Cognitive complications in adults aged 50 or over are more common since the coronavirus pandemic, academics have said.
Researchers have found that older adults are now at higher risk of developing memory problems because of COVID-19, even if they never caught the virus.
Around the world, nearly 780 million people have been infected with the coronavirus, with many cases resulting in death.
The study has discovered that cognitive decline in older adults was the fastest between March 2020 and February 2021 the first year of the pandemic.
Peoples lifestyles completely changed during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the lockdowns and restrictions.
According to the findings, cognitive decline is associated with a number of factors associated with the coronavirus, including a higher alcohol consumption, an increase in loneliness and depression and a fall in exercise, as well as the effects of the disease itself.
Lead author Anne Corbett said: Our findings suggest that lockdowns and other restrictions we experienced during the pandemic have had a real lasting impact on brain health in people aged 50 or over, even after the lockdowns ended.
This raises the important question of whether people are at a potentially higher risk of cognitive decline, which can lead to dementia.
She added: It is now more important than ever to make sure we are supporting people with early cognitive decline, especially because there are things they can do to reduce their risk of dementia later on. She advised people concerned about their memory to see their GP.
Our findings also highlight the need for policymakers to consider the wider health impacts of restrictions like lockdowns when planning for a future pandemic response.
During the investigation, the team of researchers assessed the cognitive ability of 3,142 adults who took part in the Protect study by looking at the results of a brain function test they completed before, during and after the pandemic.
They found that people experienced the quickest decline in their memory during the first year of the pandemic.
The authors said: We found that people aged 50 years and older in the UK had accelerated decline in executive function and working memory during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the UK was subjected to three societal lockdowns for a total period of six months.
Notably, however, this worsening in working memory persisted in the second year of the pandemic, after the social restrictions had eased.
They added: The scale of change is also of note, with all groups the whole cohort and the individual subgroups showing more than a 50% greater decline in working memory and executive function.
As such, there is a clear need to address these changes in lifestyle behaviour as a public health priority, and on the basis of the patterns of associations seen in the current study, we would hypothesise that interventions targeting these behaviours could benefit cognition.
Professor Dag Aarsland said: This study adds to the knowledge of the longstanding health consequences of COVID-19, in particular for vulnerable people such as older people with mild memory problems.
Dr Dorina Cadar said: The new findings from the Protect study indicate domain-specific cognitive changes for individuals with a history of COVID-19 that mirrored similar trajectories for those with mild cognitive impairment but with a slightly lower rate of decline.
This study also highlights reduced exercise, alcohol use, depression, and loneliness as key risk factors that affected the rates of cognitive decline in the older population during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study was published in the Lancet Healthy Longevity journal.
palmbeachpost.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.
Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on palmbeachpost.com
Suffolk County reported the following information related to COVID-19 on November 14, 2023
According to CDC, hospital admission rates and the percentage of COVID-19 deaths among all deaths are now the primary surveillance metrics.
COVID-19 Hospitalizations for the week ending November 4, 2023
Daily Hospitalization Summary for Suffolk County From November 14, 2023
NOTE: HOSPITALS ARE NO LONGER REPORTING DATA TO NYSDOH ON WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS.
Fatalities 11/1423
COVID-19 Case Tracker November 12, 2023
Note: As of May 11, 2023, COVID-19 Community Levels (CCLs) and COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels are no longer calculatable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
* As of 4/4/22, HHS no longer requires entities conducting COVID testing to report negative or indeterminate antigen test results. This may impact the number and interpretation of total test results reported to the state and also impacts calculation of test percent positivity. Because of this, as of 4/5/22, test percent positivity is calculated using PCR tests only. Reporting of total new daily cases (positive results) and cases per 100k will continue to include PCR and antigen tests.
COVID-19 Vaccination Information
Last updated 5/12/23
Vaccination Clinics
As of September 12, 2023, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is not authorized to offer COVID-19 vaccines to ALL Suffolk County residents.
The department will offer the updated vaccine to only uninsured and underinsured patients through New York State's Vaccines for Children program and Vaccines for Adults program, also known as the Bridge Access Program.
Those with insurance that covers the COVID-19 vaccine are encouraged to receive their vaccines at their local pharmacies, health care providers offices, or local federally qualified health centers.
The department has ordered the updated COVID-19 vaccine and will announce when the vaccine becomes available.
FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
New York State Links
CDC COVID Data Tracker Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status
For additional information or explanation of data, click on the links provided in throughout this page.
The loss of taste and smell has been one of the ongoing issues some people with COVID-19 encounter and they have varying degrees of persistence that can last a few weeks, and in some cases, up to several months.
