The National Academy of Social Insurance's 2017-2021 report reveals the pandemic's impact on workers compensation, highlighting decreased benefits and employer costs, and the need for adequate state protections.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a disruptive event for workers compensation systems across the United States, according to the National Academy of Social Insurances 26th annual Workers Compensation report, which provides an in-depth look at benefits, costs and coverage during a five-year study period spanning 2017-2021.
The report indicates that total workers compensation benefits paid increased in 2021, compared to the first year of the pandemic, but decreased when standardized for the size of payroll. Similarly, total and standardized employer costs also decreased. Between 2020 and 2021, standardized benefits paid and employer costs decreased in every jurisdiction except Hawaii, with Washington, D.C. and Rhode Island experiencing the largest decreases respectively.
Public health measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 caused significant economic contraction in 2020. However, covered jobs and wages rebounded somewhat in 2021 as the economy adapted to the pandemic, the report noted. Workers compensation benefits and employer costs tended to increase between 2020 and 2021, reflecting strong increases in both covered jobs and wages in the pandemics second year. However, standardized benefit and cost measures (i.e., per $100 of covered payroll) tended to decrease between 2020 and 2021, although at slower rates than before the pandemic.
Jennifer Wolf, Chair of the Study Panel on Workers Compensation Data and President, Minnesota Workers Compensation Insurers Association, emphasized the importance of the report, stating, This report provides further evidence of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers compensation, which is a critical component of our social insurance system.
The report also highlights that the number of U.S. jobs covered by workers compensation decreased by 0.1% between 2017 and 2021, primarily due to the pandemics impact in 2020. However, covered jobs made strong gains from 2020 to 2021.
Covered wages continued to grow despite the pandemic. Covered wages grew by 22.0% between 2017 and 2021, and the increase from 2020 to 2021 (9.2%) alone was similar to the 2017-2019 period change (9.9%), the study found.
In 2021, total workers compensation benefits paid were $60.0 billion, a 4.3% decrease from 2017. However, benefits increased by a small percentage through 2019, then decreased by 4.8% from 2019 to 2021, with an increase of 1.1% from 2020 to 2021.
Total employer costs decreased over the study period, despite a noticeable increase in total costs between 2020 and 2021. In 2021, employer costs for workers compensation were $96 billion, up 4.4% compared to 2020 but still down relative to 2017.
Employers costs per $100 of covered wages were $1.01 in 2021, a decrease of $0.30 (22.9%) from 2017. The percentage decrease between 2020 and 2021 was much smaller than in prior years.
The report provides valuable data and insights into the changes within workers compensation programs during the pandemic and the subsequent recovery period. It underscores the need for states to ensure adequate benefits for workers and their families, particularly in times of crisis.
As we prepare for the next crisis, states must take the proper steps to guarantee that all workersregardless of race, gender, or immigrant statusface safe and decent conditions on the job to minimize workplace injuries and illnesses. When those protections are not enough, it is critical that states ensure adequate benefits to workers and their families to be distributed in a timely fashion, stated Bill Arnone, CEO of the Academy.
As the pandemic continues to shape the economic landscape, the data presented in the report will be crucial for policymakers, researchers, and advocates in their efforts to improve the system for both injured workers and employers.
To obtain the full report, visit the NASI website. &
This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
fact-checked
peer-reviewed publication
proofread
by Veterans Affairs Research Communications
close
A multi-institution team led by researchers at the White River Junction VA Medical Center in Vermont found that Veterans' blood pressure control worsened due to disrupted care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings were published in the journal Medical Care.
The researchers followed a group of nearly 1.65 million Veterans who received their care at VA and who had high blood pressure (hypertension) during two periodsbefore the pandemic and during the pandemic. In Veterans with controlled blood pressure, researchers found a 7% decline in control during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Longer follow-up intervals were associated with a decreased likelihood of maintaining blood pressure control in both periods.
Most of the difference in control was explained by delays in follow-up care, according to the research team, led by Dr. Caroline Korves. But the pandemic itself was responsible for a small (2%) effect on blood pressure control.
Researchers also discovered that Veterans who had not yet achieved blood pressure control and who experienced longer intervals between follow-up care were modestly more likely to gain control during the pandemic, but not before the pandemic. The finding suggests that providers focused slightly more on people with uncontrolled blood pressure, an appropriate clinical response, according to the team.
"Opportunities for further research into the cause of the pandemic effectwhether lower maintenance of control stemmed from missed opportunity for treatment modifications, changes in patient behavior, or other factorsand investigating whether a modestly higher likelihood of gaining control was due to focusing on patients with more extreme conditions, would offer valuable insights in how to prevent disruptions in care during similar crises," wrote the researchers.
