems, and children too young to be immunized.

One of the most effective ways to curb disease transmission indoors is to swap out most of the air in a room — replacing the stale, potentially germy air with fresh air from outside or running it through high-efficiency filters — as often as possible. Without that exchange, “if you have someone in the room who’s sick, the viral particles are going to build up,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech.

Exchanging the air five times an hour cuts the risk of coronavirus transmission in half, according to research cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Yet most buildings today exchange the air only once or twice an hour.

That’s partly because industry ventilation standards, written by a professional group called the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, or ASHRAE, are voluntary. Ventilation standards have generally been written to limit odors and dust, not control viruses, though the society in 2020 released new ventilation guidelines for reducing exposure to the coronavirus.

But that doesn’t mean building managers will adopt them. ASHRAE has no power to enforce its standards. And although many cities and states incorporate them into local building codes for new construction, older structures are usually not held to the same standards.

Federal agencies have little authority over indoor ventilation. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates standards for outdoor air quality, while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces indoor-air-quality requirements only in health care facilities.

David Michaels, an epidemiologist and a professor at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, said that he’d like to see a strong federal standard for indoor air quality but that such calls inevitably raise objections from the business community.

Two years into the pandemic, it’s unclear how many office buildings, warehouses, and other places of work have been retooled to meet ASHRAE’s recommended upgrades. No official body has conducted a national survey. But as facilities managers grapple with ways to bring employees back safely, advocates say ventilation is increasingly part of the conversation.

“In the first year of the pandemic, it felt like we were the only ones talking about ventilation, and it was falling on deaf ears,” said Allen, with Harvard’s Healthy Buildings program. “But there are definitely, without a doubt, many companies that have taken airborne spread seriously. It’s no longer just a handful of people.”

A group of Head Start centers in Vancouver, Washington, offers an example of the kinds of upgrades that can have impact. Ventilation systems now pump only outdoor air into buildings, rather than mixing fresh and recirculated air together, said R. Brent Ward, the facilities and maintenance operations manager for 33 of the federally funded early childhood education programs. Ward said the upgrades cost $30,000, which he funded using the centers’ regular federal Head Start operating grant.

Circulating fresh air helps flush viruses out of vents so they don’t build up indoors. But there’s a downside: higher cost and energy use, which increases the greenhouse gases fueling climate change. “You spend more because your heat is coming on more often in order to warm up the outdoor air,” Ward said.

Ward said his program can afford the higher heating bills, at least for now, because of past savings from reduced energy use. Still, cost is an impediment to a more extensive revamp: Ward would like to install more efficient air filters, but the buildings — some of which are 30 years old — would have to be retrofitted to accommodate them.

Simply hiring a consultant to assess a building’s ventilation needs can cost from hundreds to thousands of dollars. And high-efficiency air filters can cost twice as much as standard ones.

Businesses also must be wary of companies that market pricey but unproven cleaning systems. A 2021 KHN investigation found that more than 2,000 schools across the country had used pandemic relief funds to purchase air-purifying devices that use technology that’s been shown to be ineffective or a potential source of dangerous byproducts.

Meghan McNulty, an Atlanta mechanical engineer focused on indoor air quality, said building managers often can provide cleaner air without expensive renovations. For example, they should ensure they are piping in as much outdoor air as required by local codes and should program their daytime ventilation systems to run continuously, rather than only when heating or cooling the air. She also recommends that building managers leave ventilation systems running into the evening if people are using the building, rather than routinely turning them down.

Some local governments have given businesses and residents a boost. Agencies in Montana and the San Francisco Bay area last year gave away free portable air cleaners to vulnerable residents, including people living in homeless shelters. All the devices use HEPA filters, which have been shown to remove coronavirus particles from the air.

In Washington state, the public health department for Seattle and King County has drawn on $3.9 million in federal pandemic funding to create an indoor air program. The agency hired staff members to provide free ventilation assessments to businesses and community organizations and has distributed nearly 7,800 portable air cleaners. Recipients included homeless shelters, child care centers, churches, restaurants, and other businesses.

Although the department has run out of filters, staff members still provide free technical assistance, and the agency’s website offers extensive guidance on improving indoor air quality, including instructions for turning box fans into low-cost air cleaners.