As such, investigators wanted to study this phenomenon in patients using the COVID-19 oral antiviral, ensitrelvir, looking at the effects of oral ensitrelvir 125 mg and 250 mg on the resolution of taste and smell disorder in patients with COVID-19 with or without vaccination.
This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that was part of the phase 3 SCORPIO-SR trial. According to the investigators, participants were between the ages 1270 years old, and given either ensitrelvir 125 mg PO (after 375 mg PO loading dose on Day 1 only), 250 mg PO (after 750 mg PO loading dose on Day 1 only) or placebo, once daily for 5 days, and were followed by Day 21 from start of treatment to analyze the proportion of patients presenting with taste or smell disorder.
The results were presented at the recent ID Week and demonstrated a benefit to reducing these comorbidities.
The proportions of patients with taste disorder or smell disorder were smaller in both the 125 mg and 250 mg groups compared with the placebo group on Day 5 to Day 9, the investigators wrote. Significantly smaller proportions of patients had taste disorder or smell disorder on Day 7 and Day 8 in the 125 mg ensitrelvir group, and on Day 8 and Day 9 in the 250 mg ensitrelvir group compared with the placebo group, respectively.
Ensitrelvir Overview and Regulatory Approval
Ensitrelvir is a selective SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease inhibitor, and received emergency regulatory approval from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan for COVID-19 treatment in November 2022. Outside of Japan, ensitrelvir is an investigational therapy. In the United States, for example, the FDA granted the antiviral fast track status.
Yohei Doi, MD, professor of Medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Antimicrobial Therapy at the University of Pittsburgh and professor of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at Fujita Health University was one of the investigators in this study and spoke to Contagion about the agent and the phase 3 trial.
Reference
Tsuge Y, Doi Y,et al. Ensitrelvir for the Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: Evaluation of Taste Disorder and Smell Disorder in the Phase 3 Part of the Phase 2/3 SCORPIO-SR Randomized Controlled Trial. Poster #549 presented at IDWeek 2023. October 11-15, 2023. Boston, MA.
November 17, 2023
2 min read
Add topic to email alerts
Receive an email when new articles are posted on
Back to Healio
ANAHEIM, Calif. Saltwater gargling and nasal rinsing were associated with lower hospitalization rates among people infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a poster presentation.
The study, which was presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting, also found comparable results whether using low- or high-dose saline regimens.
Our goal was to examine saline nasal irrigation and gargling for possible association to improved respiratory symptoms associated with coronavirus infection, Jimmy Espinoza, MD, MSc, FACOG, professor at McGovern Medical School and co-author of the study, said in a press release. We found that both saline regimens appear to be associated with lower hospitalization rates compared to controls in SARS-CoV-2 infections.
Between 2020 to 2022, the Texas-based study recruited 58 adults infected with SARS-CoV-2, as documented through a positive PCR test, who were 14 days or less from symptom onset. Participants gargled saline solution and used it for nasal rinsing four times a day for 14 days. Their hospitalization rates, as well as symptom frequency and duration, were compared against a reference population of 9,398 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.
Study participants were randomly assigned to either a low-saline regimen (n = 27; median age, 39 years; 63% women) of 2.13 grams of salt or a high-saline regimen (n = 28; median age, 41 years; 57.1% women) of 6 grams of salt. In both, the salt was dissolved in 8 ounces of warm water. Three saline regimen participants were lost to follow-up.
Hospitalization rates included 18.5% (n = 5) in the low-saline group and 21.4% (n = 6) in the high-saline group. Both were significantly lower than the reference populations hospitalization rate of 58.8% (P < .001).
With about three-quarters of both groups finishing 14 days of treatment, both regimens were associated with similar symptom frequency, with a median of seven symptoms reported in the low-saline group and five in the high-saline group, and duration (median, 7 days vs. 6 days). Also, there were no significant differences in rates of ICU admission between the low-saline regimen (7.4%), high-saline regimen (3.6%) or reference population (3.53%).
We conclude that low- and high-saline regimens for gargling and nasal rinsing are associated with similar clinical outcomes related with COVID-19 infection. Of note, both saline regimens appear to be associated with lower hospitalization rates compared to no gargling or nasal rinsing in individuals infected by COVID-19, Sebastian R. Espinoza, lead author of the study and student at Trinity University, said during his presentation. If confirmed, this simple intervention could be beneficial for individuals with COVID-19 infection, particularly in low resource settings.
Collapse
Espinoza SR, et al. Double blind randomized controlled trial of saline solution gargling and nasal rinsing in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Presented at: ACAAI Annual Scientific Meeting; Nov. 9-13; Anaheim, California.