High blood pressure remains one of the top public health challenges in the country and contributes to serious health problems, like heart disease and kidney failure. It is a modifiable risk factor for heart diseasemeaning it can respond to treatmentand is an important marker to track for disruptions in care, according to the research team.
More information: Caroline Korves et al, Hypertension Control During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic, Medical Care (2024). DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001971
Journal information: Medical Care
Provided by Veterans Affairs Research Communications
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our understanding of the virus and how it affects the body has grown. Researchers continue to track how the virus behaves, how people become sick, and which methods of prevention work best for everyone.
We review the symptoms of the illness, how to recognize and treat those symptoms, and the best ways to stay healthy.
Feeling Sick? Start A Virtual Urgent Care Visit
As with most viruses, COVID-19 has many different variants that change over time. While COVID variants continue to evolve, scientists are not seeing many new symptoms for people who become sick from the virus.
Most people who are sick from COVID-19 have at least one of the following symptoms:
Some research found body aches, cough, and loss of taste or smell were better indicators of a COVID-19 infection than muscle aches or a fever.
Once you test positive for COVID-19, one of the most effective ways to treat the virus is using Paxlovid. Clinical trials show the drug is 86 percent effective at reducing the risk of hospitalization or death. For those who are age 50 or older, or are at a high risk for developing a severe COVID-19 infection, using the drug can be very helpful.
People should talk with their provider before taking Paxlovid because some medications may interact with the drug including drugs used to treat high blood pressure or prevent blood clots.
Otherwise, the best way to treat COVID symptoms is with plenty of rest and fluids, and by staying home.
The COVID-19 virus spreads through the air via droplets. Those droplets are released into the air when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks and can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or be inhaled into the lungs.
Research shows the most effective methods of preventing COVID-19 continue to be the same as they have been over the last few years. The best ways to prevent getting sick from the virus include:
Especially during the winter months, COVID-19 cases are happening in all of our communities. If you are experiencing any of the symptoms of COVID-19, our providers are available 7 days a week to diagnose and treat many common illnesses from the comfort of your home, or wherever you are.
Ending pandemics is asocial decision, not scientific. Governments and organizations rely onsocial, cultural and political considerationsto decide when to officially declare the end of a pandemic. Ideally, leaders try to minimize the social, economic and public health burden of removing emergency restrictions while maximizing potential benefits.
Vaccine policy is a particularly complicated part of pandemic decision-making, involving a variety of other complex and often contradicting interests and considerations. Although COVID-19 vaccines havesaved millions of livesin the U.S., vaccine policymaking throughout the pandemic was oftenreactiveandpoliticized.
A late November 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found thatone-third of U.S. parentsbelieved they should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children at all. The World Health Organization and the United Nations Childrens Fund reported that between 2019 and 2021, global childhood vaccination experienced itslargest dropin the past 30 years.
The Biden administration formallyremoved federal COVID-19 vaccination requirementsfor federal employees and international travelers in May 2023. Soon after, the U.S. government officiallyended the COVID-19 public health emergency. But COVID-19s burden on health systemscontinues globally.
I am apublic health ethicistwho has spent most of my academic career thinking about the ethics of vaccine policies. For as long as theyve been around, vaccines have been a classic case study inpublic health and bioethics. Vaccines highlight the tensions betweenpersonal autonomy and public good, and they show how the decision of an individual can havepopulationwide consequences.
COVID-19 ishere to stay. Reflecting on the ethical considerations surrounding the rise and unfolding fall of COVID-19 vaccine mandates can help society better prepare for future disease outbreaks and pandemics.
Vaccine mandates are the most restrictive form of vaccine policy in terms of personal autonomy. Vaccine policies can be conceptualized as a spectrum, ranging from least restrictive, such as passive recommendations like informational advertisements, to most restrictive, such as a vaccine mandate that fines those who refuse to comply.
Each sort of vaccine policy also has different forms. Some recommendationsoffer incentives, perhaps in the form of a monetary benefit, while others are only averbal recommendation. Some vaccine mandates are mandatory in name only, withno practical consequences, while others may triggertermination of employmentupon noncompliance.
COVID-19 vaccine mandates took many forms throughout the pandemic, including but not limited toemployer mandates,school mandatesandvaccination certificates often referred to asvaccine passportsorimmunity passports required for travel and participation in public life.
Because of ethical considerations, vaccine mandates are typicallynot the first optionpolicymakers use to maximize vaccine uptake. Vaccine mandates arepaternalistic by naturebecause they limit freedom of choice and bodily autonomy. Additionally, because some people may see vaccine mandates as invasive, they could potentially create challenges in maintaining and garnering trust in public health. This is why mandates are usually the last resort.