“We did not have an indoor air program before covid began,” said Shirlee Tan, a toxicologist for Public Health-Seattle & King County. “It’s been a huge gap, but we didn’t have any funding or capacity.”

Allen, who has long championed “healthy buildings,” said he welcomes the new emphasis on indoor air, even as he and others are frustrated it took a pandemic to jolt the conversation. Well before covid brought the issue to the fore, he said, research was clear that improved ventilation correlated with myriad benefits, including higher test scores for kids, fewer missed school days, and better productivity among office workers.

“This is a massive shift that is, quite honestly, 30 years overdue,” Allen said. “It is an incredible moment to hear the White House say that the indoor environment matters for your health.”

Read original article here

New heart failure guidelines add another type of meds to treatment recommendations

Heart failure is caused by weakened muscles that lower the heart’s ability to properly squeeze and pump blood. Nearly 6.2 million Americans have it, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the US, accounting for almost 400,000 deaths a year as of 2018, and heart failure accounts for 8.5% of those deaths.

Ejection fraction is a measurement of how well the left ventricular compartment of the heart can squeeze. An ejection fraction higher than 50% is considered normal; one at or below 40% is considered reduced.

Previously, people who had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were treated with three classes of medications to reduce the amount of work that the heart has to do. One class includes ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and ARN inhibitors. Beta blockers are the second class, and the third is antimineralocorticoids.

The new guidelines advise prescribers to add SGLT2 inhibitors as the fourth type of medication for people who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

SGLT2, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2, inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine. This class of drugs, previously used only in people with diabetes, has been found to lower the risk of death in heart failure patients, as well.

The new recommendations were based off two clinical trials that found that people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who took the SGLT2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin lived longer. Both trials demonstrated that this benefit was significant even in people who did not have diabetes.

“When I discuss it with my patients, I explain that the evidence behind these recommendations is very solid. If you took 100 clinicians who were experienced and they looked at the evidence base, pretty much all 100 should come to the same conclusion that these are really recommended therapy,” said Dr. Mark Drazner, president of the Heart Failure Society of America and clinical chief of cardiology at UT Southwestern.

For the first time, the guidelines also provide treatment recommendations for people who have heart failure with ejection fractions between 41% and 49%, considered “mildly reduced ejection fractions,” and people who have ejection fractions of 50% and above, called preserved ejection fraction. These groups would also benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor, the recommendations say.

This recommendation is a “moderately strong” one that people should definitely discuss with their doctors, said Dr. Paul Heidenreich, chair of the committee that wrote the new guidelines and professor and vice chair for quality in the Department of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine. The level of recommendation is dependent on the strength of studies and the magnitude of benefit the drug provides.

Although people may be hesitant to add another medication to their regimen, Heidenreich said it’s important to emphasize that “feeling better … staying out of the hospital and living longer are the reasons to be taking the medication.”

SGLT2 inhibitors carry a higher risk of urinary tract infections. People who have type 1 diabetes or mild to moderately reduced kidney function should not take them.

Though the guidelines establish a new standard for treatment of heart failure based on strong clinical evidence, there are often delays in their real-world implementation.

“There’s a gap between the guideline recommendations and what the people in the country are actually getting treated with,” Drazner said. “Unfortunately, many patients don’t get on the highest level recommended therapy.”

Even utilization rates for the previously recommended three classes of medication therapy for heart failure were “shockingly low,” he said.

Things like drug pricing and clinicians who are slow to prescribe the medications contribute to these low rates, he said.

The guidelines also introduced new classification terminology for heart failure.

People who have risk factors like hypertension, diabetes or atherosclerosis but no evidence of heart failure are considered at-risk.

“Pre-heart failure” is now used to describe people who have no symptoms of heart failure but show evidence of structural heart disease or higher levels of cardiac disease biomarkers, such as brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), a protein that is released into the bloodstream when the heart can’t pump enough blood.

It is also now formally recommended that anyone with advanced-stage heart failure should seek care at a specialized advanced heart failure center. These centers have clinicians who specialize in the late stages of heart disease and can provide treatments such as heart transplants, left ventricular assist devices or palliative care, depending on patients’ goals.