Disclosures: Healio could not confirm relevant financial disclosures at the time of publication.
Add topic to email alerts
Receive an email when new articles are posted on
Back to Healio
Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand how Americans view science, as well as their levels of confidence in groups and institutions in society. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,842 U.S. adults from Sept. 25 to Oct. 1, 2023.
Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.
Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology.
A new Pew Research Center survey finds the share of Americans who say science has had a mostly positive effect on society has fallen and theres been a continued decline in public trust in scientists.
In this report, we cover:
Overall, 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is down 8 percentage points since November 2021 and down 16 points since before the start of the coronavirus outbreak.
About a third (34%) now say the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative. A small share (8%) think science has had a mostly negative impact on society.
When it comes to the standing of scientists, 73% of U.S. adults have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the publics best interests. But trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was at the early stages of the pandemic.
The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists saying they have a great deal of confidence in them has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today.
As trust in scientists has fallen, distrust has grown: Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) now say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the publics best interests, up from 12% in April 2020.
Ratings of medical scientists mirror the trend seen in ratings of scientists generally. Read Chapter 1 of the report for a detailed analysis of this data.
People with greater trust in scientists are more likely to align their own beliefs and actions with expert guidance and understanding.
For instance, those with high trust are more likely to have gotten vaccines for COVID-19 and the flu. They are also more likely to say human activity contributes to climate change.
In addition, scientific leaders are concerned that differences in levels of trust by things like party identification, race and ethnicity, and education could contribute to the benefits of science being spread unevenly across society.
The Center survey of 8,842 U.S. adults conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1, 2023, finds that, despite recent declines in ratings, scientists and medical scientists continue to be held in high regard compared with other prominent groups in society. Smaller shares of Americans express confidence in business leaders, religious leaders, journalists and elected officials to act in the publics best interests. As with scientists, most of these groups have seen their ratings decline in recent years.
Americans have expressed low trust in federal government and other institutions, like Congress, for decades. And political polarization the widening gap between the views of Republicans and Democrats across a broad range of issues and attitudes has come to be a dominant feature of American political life.
Declining levels of trust in scientists and medical scientists have been particularly pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents over the past several years. In fact, nearly four-in-ten Republicans (38%) now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the publics best interests. This share is up dramatically from the 14% of Republicans who held this view in April 2020. Much of this shift occurred during the first two years of the pandemic and has persisted in more recent surveys.
Confidence in scientists has also moved lower among Democrats. The share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents with a great deal of confidence in scientists which initially rose in the pandemics first year now stands at 37%, down from a high of 55% in November 2020. But unlike Republicans, a large majority of Democrats (86%) continue to express at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the publics best interests. The overall differences in partisan views remain much more pronounced today than they were prior to the coronavirus outbreak.
One of the starkest illustrations of polarization in views of science is the drop in the share of Republicans who view the societal impact of science positively.
Fewer than half of Republicans (47%) now say that science has had a mostly positive effect on society. In 2019, 70% of Republicans said that science has had a mostly positive effect.
A majority of Democrats (69%) continue to say science has had a mostly positive effect on society, though this share is 8 points lower than it was in 2019.
Republicans were largely critical of the countrys response to the coronavirus outbreak. For instance, large shares said too little priority was given to respecting individuals choices, supporting businesses and economic activity, and meeting the needs of K-12 students. In addition, many Republicans felt that public health officials personal views had too much influence on policy and that officials were too quick to dismiss views that challenged their scientific understanding.
Despite declines in ratings of scientists and science, a large majority of Americans continue to see government investments in science as worthwhile. And most place at least some importance on the United States being a world leader in scientific achievements.
About eight-in-ten Americans (78%) say government investments in scientific research are usually worthwhile for society. Far fewer (20%) think these investments are generally not worthwhile. Large majorities across demographic and education groups see government investments in scientific research as worthwhile, as do large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans.
In addition, 52% of Americans think it is very important for the U.S. to be a world leader in scientific achievements; an additional 37% think this is somewhat important. These shares are more or less unchanged since last year.
What GAO Found
Budget office staff in eight states told GAO they worked with state legislatures, agencies, and other stakeholders to plan the use of COVID-19 relief funds. While budget staff said state legislatures typically were responsible for appropriating the funds, some legislatures allowed state officials to make or change plans when the legislatures were not in session. Budget staff in selected states said they were generally responsible for implementing newly created programs, while state agencies implemented pre-existing programs. Staff also said they used existing structures and processes to implement the funds, such as those for natural disasters or reimbursement. According to state auditors, selected states used existing processes to mitigate fraud and improper payments.