However, vaccine mandatescan be justifiedfrom a public health perspective on multiple grounds. Theyre apowerful and effectivepublic health intervention.
Mandates can providelasting protectionagainst infectious diseases in various communities, including schools and health care settings. They can provide a public good by ensuring widespread vaccination to reduce the chance of outbreaks and disease transmission overall. Subsequently, an increase in community vaccine uptake due to mandates can protect immunocompromised and vulnerable people who are at higher risk of infection.
Early in the pandemic,arguments in favorof mandating COVID-19 vaccines for adults rested primarily on evidence that COVID-19 vaccination prevented disease transmission. In 2020 and 2021, COVID-19 vaccines seemed to have astrong effect on reducing transmission, therefore justifying vaccine mandates.
COVID-19 alsoposed a disproportionate threatto vulnerable people, including the immunocompromised, older adults, people with chronic conditions and poorer communities. As a result, these groups would havesignificantly benefitedfrom a reduction in COVID-19 outbreaks and hospitalization.
Many researchers foundpersonal liberty and religious objections insufficientto prevent mandating COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, decision-makers in favor of mandates appealed to the COVID-19 vaccines ability toreduce disease severity and therefore hospitalization rates, alleviating the pressure on overwhelmed health care facilities.
However, the emergence ofeven more transmissible variantsof the virus dramatically changed the decision-making landscape surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
The public health intention (and ethicality) of original COVID-19 vaccine mandates became less relevant as the scientific community understood that achieving herd immunity against COVID-19 wasprobably impossiblebecause of uneven vaccine uptake, andbreakthrough infectionsamong the vaccinated became more common. Many countries likeEnglandandvarious states in the U.S.started to roll back COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
With the rollback and removal of vaccine mandates, decision-makers are still left with important policy questions: Should vaccine mandates be dismissed, or is there still sufficient ethical and scientific justification to keep them in place?
Vaccines are lifesaving medicines that can help everyone eligible to receive them. But vaccine mandates are context-dependent tools that require considering the time, place and population they are deployed in.
Though COVID-19 vaccine mandates are less of a publicly pressing issue today, many other vaccine mandates,particularly in schools, are currently being challenged. I believe this is a reflection of decreased trust in public health authorities, institutions and researchers resulting in part fromtumultuous decision-makingduring the COVID-19 pandemic.
Engaging in transparent and honest conversations surrounding vaccine mandates and other health policies can help rebuild and foster trust in public health institutions and interventions.
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.
Previous
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada
Zip Code
Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe
At the time of writing, the death toll due to COVID-19 stands at >6.94 million1 with the risk of death increasing with older age. According to the Centers for Disease Control in early 2023, the rate ratio was 25 for 50-64 years old and 360 for 85 years of age and older as compared to those aged 18-29 years old.2 The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a lack of infection control among older adults. In Australia, 75.4% of COVID-19-related deaths were in aged care facilities.3 Strong behavioural (non-pharmaceutical) interventions were employed in many countries to reduce the impact of COVID-19 including to protect the residents of aged care facilities. These interventions clearly worked such as for lockdown.4 However, any negative effects of these interventions need to be considered and mitigated.
Behavioural interventions to try and reduce the impact of the pandemic included self-isolation, social distancing, school closure, a ban on public events, lockdowns, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks.5,6 A limited assessment of the impact of these interventions across 11 European countries suggests that they worked to reduce the reproduction number (Rt), thus saving lives and sparing many from the psychological impacts associated with losing a loved one, be they old or young.5 In Spain, for example, lockdowns helped contain COVID-19, thus saving lives, reducing morbidity, and reducing the pressure on the health care system including intensive care units.7 Lockdowns also potentially saved lives through other means, for example, reductions in trauma-related hospital admissions were reported, indicating a reduction in motor vehicle accidents.8
The present review paper examines some of the effects of behavioural interventions related to the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on wellbeing and mental health related interventions among older adults, especially those with hearing loss.
Eligible studies reported on mental health outcomes (e.g., psychological distress, depression, anxiety and/or loneliness) and/or hearing loss for older adults (>60) living in the community or aged care settings. Studies reporting on outcomes in relation to any specific behavioural intervention for COVID-19 (social distancing, mask wearing, lockdowns/stay at home orders), or on strategies to mitigate such mental health outcomes for older adults were included. Studies reporting on the general older adult population as well as those with a specific focus on hearing loss (either self-reported or objectively assessed) were eligible. Studies that were written in English and published in peer reviewed journals of any study design, reviews, and perspectives were also eligible. The review did not have any time restrictions.
Search engines were searched from inception via SpringerLink Journals, PubMed, and ProQuest Central. Search string included key terms such as COVID-19, pandemic, older adults elderly, ageing, wellbeing, mental health, psychological distress, isolation, and loneliness.