Read original article here

Here are the Illinois Counties Where You Should Still Wear a Mask, According to New CDC Guidelines – NBC Chicago

The U.S. has relaxed mask guidance for the majority of Americans, explaining more than 70% of people live in areas where masks can safely be removed indoors.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a shift in metrics Friday that leans less heavily on COVID-19 cases and instead gives more weight to hospitalizations and hospital capacity.

While the new recommendation means most people don’t need to wear a mask indoors, that’s not the case for everyone in Illinois.

Masks aren’t recommended in the any Illinois’ counties in the Chicago area. Most, except one, are ranked as “low” community levels – the lowest category of risk as defined by the CDC.

As shown in a map from the CDC, counties said to have “low” community levels are colored green, those with “medium” levels are yellow and areas with “high” levels are orange.

LaSalle County has been ranked as a “medium” community level. In these locations, those at risk for severe illness are encouraged to talk to their health care provider about whether a mask should be worn and if other precautions should be taken, according to the CDC.

Kenosha County, Wisconsin, is the only area county listed as having “high” risk. According to CDC guidelines, in such areas, people are advised to wear masks in public indoor spaces, including schools, and take additional precautions if at risk for severe illness.

A total of 21 Illinois counties are experiencing troublesome metrics and are too listed as having “high” COVID transmission.

The counties where masks are recommended are listed below:

  • Adams County
  • Brown County
  • Christian County
  • Clark County
  • Edgar County
  • Franklin County
  • Gallatin County
  • Jackson County
  • Jefferson County
  • Johnson County
  • Marion County
  • Massac County
  • McDonough County
  • Perry County
  • Pike County
  • Saline County
  • Stark County
  • Wabash County
  • Washington County
  • Wayne County
  • Williamson County

To learn more information about the situation in your community, you can find the CDC’s map of community levels by county here.

Read original article here

C.D.C. Study Raises Questions About Agency’s Isolation Guidelines

More than half of people who took a rapid antigen test five to nine days after first testing positive for the coronavirus or after developing Covid-19 symptoms tested positive on the antigen test, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The finding raises more concerns about the agency’s revised isolation guidelines, which say that many people with Covid can end their isolation periods after five days, without a negative coronavirus test.

A C.D.C. scientist who was an author of the study said that he did not believe the agency’s isolation guidelines needed to change. But the results suggest that many people with the virus may still be infectious during this period, scientists said.

The study “demonstrates what a lot of people have suspected: that five days is insufficient for a substantial number of people,” Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan, said in an email. “The bottom line,” she added, “is that this absolutely should lead to a change in isolation guidance.”

The research was conducted after Omicron became the dominant variant in the United States and as cases were surging nationwide. Cases have since fallen precipitously, reducing the risk of infection and the number of Americans who are in isolation.

The C.D.C. shortened the isolation period to five days from 10 in December as the Omicron variant spread. Many public health experts criticized the move, noting that people might still be infectious after five days and that allowing them to end isolation without testing might help the new variant spread faster.

Dr. Ian Plumb, a medical epidemiologist at the C.D.C. and an author of the new study, said that he believed the study “basically supported” the agency’s current isolation guidance, which asks people to continue taking precautions — including wearing masks and refraining from travel — until 10 full days have passed.

“I honestly don’t think that it means that the current guidance needs to” change, he said.

Instead, he said, the study supports the idea that antigen tests can be successfully integrated into isolation guidelines.

“I think the biggest takeaway is that it’s possible to incorporate antigen tests into the guidance for isolation because they provide additional information about someone’s risk of being potentially infectious,” he said.

The new study was based on people whose coronavirus infections were reported to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, which provides health care for rural communities in southwestern Alaska, from Jan. 1 to Feb. 9.

In early January, Yukon-Kuskokwim issued new isolation guidelines. It recommends that people isolate for 10 full days after testing positive for or developing symptoms of the virus. However, people who had no symptoms or resolving symptoms, and had not had fevers for at least 24 hours, on Days 5 through 9 of their isolation periods were eligible for free Abbott BinaxNOW rapid antigen tests, administered by Yukon-Kuskokwim staff members. If they tested negative, they could end their isolation periods early.