State budget staff told GAO they used a variety of actions to address challenges when planning, using, and reporting on the COVID-19 relief funds.
GAO identified several experiences from the selected states that could inform future federal relief.
The federal government provided over $4.6 trillion to help the nation respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. A substantial portion of that amount went to state governments, which had to manage the influx of federal relief and quickly determine priorities to respond to the public health and economic emergency.
The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to conduct monitoring and oversight of the use of funds made available to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. This report describes (1) how selected states planned for, used, and reported on COVID-19 relief funds; (2) challenges selected states experienced in using COVID-19 relief funds and any actions taken to address those challenges; and (3) how the experiences of the selected states could inform future federal relief funding.
This report is part of a series of reports on COVID-19 relief funds to the states. GAO reviewed previously issued reports on individual COVID-19 relief programs. GAO also interviewed federal agency officials who implemented COVID-19 relief programs that received $10 billion or more for Tribes, states, localities, and U.S. territories.
GAO reviewed plans for the use of the COVID-19 relief funds for eight statesCalifornia, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washingtonand interviewed staff from state budget offices and auditor offices. GAO selected these states based on total COVID-19 relief funding, population size, and geographic region.
For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or arkinj@gao.gov.
The COVID-19 vaccination polarized opinion and our memories.Credit: Arindam Shivaani/NurPhoto via Getty
Lives are still being lost to COVID-19 every day. And for many left with debilitating after-effects of the disease, it remains a very real, immediate experience. But for many others, the circumstances of the pandemic are becoming a matter of memory. These memories might still be fresh and painful, or more distant and neutralized by the passage of time. Either way, they are almost undoubtedly unreliable.
This is not, in itself, a surprise: that different people can have very different memories of the same past events, and that pre-existing biases can influence these memories, is an established facet of human psychology. But a series of studies reported in a paper1 this month in Nature shows that our impressions of the COVID-19 pandemics severity, as well as of measures taken to limit the diseases spread, are reliably skewed by a related factor: our vaccination status.
The results give pause for thought as countries exercise their collective memories to examine how authorities handled the pandemic and what should be done differently next time. When looking back, we should all be aware that we have biased memories, says Cornelia Betsch at the University of Erfurt in Germany, an author of the Nature paper. You could be right or wrong. I could be right or wrong. Or, most likely, were all wrong.
Can giant surveys of scientists fight misinformation on COVID, climate change and more?
Betsch and her colleagues project involved surveying more than 10,000 people across 11 countries. For one study, they resurveyed German adults who had been asked in summer 2020 or winter 202021 to estimate their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, asking them to recall their earlier answers. They embarked on the project in late 2022, after a journalist commented during a conference that people who opposed vaccination seemed to be shifting their narrative of the pandemic. The authors analysis revealed that unvaccinated individuals who identified strongly with their unvaccinated status were more likely to remember their earlier estimation of the risk as lower than it actually was. Conversely, and more markedly, those who had been vaccinated overestimated their earlier perception of their risk of catching the disease.
As with any study, there are caveats. The data were collected online, and most of the countries sampled are wealthy and in the Northern Hemisphere. The study did not evaluate the effect of the different pandemic policies enacted in different regions. The researchers also surveyed only adults. At this stage, there is no way of knowing how children will remember the pandemic when they are older or how those memories might colour their decisions should another pandemic occur when they are adults.
Memory bias has been observed in other politically charged settings, including recall of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation2, the campaign surrounding Irelands 2018 referendum on legalizing abortion3 and the 2021 US Capitol riots4. Such bias feeds polarization. Communication is difficult when shared memories diverge. It can influence discussions at every level: within families, in the media and within governments and other authorities.
Pioneers of mRNA COVID vaccines win medicine Nobel
The conclusions of the latest study are highly relevant to investigations such as the ongoing inquiry into the United Kingdoms handling of COVID-19, a process that has been garnering headlines in the past weeks. Those overseeing such investigations must recognize that personal recollections are clouded by bias. In drawing conclusions about which pandemic interventions were warranted or effective and which were not, it is imperative that investigators rely as much as possible on hard data and evidence.
Many of the conflicts we struggle with today stem from how we view past events now, rather than how we experienced them then. The divergence in our collective memory is also likely to be a significant factor in future pandemics, determining, for example, whether individuals are willing to comply with the associated public-health mandates. How to counter these effects in the future must be a subject for more research today.