Data were extracted using a standard template, which included year of publication, country of participants, sample size, sample characteristics (such as community-dwelling, aged care), study design, behavioural intervention(s) considered, mental health outcomes, and mitigation strategies.
Given the lack of homogeneity in COVID-19 regulations, data were narratively synthesised by results pertaining to intervention and subpopulations (e.g., living in aged care, older adults with hearing loss).
In total, 29 studies were included (Table 1). Studies were predominantly conducted in the US (n=8), Canada (n=3), France (n=3), and Italy (n=3), with studies also conducted across Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, China, Philippines, UK and Taiwan. Participants (pooled N=32,423) were mostly community-dwelling, with four studies reporting on older adults living in residential care facilities. A variety of behavioural interventions were considered, most commonly lockdowns (n=15), social distancing (n=8), use of PPE (n=6), and restricted visitation (n=4).
Table 1.Characteristics and Summary of Included Studies
Note. PHQ=Patient Health Questionnaire; HL=hearing loss; HADS=Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale; PPE=Personal Protective Equipment; NR=not reported; GAD=Generalised Anxiety Disorder measure; BSI-18=Brief Symptom Inventory 18; BRS=Brief Resilience Scale; DASS-21=Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale; and IES=Impact of Events Scale.
The review highlights that behavioural interventions do not come without their challenges. In retirement homes in France, residents with Alzheimers disease were reported by caregivers as displaying large increases in depression and anxiety rates due to COVID-19.9 However, findings on individuals mental health are mixed with one German study reporting little effect of COVID-19 on depression, anxiety, and loneliness.10 These authors suggested that high levels of resilience due to increased life experience may have acted as a protective factor for older individuals. Relatedly, some results have indicated that the mental health of younger adults was worse than that of older adults during the height of the pandemic.11 While there have been some variations in study findings of the impacts of COVID-19 for mental health more broadly, commonly, studies suggest that older age was associated with poorer wellbeing during lockdowns.12 A recent systematic review reported that COVID-19 had deleteriously affected the mental wellbeing of older adults aged 60 years and older, with depression and anxiety reported in response to lockdowns across Asia, Europe, and North America.13 Table 2 summarises the key effects of different behavioural interventions on older individuals.
Table 2.Summary of Effects of Behavioural Interventions on Older Adults
Note. Behavioural interventions (e.g., self-isolation, social distancing, school closure, a ban on public events, lockdowns, and the use of PPE including masks); PPE = personal protective equipment.
Increased depression and anxiety were likely due to the increased loneliness experienced during lockdowns.14 For example, over half of community dwelling adults in the US reported worsened loneliness, and those with high loneliness scores were significantly more likely to experience symptoms of depression (62% vs. 9%; p<.001) and anxiety [57% vs. 9%; p<.001; 15]. It has further been argued that the social isolation resulting from lockdowns would increase suicide rates,24 although this remains to be examined, with the longer-term impacts still unclear. In addition to social isolation, fears of dying due to reduced medical access during lockdowns has also been shown to have been associated with distress and anticipatory grief amongst octogenarians.16
PPE, especially masks, can impact communication for those with hearing loss (HL).6 Masks hide visual cues and facial expressions, prevent lip reading,19 muffle sounds,18 attenuate higher frequencies, and reduce the decibels of speech,17 all of which impinge upon the ability of those with HL to communicate. For example, over 85% of older adults with HL reported difficulties in communication as a result of masks in a health care setting in Italy.19 Similarly, over one half of community dwelling older adults in the US reported difficulties communicating with people wearing masks.18 Further, sounds quickly decrease in volume as they move further away from the speaker, thus social distancing can also exacerbate communication challenges for those with HL.17 While telehealth and video conferencing were often used as alternatives during COVID-19 restrictions, these can also become challenging for those with HL due to lags and poor image quality,6 resulting in the ability to communicate during video calls being inferior to face-to-face interactions.25
The challenges for communication due to social distancing and masks leave older adults with HL reporting reduced feelings of interpersonal connectedness and increased feelings of isolation.20 Consequently, older adults with HL report increased depression, anxiety, and stress,26,27 and such symptoms increase with severity of the HL.25
Residents in long-term care homes had limited access to social interactions with restrictions imposed on visitation28,29 and longer periods spent alone in their rooms.30 Therefore, lockdown restrictions might especially have impacted aged care residents. However, community dwelling adults are likely to have also been impacted by reductions in community supports and home care services during lockdowns.28 Direct comparison of mental health outcomes between community dwelling older adults and aged care residents remains minimal.