Among the 729 people who took antigen tests on Days 5 through 9 of their isolation periods, 54.3 percent of them tested positive. The proportion of people who tested positive declined over time: 67.5 percent tested positive on Day 5 of their isolation periods, compared with 38.6 percent on Day 9.

People who had symptomatic infections were more likely to test positive on Days 5 through 9 than those who had been asymptomatic, the researchers found. People who had received a primary vaccine series — two doses of an mRNA vaccine or a single dose of Johnson & Johnson’s shot — or had been previously infected by the virus were less likely to receive positive antigen results during this time frame than those who had not been vaccinated or previously infected.

“Ultimately, I don’t think this is surprising based off the data we’re seeing and the general concern from the infectious disease community on shortening isolation in the face of a novel variant,” said Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist at George Mason University. “But I do think it’s important we continue to assess this, as antigen tests aren’t a perfect proxy for infectiousness and ability to transmit the virus.”

The findings are consistent with several other recent studies, which have not yet been published in scientific journals or reviewed by outside experts. In one, researchers found that more than 40 percent of vaccinated health care workers tested positive on rapid antigen tests on Days 5 through 10 of their illnesses.

In two other studies, researchers found that a substantial proportion of people with suspected and confirmed Omicron infections still had high viral loads more than five days after first testing positive for the virus.

Read original article here

The Best Foods to Eat for Your Heart, According to New AHA Guidelines — Eat This Not That

Heart disease, unfortunately, continues to be a devastating problem for people in the United States. This is why organizations like the American Heart Association (AHA) are working to provide people with guidelines for caring for their heart health.

Each year, the AHA updates its dietary guideline report to feature the best foods to eat for your heart, as well as other important notes on eating patterns and cardiovascular risk factors to be aware of.

The AHA also notes that diet is not the sole factor in fighting heart disease. In fact, they live by “Life’s Simple 7” rule, which takes seven approaches in pursuing better heart health. These include being aware of your cholesterol, staying active, maintaining a healthy weight, monitoring your blood pressure, learning about blood sugar, quitting smoking, and adopting a heart-healthy diet.

While diet isn’t the only factor in preventing heart disease, it’s extremely important. Not only can heart-healthy foods help lower your risk of disease, but your diet can bleed into other areas of the Simple 7 as well, like managing cholesterol and blood sugar, and helping you have the energy to exercise regularly.

With this in mind, here are some of the best heart-healthy foods you can eat, according to the latest AHA report. And for more healthy heart tips, check out Eating Habits to Lower Cholesterol After 50.

Shutterstock

The AHA recommends eating plenty of fruits and vegetables on a daily basis, with an emphasis on leafy greens being one of the most nutrient-dense choices.

They state there are plenty of studies that have found that consuming a wide variety of produce on a daily basis can significantly lower your risk of cardiovascular disease, and that eating them whole rather than juiced is better because of the fiber content.

Their rule of thumb is to look for “deeply colored” produce because these tend to contain more nutrients, but every type of fruit and vegetable is going to provide you with important nutrients regardless.

Shutterstock

Interestingly enough, the AHA specifically mentions peaches as one of the more nutrient-dense fruits to consume, although they say any type of fruit and vegetable can be a part of a heart-healthy diet.

The report also notes that consuming fruit in any form (fresh, frozen, canned, or dried) can give you the nutrients your heart needs, but it’s important to look out for added sugar or salt.

Here are The Best Fruits to Help Lower Blood Sugar, Says Nutritionist

Shutterstock

The AHA guidelines state that consuming whole grains on a daily basis, as opposed to only consuming them every now and then, can help lower your risk of cardiovascular disease, as well as stroke, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease.

Whole grains, according to the report, are grains that still have the germ, bran, and starchy endosperm intact, and they are usually made with at least 51% whole grains to be classified this way.

Shutterstock

Another dietary guideline for those focusing on their heart health is to incorporate plenty of plant-based protein into their daily diet.

Legumes (such as beans, lentils, chickpeas) are a healthy choice for your heart because they’re high in fiber and protein, and they make for a healthy alternative to animal-based proteins.

