Category: Corona Virus

A new M Health Fairview clinic is confronting an exhausting disorder that has afflicted more children since the pandemic and caused alarming spikes in heart rate, blood pressure and breathing.

Dr. Matthew Ambrose said it is disheartening to see so many more cases of the condition known as POTS. But the increase at least spurred awareness, and accelerated plans for a clinic in Minneapolis that can better diagnose and treat children who in the past were dismissed.

"Sometimes they're being told outright that they are making it up, that it's all in their head," said Ambrose, a pediatric cardiologist and a leader of the clinic. "It's really dispiriting to hear. They can't even be at school because they are too tired."

POTS emerged prior to the pandemic in about one in 500 children and young adults, usually after infectious diseases triggered aggressive responses by their immune systems. So doctors weren't shocked when POTS became more of a problem during the pandemic. An estimated 96% of Minnesota children had been infected by the end of 2022 with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, based on a federal review of pediatric blood samples, creating a huge risk pool for the development of the disorder.

The condition bears similarities to long COVID, the lingering cognitive and physical problems that people experience after coronavirus infections, but with at least one distinguishing characteristic. POTS is short for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and it is defined by a severe and immediate increase in heart rate whenever people switch positions by sitting or standing up.

Anna Burt, 14, was a bubbly dancer, skier and cheerleader from Sioux Falls, S.D., when she was diagnosed with COVID-19 in October 2020. The resulting exhaustion left her struggling to walk, and often was marked by a pounding heartbeat that raced up to 160 beats per minute.

"Its like a big drum," the girl said.

Burt was first taken to M Health Fairview's clinic for long COVID, because she was experiencing the characteristic "brain fog," along with stomach pain and dizziness. She struggled to sit up, even to ride in the car to the doctor's office.

"She really was trapped in the house," said her mother, Jody Burt.

Her POTS diagnosis became clear after the family met Ambrose, who had observed cases prior to the pandemic and had taken a clinical and research interest in the condition. Just finding a clinician who believed Anna and her family was vital, her mother said. "We weren't getting that. Most of the time, we were getting, 'its just constipation.'"

Depression and anxiety often occur alongside POTS, so much that they are often mistaken as the causes of children's lethargy, research has shown.

Drinking water can reduce POTS flareups, and exercise and physical therapy can help patients regain function, Ambrose said. But patients often need poorly understood and even controversial medication regimens. Naltrexone treats opioid addiction but appears in low doses to reduce POTS-related fatigue. Steroids regulate water, and sodium levels and can prevent or reduce attacks.

Beta blocker drugs that lower blood pressure were thought to worsen POTS, but recent studies suggest they help. POTS is related to the autonomic nervous system, or the portion of the nervous system that controls subconscious functions such as heart rate and body temperature.

The drugs temper the body's reaction to signals from that system, Ambrose said. "It's like being at a rock concert but wearing hearing protection."

The clinic's goal is to package together treatments that families struggle to access separately, and to keep tabs on patients through online check-ups and counseling. By following patients over time, the clinic also hopes to prove which treatments work best and how much progress children with POTS can make.

"When I tell people I think we can get them to a place where they are fully functional, I mean it," Ambrose said. "But it does take work and time and trial and error ... and an Avengers team of physical therapists."

The clinic sometimes looks for little successes, Ambrose added, giving fluid infusions to one patient so she had the energy just to go to prom.

Anna Burt has progressed from a wheelchair to crutches to walking, but she still can't run without exhaustion. She has replaced old pursuits, trying swimming and archery. She tried playing with slime toys to alleviate boredom, but they irritated her skin. So she invented a non-irritating version that she plans to sell under the brand Rainbow Slimes.

She said her pain and symptoms are under better control, as long as she keeps up with therapy exercises and remembers her medication. She rides a recumbent bicycle for exercise and has returned to school for art class. Changes day to day are imperceptible, but Anna said she has made long-term improvements and dreams of being active.

"Sometimes I get sad. I'm just tired of doing this over and over and over again, but I wouldn't change the experience I had," she said. "Definitely a lot of parts suck, like most of it, 99% sucks. But I wouldn't be who I am now without it."

Excerpt from:

Fairview clinic responds to post-COVID rise in fatiguing disorder in kids - Star Tribune

In a national case series, 11.4% of immunocompromised patients younger than 21 years with COVID-19 admitted for intensive care died, compared to 4.6% of their peers with healthy immune systems.