Although COVID-19 restrictions were observed globally, it has been argued that the impacts of these restrictions may have been more pronounced in developing nations where technology access for digital communications is limited.31 Furthermore, the challenge of meeting basic health care needs in developing countries during the pandemic may have resulted in reduced mental health care, especially for older adults who already experience limitations to health care access.32
Technology was widely employed to help mitigate the effects of lockdowns, enabling family and friends to communicate such as through video chat software on tablets or smartphones, while minimizing the risk of spreading infection.22,33 Such technology was also employed in end of life interactions to enable patients to say goodbye to friends and relatives22 Social support groups for older adults have also successfully adapted to a telehealth delivery, enabling older adults to remain engaged in social interaction during lockdowns.23
Despite the potential benefit of online technologies to reduce loneliness for older adults, a range of challenges to using online and digital communications with older adults have been noted and include lower rates of smartphone use and internet connectivity, a lack of competence with technology, and negative attitudes towards technology.28,34 Upskilling older adults in the use of digital technologies and strategies to increase access are needed to support older adults to remain socially engaged. Notably, in one study, octogenarians who had received training in the use of social networking sites reported significantly higher usage of social networking and reduced feelings of isolation and social exclusion during lockdowns in Italy.35 This suggests that dedicated training may assist in reducing barriers in the use of digital technologies amongst older adults.
Policy makers and researchers need to take the lessons from this pandemic and implement changes and then examine the effects of such changes. Thus, this pandemic may lead to long-term improvements in aged care.
For those with HL, the use of clear surgical masks would have facilitated lip and facial cue reading, which may have reduced the barriers associated with PPE for those with HL.6 Incorporating sign language into the care of those with HL would be a low cost method that would be non-technology dependent. Speech-to-text applications including use of subtitles on video calls could assist those with HL to communicate.25 While speech-to-text smartphone applications and subtitling technology is available, these technologies are not currently widely utilized18 and ownership of digital devices is commonly lower amongst those with sensory losses than the general population.36 Increasing availability and access would potentially benefit many older adults with HL. Increasing education for family members in the availability and use of these technologies may also help relatives to continue contact and thus promote wellbeing in older adults with sensory loss.37
There is a need to increase the use of digital technologies in order to help connect families and provide social support.29 Ensuring access to devices with captioning and speech-to-text applications will better enable residents with HL to interact socially in aged care settings.38 Currently, while video calls can reduce feelings of loneliness amongst residents of aged care facilities,39 up to three-quarters of aged care residents report no or minimal video or internet-based interactions with relatives and friends.15 The barriers have been reported as including a lack of access to digital devices30 and an inability to confidently use these technologies.28 In the future of aged care, these barriers will need to be overcome through ensuring resident access to devices, as well as by providing training in technologies, devices, and applications for staff, residents, and relatives.
Alternatively, an increased use of telephone support may be employed as a means to promote social connection and wellbeing in aged care. In one study, residents of long-term aged care facilities reported a slight preference for telephone calls over video calls (55.3% vs. 44.7%), with telephone calls more easily completed independently than video calls.40 A recent program which paired medical students with an aged care resident for regular social telephone calls was shown to be viable for promoting the psychosocial wellbeing of residents.41 In a similar program, telephone calls were reported as beneficial for both the health care professional student volunteers and the aged care residents.42
Telehealth is clearly here to stay and the increase in its use during the pandemic may lead to increased access post-pandemic in relation to physical and mental health services.43,44 Telehealth will be especially beneficial for overcoming other barriers to service access, such as frailty and mobility limitations, which are common amongst aged care residents.
Different countries and different government areas within countries implemented a multitude of COVID-19-related guidelines and laws thus making systematic comparisons difficult if not impossible across countries. Therefore, the present review focuses on key outcomes for older adults without trying to draw any strong generalizable outcomes.
Future studies need to examine the long-term effects of changes in policy related to aged care due to the pandemic. These studies also need to examine how technology is being adapted to the post-pandemic environment such as in relation to improving interpersonal relationships such as through family social support via video communication, families playing virtual games together, and watching videos together while chatting. Different approaches improving interactions for those with HL need to be examined and how they deal with speech difficulties often associated with HL.
Behavioural interventions such as social distancing, PPE, and lockdowns clearly work to reduce infection and death rates among older adults. However, such interventions come with potential side effects for this population such as through potential increases in depression, anxiety, and loneliness which need to be mitigated. Another side effect of these interventions is the reduced ability to communicate, especially for individuals with HL. The key to reducing the negative effects of these interventions has been the employment of technology such as access and education related to telehealth, and internet enabled communication such as video and chat. Thus, if we learn the right lessons from this pandemic we may contribute to long-term improvements in aged care long after the pandemic has passed.
No specific funding was provided for the present study.