FRESNO, Calif. A federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment today against Jia Bei Zhu, aka Jesse Zhu, Qiang He, and David He, 62, a citizen of China who formerly resided in Clovis, charging him with distributing adulterated and misbranded medical devices in violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and for making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court documents, between January 2020 and March 2023, through the companies Universal Meditech Incorporated (UMI) and Prestige Biotech Incorporated (PBI), Zhu sold hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 test kits to companies throughout the United States. UMI and PBI were based in Fresno and Reedley and did not obtain pre-market approval, pre-market clearance, emergency use authorization, or other applicable exemption from the FDA as was required. UMI and PBI received millions of dollars for the sales of the test kits.
When questioned by FDA officials, Zhu made several false statements to them, including that (1) his name was Qiang David He, (2) he was hired by UMI as a COVID-19 consultant in 2021, (3) he was hired by PBI just a couple of weeks prior to meeting with the FDA to communicate with government agencies on PBIs behalf, and (4) he did not know anything about the manufacturing or distribution histories for UMI or PBI.
This case is the product of an investigation by the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Department of Public Health Food and Drug Branch. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph D. Barton, Arelis M. Clemente, and Henry Z. Carbajal III are prosecuting this case.
If convicted, Zhu faces a maximum statutory penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the adulterated and misbranding of medical devices charges, and five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the false statements charge. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
NEWARK N.J. A Sussex County, New Jersey, man was sentenced to 36 months in prison for defrauding several financial institutions and illegally obtaining more than $2 million in COVID-19 funding meant to help small businesses impacted by the pandemic, U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger announced today.
John Jhong, 54, of Sparta, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton to an information charging him with one count each of bank fraud, money laundering, and misuse of a Social Security number. Judge Wigenton imposed the sentence on Nov. 15, 2023, in Newark federal court.
The defendant took money from government programs that were established to provide financial assistance to Americans who were struggling to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. The sentence handed down today is his reward for attempting to turn these vital relief programs into his personal ATM. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to find and punish those who have tried to take advantage of the federal government.
The theft of taxpayer funds is inexcusable, Tammy Tomlins, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation, Newark Field Office, said. IRS Criminal investigation will hold accountable anyone who steals from government programs intended to help those in need. We remain committed to working with our law enforcement partners to ensure fraudsters are brought to justice. Todays sentence punishes the defendants criminal conduct and should serve as a significant deterrent to others who would selfishly steal from their fellow citizens to unlawfully enrich themselves.
Ensuring the Postal Service is not being used to perpetuate frauds against the U.S. Government, or its citizens, is one of our top priorities, Christoper A. Nielsen, Inspector in Charge, Philadelphia Division, said. The Postal Inspection Service will continue to investigate CAREs Act fraud schemes through our participation in the NJ COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Strike Force.
Today the defendant in this case was brought to justice for fraudulently obtaining more than $2 million in COVID-19 relief funding that was designed to assist struggling businesses during the pandemic, Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General (FDIC OIG) saod. The FDIC OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate and hold accountable those who took advantage of pandemic relief programs and threatened to undermine the integrity of our Nations financial institutions.
As the nation was struggling with the damaging effects of the pandemic, Mr. Jhong callously attempted to deceive lenders and fraudulently secure Paycheck Protection Program loans by knowingly misusing several Social Security numbers, Gail S. Ennis, Inspector General for the Social Security Administration, said. I thank the investigating agencies and the U.S. Attorneys Office for their efforts in holding Mr. Jhong accountable for these crimes.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
Jhong submitted numerous fraudulent loan applications in which he sought over $15 million in federal pandemic aid and illegally obtained $2 million of that money. Jhong used false and fraudulent tax returns, government forms, and other peoples names and documents, including Social Security numbers of individuals who were deceased for over a decade. He spent his ill-gotten gains on personal expenses.
In addition to his prison sentence, Judge Wigenton ordered three years of supervised release and restitution of $2.13 million.
U.S. Attorney Sellinger credited special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Tammy Tomlins; special agents of U.S. Postal Inspection Service, under the direction of Inspector in Charge Nielsen, Philadelphia Division; special agents of the Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Sharon MacDermott; special agents of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of the Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Patricia Tarasca in New York; and special agents of the U.S. Secret Service, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Jose Riera. He also thanked the Sparta Township Police for their assistance.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Fatime Meka Cano of the U.S. Attorneys Economic Crimes Unit in Newark and Trial Attorney Chad M. Davis of the U.S. Department of Justices Criminal Division, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section.
The District of New Jersey COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Strike Force is one of five strike forces established throughout the United States by the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute COVID-19 fraud. The strike forces focus on large-scale, multi-state pandemic relief fraud perpetrated by criminal organizations and transnational actors. The strike forces are interagency law enforcement efforts, using prosecutor-led and data analyst-driven teams designed to identify and bring to justice those who stole pandemic relief funds.
Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justices National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