The study, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, included pediatric patients seen in 55 hospitals in 30US states. All patients were under the age of 21 and admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) or high-acuity unit for acute COVID-19 from March 12, 2020, through December 30, 2021.

Of 1,274 patients, 105 (8.2%) had a pre-existing immunocompromising condition (ICC), including 33 (31.4%) with hematologic malignancies, 24 (22.9%) with primary immunodeficiencies and disorders of hematopoietic cells, 19 (18.1%) with nonmalignant organ failure after solid organ transplant, 16 (15.2%) with solid tumors, and 13 (12.4%) with autoimmune disorders.

Patients with and without ICC had similar clinical disease severity upon admission, the authors said. Patients in the PICU for COVID-19 who had ICCs were, however, older than those without ICCs and less likely to be obese.

Both groups of children had similar rates of mechanical ventilation, vasoactive infusions, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. "Despite similarities in clinical presentation, the outcomes were worse for those with ICCs," the authors wrote.

In addition to almost triple the rate of in-hospital mortality, patients with ICCs had longer hospital stays.

Among the 105 patients with ICCs, 16.2% had life-threatening COVID-19, but reassuringly, COVID-19 ICC patients showed no evidence of new neurologic disability or need for supplemental oxygen, tracheostomy, or mechanical ventilation.

Patients with life-threatening COVID-19 were older than those with nonlife-threatening COVID-19, but there were no statistically significant differences in biologic sex, race, ethnicity.

"Patients with life-threatening COVID-19 were older than those with nonlife-threatening COVID-19, but there were no statistically significant differences in biologic sex, race, ethnicity, or comorbidities associated with life-threatening COVID-19 in patients with ICCs," the authors wrote.

No single type of ICC was more likely to be associated with severe COVID-19 infection, but patients with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) were overrepresented in hospital deaths.

Five of the 14 deaths in ICC patients occurred in children with HSCT, representing 35.7% of in-hospital deaths for that group.

"Patients with a history of HSCT represented only 1% of the overall cohort with acute COVID-19 but comprised almost half of the fatalities," the researchers wrote. "These findings are consistent with the high mortality of children with post-HSCT admitted to the PICU for other indications. Although our numbers are small, those patients who developed COVID-19 before or after post-transplantation day 100 had comparable rates of life-threatening COVID-19, similar to what has been reported previously."

Read more:

Clinical outcomes worse for young, immunocompromised COVID patients - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

A Riverside resident receives his first dose of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine on Friday, Jan. 14, 2022. As respiratory illnesses are on the rise, experts say vaccination is one tool that can help prevent serious symptoms and community spread. (File photo by Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG)

For the last three years, this editorial page has marked the anniversary of Gov. Gavin Newsoms stay-at-home order with commentaries reflecting on the lessons learned from the coronavirus pandemic. We continue this tradition, as we believe its important for people to critically engage with what happened, what went right, what went wrong.

Presented today are wide-ranging commentaries from our in-house columnists and editorial board members, as well as contributors from across Southern California.

Columnist and editorial board member Steven Greenhut helpfully reminds readers that we in this Opinion section were calling balls and strikes throughout the coronavirus pandemic in ways not seen in most of the California press.

Noted economist James Doti presents in clear language and with robust data the reality that Californias heavy-handed approach to the pandemic ultimately did no better than less restrictive approaches to the pandemic.

Dr. Houman Hemmati shifts through the good, the bad and the ugly of national, state and local public health responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Hint: There was a lot more bad than good.

Former state Sen. John Moorlach shares his perspective as a state lawmaker who saw firsthand the inept decision-making processes that would change our lives forever.

Longtime columnist Doug McIntyre takes a step back and puts the frankly nutty pandemic period into perspective.

Columnist Rafael Perez applies his philosophical training to clarify how to think through the appropriate response to a public health crisis like COVID-19.

Columnist and editorial board member Larry Wilson cuts through the conspiratorial nonsense about the life-saving coronavirus vaccines and tells it like he sees it.

Newport Beach Mayor Will ONeill was an early critic of Gov. Gavin Newsoms top-down, draconian approach to the pandemic. ONeill recounts how his city took responsible, respectable actions during the pandemic, and contrasts that with Newsoms imprudent beach closures.

Columnist and editorial board memberSusan Shelley details an interview between President Donald Trump and journalist Bob Woodward in the early days of the pandemic. Her takeaway? Trump was right.