EBT and SC conceived of the study. SC and EBT gathered data. SC and EBT created tables. EBT and SC wrote the initial draft. EBT, SC, and NL edited the draft and approved its final version.
The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests.
Einar Thorsteinsson University of New England Armidale, New South Wales 2351 Australia [emailprotected]
Health officials said the measles risk for vaccinated residents is low.
March 8, 2024, 10:41 AM ET
5 min read
Chicago health officials have confirmed the city's first measles cases since 2019 amid a rising number of infections across the U.S.
The first case was confirmed Thursday in a city resident whose source of infection is unknown, according to the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH), as reported by local ABC News affiliate ABC 7 Chicago.
The infectious period ended Wednesday and the patient is currently recovering well at home, health officials said.
On Friday, a second case was confirmed in a young child staying at a new arrivals shelter in the Pilsen neighborhood, in the city's Lower West Side, health officials said in a release provided to ABC News. Similar to the first patient, the child has since recovered and is no longer infectious, according to officials.
No identifying information was provided about either patient, including names, ages, sex or race/ethnicity.
Health officials said people may have been exposed to the first patient on Feb. 27 either at Galter Medical Pavilion at Swedish Hospital between 8:30 a.m. CT and 12 p.m. CT, or on Chicago Transit Authority Bus 92 (Foster) between 9:15 a.m. CT and 11:30 a.m. CT, ABC 7 Chicago reported.
For the child shelter resident case, it's unclear who may have been exposed so the CDPH is asking all residents of that shelter, located in the 2200 block of S. Halsted St., to remain in place so health officials can determine if the residents have been previously vaccinated against measles.
"Those who have been vaccinated can go about their normal business while those who have not been vaccinated will have to remain indoors to watch for symptoms," the CDPH said. "All unvaccinated residents will be screened for symptoms and offered the measles vaccine."
The CDPH further said it is delivering masks and other personal protective equipment for shelter residents and staff, and that the Department of Family and Support Services has secured additional meals for those staying on site.
Health officials added that most Chicago residents are routinely vaccinated with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in childhood and so are not at high risk for contracting measles.
Last month, the CDPH said it was investigating a possible measles exposure in Chicago, after a northwest Indiana resident with a confirmed case of measles sought medical care at three Chicago hospitals while contagious between Feb. 11 and Feb.16. It's unknown if the two confirmed Chicago cases are linked to the Indiana case.
"The MMR vaccine is 97% effective at stopping transmission of measles and has enabled us to live in a time when seeing cases of measles at all is a rarity," CDPH Commissioner Dr. Olusimbo Ige said in a statement at the time. "It is never too late to get vaccinated against this virus, not only to protect yourself but also to protect those around you who may be unable or too young to be vaccinated themselves."
Measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, but pockets of unvaccinated or under-vaccinated communities have led to sporadic outbreaks over the last several years.
As of Feb. 29 of this year, 41 measles cases have been reported in 16 states California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Illinois is now the 17th state to see measles cases.
CHICAGO (WLS) -- A second case of measles was diagnosed in Chicago in less than 24 hours.
The second case involved a child living inside a migrant shelter in Pilsen.
CDPH officials say the young child infected with the measles, has recovered and is no longer infectious.
An investigation is underway to determine who the child may have come into contact with while contagious
Part of that requirement is that everyone in the shelter in the 2200-block of South Halsted Street must stay here until they are screened.
The Alderman of this ward said there are 1,876 people living there, including 95 toddlers between the ages of one and two.
Officials said, "Those who have been vaccinated can leave the shelter while those who have not been vaccinated will have to remain.
All unvaccinated residents will be screened for symptoms and offered the measles vaccine."
This is the second case in Chicago. The investigation is on to identify anyone who may have been exposed to the first patient on the North Side.
That patient went to Swedish Hospital's Galter Pavilion in the 5100-block of North California, last Tuesday to seek care.
The patient also rode the number 92 Foster CTA bus, between 9 and 11:30 a.m. That person is now recovering at home.
"Measles is highly contagious," Dr. Jonathan Pinsky of Endeavor Edward Hospital said. It can be spread very quickly, so it can take only one case to cause a massive outbreak."
CDPH, the Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) and other City agencies began assessing the vaccination status of all residents of the shelter Friday morning.
They also secured increased meal services for those who will have to stay on site.
The health department is also delivering additional masks and other personal protective equipment for residents and staff.
Dr. Pinsky said the best way to protect yourself right now is to vaccinate.
"Measles is highly contagious," Dr. Pinsky said. "For those who don't have immunity, up to 80 percent of people will get infected after an exposure but if you are fully immunized, vaccinated or born before 1957, the chances of getting an infection are very low."
Measles is making a comeback because of vaccine hesitancy health officials said.