Although the AHA recommends replacing animal proteins with plant-based proteins as much as possible, they warn that many meat-alternatives on the market are still highly processed and can contain higher levels of added sugar and preservatives. This is another reason that legumes are a safe, healthy choice.

Shutterstock

Fish and other forms of seafood are an excellent part of a heart-healthy diet, and the AHA currently states that eating it at least two times per week can help lower your risk of heart disease, especially if it’s consumed as a replacement for foods that are high in saturated fat content.

According to the AHA, eating fatty fish is associated not only with a lower risk of heart disease, but is also known to help lower incident of stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality, mainly due to its omega-3 content and because it serves as a healthy replacement for red meat.

Shutterstock

There is still some debate over choosing full-fat dairy products versus non-fat or low-fat. However, despite the present debate, the AHA has concluded that in the long run, consuming dairy with less fat can help contribute to a healthier heart.

It’s common for low-fat dairy products to come with more added sugar, so it’s important when you’re choosing a non-fat or low-fat dairy product to read the label carefully.

Shutterstock

The AHA recommends getting protein from plant sources instead of meat as much as possible, but if you’re craving chicken or poultry, you can still consume it in moderation as part of a heart-healthy diet.

What they don’t recommend is consuming processed meats, which is any type of meat that has added preservatives or salt. Common types of processed meats include bacon, deli meat, sausage, and salami.

Replacing these processed meats with moderate amounts of unprocessed poultry can help you lower your risk of heart disease.

Shutterstock

One major goal in eating a heart-healthy diet is to limit your number of trans and saturated fats, and replace them with unsaturated fat.

One way the AHA recommends doing this is by consuming more liquid plant oils (like olive oil, sunflower oil, and flaxseed oil),  and consuming less animal-fat and tropical plant oils (coconut and palm oil). Over time this will decrease your consumption of trans and saturated fats and increase your consumption of healthier ones.

Along with general foods to add to your diet, the AHA also recommends steering clear of certain items that can increase your risk of heart disease.

The newest report recommends limiting your consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages like soda, as well as limiting your consumption of ultra-processed foods. They also suggest limiting the amount of salt you eat, as well as controlling how much alcohol you consume on a weekly basis.

Adhering to these guidelines and including heart-healthy foods into your daily diet can significantly improve your heart health and lower your risk of deadly disease.

Read original article here

C.D.C. Proposes New Guidelines for Treating Pain, Including Opioid Use

In another indication that the C.D.C. sees these new guidelines as a course-correction to the earlier ones, the agency now suggests that when patients test positive for illicit substances, doctors should offer counseling, treatment and, when necessary, careful tapering. Because doctors had interpreted the 2016 dosing limits narrowly, some had worked up one-strike policies and were summarily ejecting such patients.

Dr. Jones said that such results should instead be considered one piece of diagnostic information among many. An unduly high level of opioids could indicate the patient still has untreated pain or even a substance use disorder. “If you instead retain the patient and have those conversations, there’s now an opportunity to improve the patient’s life,” he said.

Drawing from a mountain of research that accumulated in recent years, the proposed guidelines also offer extensive recommendations for the treatment of acute pain — short-term pain that can come with an injury like a broken bone or the aftermath of surgery. They advise against prescribing opioids, except for traumatic injuries, such as burns and auto accidents.

In granular detail, they compare the relief provided by opioids to that offered by alternatives such as exercise and acupuncture and other drugs. And they give fine-tuned recommendations for discrete areas of pain, such as lower back, knees and neck.

The guidelines, for example, note that opioids should not be used for episodic migraines. They endorse, among other treatments, heat therapy and weight loss for knee osteoarthritis, and, for neck pain, suggest options like yoga, tai chi, qiqong, massage and acupuncture.

Dr. Marie Hanna, an associate professor of anesthesia and critical care at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said she was particularly enthusiastic about the depth and breadth of research that the guidelines provide in support of nonopioid treatments, including manual manipulation, laser therapy and exercise.

“This is what we’ve been talking about for years, but no one was listening. Now we have the evidence to show that these treatments are effective. I’m very optimistic,” added Dr. Hanna, a member of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, an organization of pain researchers and providers across several disciplines.

Read original article here