Education policy expert Lance Christensen breaks down the horrific consequences of coronavirus school closures on the youth. The consequences of putting kids last, Christensen argues, will be with us for years to come.

Former Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Hewitt, once one of the highest-ranking Libertarian elected officials in the nation, offers his insights into what went right and wrong during the coronavirus pandemic.

Columnist and editorial board member John Seiler writes on the good things, yes, the good things, that came from the pandemic years.

As always, you may agree or disagree with the pieces presented. But we hope you consider what they have to say. We encourage you to offer your thoughts on them at opinion@scng.com.

Read this article:

Lessons learned from the coronavirus pandemic - OCRegister

One of Australia's leading doctors wants everyone to stop using the term "long COVID" after a new study found the long-term effects of the coronavirus are no different to those of other viruses like the flu.

The study by Queensland Health looked at more than 5000 Queenslanders who had respiratory illness symptoms from late May to late June 2022, when the Omicron variant had spread across the state.

Just under half of those tested positive for COVID-19 on a PCR test, while of the 2713 who tested negative, just under 1000 were confirmed to have influenza.

READ MORE: Award-winning Australian brewery goes into administration

The study found long COVID is a syndrome "indistinguishable from seasonal influenza and other respiratory illnesses, with no evidence of increased moderate-to-severe functional limitations a year after infection", the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) said.

The findings will be presented at next month's congress in Spain.

"The analysis found no evidence that COVID-19-positive adults were more likely to have moderate-to-severe functional limitations a year after their diagnosis than symptomatic adults who were negative for COVID-19 (3.0 per cent vs 4.1 per cent)," the ECCMID said.

"Moreover, results were similar when compared with the 995 symptomatic adults who had influenza (3.0 per cent vs 3.4 per cent)."

Queensland Chief Health Officer John Gerrard said the amount of attention on long COVID symptoms was simply down to the high level of the virus throughout the community.

READ MORE: Australia's life expectancy increases amid global decrease

"In health systems with highly vaccinated populations, long COVID may have appeared to be a distinct and severe illness because of high volumes of COVID-19 cases during the pandemic," he said.

"However, we found that the rates of ongoing symptoms and functional impairment are indistinguishable from other post-viral illnesses.

"These findings underscore the importance of comparing post-COVID-19 outcomes with those following other respiratory infections, and of further research into post-viral syndromes."

He said the findings meant it was time to stop saying "long COVID".

"We believe it is time to stop using terms like 'long COVID'," he said.

"They wrongly imply there is something unique and exceptional about longer-term symptoms associated with this virus.

"This terminology can cause unnecessary fear, and in some cases, hypervigilance to longer symptoms that can impede recovery."

READ MORE: At least 120 Victorian festivalgoers sick with 'antibiotic-resistant' gastro

While many other experts in the field have welcomed the study, not all are convinced it's time to abandon the term.

"There are likely reasons why persistent symptoms following COVID in this Queensland cohort may be no more frequent than following other viruses including the predominantly vaccinated cohort and the high frequency of Omicron variants," paediatric infectious diseases physician Professor Philip Britton said.

"These factors are acknowledged by the authors.

"It is because of these specific factors as well as inherent limitations of the study methodology itself, that their conclusion that it is 'time to stop using terms like "long COVID"' is overstated and potentially unhelpful.

"Long COVID has been a global phenomenon, recognised by the World Health Organisation."

The latest COVID-19 strain spreading across the world

Professor Jeremy Nicholson, the director of the Australian National Phenome Center at Murdoch University, agrees.

"The absence of evidence is different from evidence of absence," he said.

"So the authors' assertion that long COVID is the same as flu-related post-viral syndrome is not proven, even if long COVID is indeed a post-viral syndrome (which it is).

"What is certainly true is that the pandemic nature of COVID-19 created a huge number (millions of people worldwide) of long COVID sufferers and that this has drawn attention to the problem and given it a name.

"But we still do not know whether long COVID is physiologically or mechanistically different to other post-viral syndromes, we lack the evidence because it has not been studied properly to date...

"Until this is resolved, we should still use the long COVID term because it pinpoints exactly the underlying viral cause."

View post:

Queensland's top doctor wants you to stop saying 'long COVID' following new study - 9News

usatoday.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 usatoday.com

Read more:

How COVID-19 misinformation is still hurting some Americans' health - USA TODAY

Spring is nearly here, but the 2023-24 respiratory virus season isnt over yet. Viral activity from flu, COVID-19 and RSV has fallen from the peak, but levels remain elevated.