In the first two months of this year, there were 41 cases in the U.S. All of last year, there were only 58.
The assessment of the shelter residents will begin early Friday morning.
Vaccine hesitency is an issue, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends children get two doses of the MMR vaccine.
That first dose is given ages 12 to 15 months. The second dose between the ages of 4 and 6.
Adults are also eligible to get one dose of the vaccine, if they're not already immune.
A young child staying at a Chicago shelter was diagnosed with measles, the Chicago Department of Health said Friday.
New safety orders are in effect for people staying at the new arrivals shelter in Pilsen and health officials are warning Chicagoans about who else may have been exposed.
CDPH officials said the young child has recovered and is no longer infectious.
But now, an investigation is underway to determine who the child may have come into contact with while infectious.
Part of that requirement is everyone in the shelter in the 2200-block of South Halsted Street must stay there until they are screened.
Officials said, "Those who have been vaccinated can leave the shelter while those who have not been vaccinated will have to remain. All unvaccinated residents will be screened for symptoms and offered the measles vaccine."
Officials are also working to identify anyone who may have been exposed outside the shelter.
Health officials said that patient was in two public settings in which they cannot obtain a list of all exposed people. If you were in the following locations on Feb. 27, 2024, you may have been exposed to measles:
Galter Medical Pavilion at Swedish Hospital, located at 5140 N. California Ave., between 8:30 a.m. and 12 p.m.
CTA Bus #92 (Foster) between 9:15 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.
If you were at either of the above locations during those times, please immediately contact CDPH at 312-743-7216, Monday - Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
"Measles is airborne, which means it suspends in the air for multiple hours, even two days after that person was in the vicinity," Dr. Nicholas Cozzi of RUSH University Medical Center said.
Measles is making a comeback because of vaccine hesitancy health officials said.
In the first two months of this year, there were 41 cases in the U.S. All of last year, there were only 58.
The assessment of the shelter residents will begin early Friday morning.
On June 3, 2021, a roughly 60-year-old man in the riverside city of Magdeburg, Germany, received his first COVID vaccine. He opted for Johnson & Johnsons shot, popular at that point because unlike Pfizers and Modernas vaccines, it was one-and-done. But that, evidently, was not what he had in mind. The following month, he got the AstraZeneca vaccine. The month after that, he doubled up on AstraZeneca and added a Pfizer for good measure. Things only accelerated from there: In January 2022, he received at least 49 COVID shots.
A few months later, employees at a local vaccination center thought to themselves, Huh, wasnt that guy in here yesterday? and alerted the police. By that point, the German Press Agency reported, the man had been vaccinated as many as 90 times. And still he was not done. As of November, he said hed received 217 COVID shots217!
Thats according to a new paper published in The Lancet. After German researchers learned of the man from newspaper articles, they managed to contact him via the public prosecutor investigating the case. He was very interested in participating in a study Kilian Schober, an immunologist at Uniklinikum Erlangen and a co-author on the paper said in a statement. They pieced together his vaccination timeline through interviews and medical records, and collected blood and saliva samples to examine the immunological effects of hypervaccination.
The mans identity hasnt been revealed, and in the paper hes referred to only as HIM (seemingly an acronym, though what it stands for is not specified). He is hardly the worlds only hypervaccinated person. A retired postman in India had reportedly received 12 shots by January 2022 and told The New York Times, I still want more. A New Zealand man, meanwhile, allegedly racked up 10 in a single day. But pause for a moment and consider the sheer logistics of HIMs feat. In all, he received his 217 vaccinations over the course of just under two and a half years, which comes out to an average of seven and a half shots a month, although the distribution was far from even. For several weeks in early 2022, he received two shots nearly every day. He seems to have had a strong preference for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he also got at least one shot of AstraZeneca and Sanofi-GSK and, of course, Johnson & Johnson.
Why? you might wonder. The paper itself elides this question, saying only that he did so deliberately and for private reasons. Perhaps the most obvious explanation would be extreme, probably pathological COVID anxiety. News reports from April 2022 offer another possible explanation: that he did so to sell the vaccination cards. But German prosecutors did not bring charges once HIMs scheme was uncovered, and he continued getting unnecessary shots.
Getting 217 COVID shots is very much not the public-health guidance in Germany or anywhere else. Yet the strategy seemingly panned out: HIM has never contracted COVID, researchers concluded based on antigen tests, PCR tests, and bloodwork. If you ask immunologists, we might have predicted that it would be not beneficial to do this, Cindy Leifer, an immunologist at Cornell University who wasnt involved with the Lancet study, told me. They might have expected the constant action to exhaust the immune system, leaving it vulnerable to actual viral threats. But such worries came to nothing.
Still, immunologists cautioned against inferring any strong causal connection. He avoided the virus; he got vaccinated 217 times. He did not necessarily avoid the virus because he got vaccinated 217 times. In fact, the authors wrote, although hypervaccination seems to have increased the quantity of antibodies and T cells that HIMs body produced to fend off the viruseven after 216 shots, the 217th still produced a modest increaseit had no real effect on the quality of the immune response. He would have been just as well protected if he had gotten a normal number of three to four vaccinations, Schober told me.
Nor did hypervaccination lead to any adverse effects. By shot 217, one might have expected to see some of the rare side effects associated with the vaccines, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, or Guillain-Barr Syndrome, but as far as researchers could tell, HIM was completely fine. Remarkably, he didnt even report feeling minor side effects from any of his 217 shots. On some level, this makes total sense: As Schober reasonably pointed out, HIM probably would not have gotten all those shots if each one had knocked him out for a day. Fair, but still: 217 shots and no side effects? How?
If nothing else, HIM is one hell of an advertisement for the vaccines. Worried about side effects from your third booster? Well, this guys gotten more than 200, and hes a-okay. Travis Kelce has been called Mr. Pfizer, but hes got nothing on HIM. Scientifically, things are somewhat murkier. The results of the HIM study were largely unsurprising, researchers told me, but the mysteries at the marginssuch as the absence of any side effectsare a good reminder that four years after the pandemic began, immunology is still, as my former colleague Ed Yong wrote, where intuition goes to die.
At the end of the paper, the authors are very clear: We do not endorse hypervaccination as a strategy to enhance adaptive immunity. The takeaway, Leifer said, should not be the more shots, the better. Schober told me he even tried to personally convey this message to HIM after his 216th shot. From the bottom of my heart as a medical doctor, I really told him that he shouldnt get vaccinated again, Schober said.
HIM seemed to take this advice seriously. Then he went and got shot No. 217 anyway.
Following criticism from scientists around the world, a virology journal has retracted a paper describing the first test in humans of an Iran-made vaccine against COVID-19.
Iran licensed the home-grown Noora vaccine for emergency use in 2022 and has reportedly administered millions of doses to its citizens. The countrys health authorities say the shot is 94% effective.
The now-retracted paper, published in 2022 in the Journal of Medical Virology, was the only report on the clinical development of the vaccine to have appeared in an international journal. The article has been cited 10 times, according to Clarivates Web of Science.
In a commentary last year in the same journal, Donald Forthal, chief of infectious diseases at the University of California, Irvine, raised several concerns about the article, titled Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine) against COVID-19 in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 trial.
As we reported in October, Forthal questioned the efficacy of the vaccine and expressed surprise a manuscript containing so many serious flaws would have been accepted for publication following peer review, and given these issues, a retraction may be in order.
The journals editor-in-chief, Shou-Jiang Gao, said at the time the paper had undergone two rounds of rigorously [sic] review by experts of the field before it was published. The authors had responded to Forthals critique, Gao told us, and their response had already undergone 3 rounds of review, each with 2 reviewers:
The last decision was made on October 24, 2023 and deadline for submitting the revision is November 23, 2023. So, we are waiting for the authors to submit the last revision before accepting and publishing it. This should fully address the issues that are raised.
But the response was never published. Meanwhile, in January, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist in Australia, flagged additional problems in the paper on PubPeer, including several impossible and contradictory numbers.
On March 2, the journal announced the paper had been retracted, stating:
The retraction has been agreed due to concerns raised by third parties regarding issues with the data presented in the article. Several inconsistencies concerning the information provided about the analyzed subjects were additionally identified. Furthermore, the authors failed to disclose the presence of potential conflicts of interest that may have affected the interpretation of the results presented. Accordingly, the editors consider the conclusions of this manuscript to be invalid. The authors have been informed of the decision to retract but did not agree with it.
Corresponding author Hassan Abolghasemi of Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, in Tehran, told us by email:
Retraction of our article was a political decision not a scientific decision because there was a pressure on journal based on [apartheid] scientific issue. Our response to the comment never accepted by [PubPeer] and journal to be published.
Two days after the retraction, another group of researchers published a study in mice comparing the effect of four COVID-19 vaccines used in Iran.
Our results indicate significant immunogenicity and neutralization efficacy induced by PastoCovac Plus and Sinopharm, but not by Noora and SpikoGen, the team wrote in the article, which cited the now-retracted paper. This suggests the need for additional comparative assessment of the potency and efficacy of these four vaccines in vaccinated subjects.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make atax-deductible contribution to support our work,subscribe to our freedaily digestorpaid weekly update,follow uson Twitter, like uson Facebook, or add us to yourRSS reader. If you find a retraction thatsnot in The Retraction Watch Database, you canlet us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