Heres the situation in four charts:

The CDC gauges activity by tracking doctor visits that involve a patient showing flu-like symptoms. Last week, those made up 3.7% of all visits, or about 1 visit in every 27.

Flu activity is highest in the central U.S. Across the nation, the activity level is very high for two states, and high for another 12.

The rate at which tests come back positive for each virus can suggest which ones are most responsible for general respiratory illness activity. Flu has the highest positivity rate, at 15.4%, an increase from the previous week. Positivity rates for COVID-19 and RSV continue to fall.

Hospitalizations can give an idea of the danger associated with each virus. COVID-19 is hospitalizing people at a rate of about 4 per 100,000, the highest rate among the three viruses.

While RSV and COVID-19 activity are waning, flu is keeping respiratory illness at elevated levels in many parts of the country.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Go here to see the original:

How bad are flu, COVID-19 and RSV? These charts show how respiratory viruses are spreading in the US - The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Four years after COVID-19 forced widespread shutdowns of businesses and schools across the U.S., 59% of Americans believe the pandemic is over. At the same time, about as many, 57%, report that their lives have not returned to normal, and 43% expect they never will.

National worry about contracting COVID-19 is near its lowest point in the trend dating back to the early days of the pandemic -- although, as has been the case throughout the pandemic, Democrats express much more concern about COVID-19 than Republicans do.

The impact of the coronavirus on the public since emerging as a global threat in 2020 is evident in the finding that seven in 10 U.S. adults report having had COVID-19 at least once.

These findings are from a March 5-11 update to Gallup's probability-based COVID-19 web panel tracking poll, which began in March 2020.

Gallup has tracked Americans perceptions of whether the pandemic is over in the U.S. since June 2021, during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout when most Americans received their first shot. But it was not until late May/early June 2023 that a majority thought it was over. This was shortly after President Joe Biden signed a congressional resolution to end the nations state of emergencyand the U.S. and global public health emergency declarations ended. Fewer, though still a slim 53% majority, continued to believe it had come to an end in late August/early September.

The latest 59% of Americans who believe the pandemic is over is up slightly from late last summer but is still shy of the positivity expressed last May/June.

###Embeddable###

Republicans (79%) are almost twice as likely as Democrats (41%) to say the pandemic is over, while 63% of independents agree.

Majorities of Republicans have thought the pandemic is over since April 2022, and majorities of independents have said the same since February 2023. In contrast, only once, in May/June 2023, has a majority of Democrats agreed the pandemic is over.

###Embeddable###

Americans current reports of whether their lives have returned to pre-pandemic normalcy are on par with last May/June. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults say their lives are completely back to normal, and 57% say they are not. That 57% includes 14% who believe their lives will eventually return to normal and 43% who think their pre-pandemic normalcy is gone for good.

###Embeddable###

A slim 52% majority of Republicans say their lives are completely back to normal, while roughly four in 10 Democrats and independents agree. Forty-six percent pluralities of both Democrats and independents do not think they will ever return to the normal that existed before COVID-19, while similar percentages of all three party groups say their old normal will return at some point.

###Embeddable###

Americans concern about getting COVID-19 is near its lowest point since the beginning of the pandemic. Currently, 20% of U.S. adults say they are very or somewhat worried that they will contract COVID-19. Worry was slightly lower than now in June 2021 (17%), before the onslaught of the delta and omicron variants, and in May/June 2023 (18%).

Worry about falling victim to the disease was highest -- between 55% and 59% -- at various points in the first year of the pandemic before vaccines were available.

###Embeddable###

Worry is significantly lower among those who evaluate their overall health as excellent or very good than those who say their health is fair or poor. Nearly nine in 10 of those who rate their health positively say they are not worried about contracting COVID-19, compared with less than seven in 10 of those who rate their health negatively.

Meanwhile, 70% of U.S. adults say they have tested positive for COVID-19 (59%) or have not tested positive but believe they had it (11%). This high incidence of infection may be one reason why worry about contracting COVID-19 is near the record low -- either because they feel protected due to antibodies or confident they can get through it without major health consequences.

###Embeddable###

The rates of self-reported COVID-19 infections are similar across all three political party groups and mirror the national average.

U.S. adults reports of when they tested positive for COVID-19 (or believe they had the disease) show that 2022 was the year with the highest infection rates. This tracks with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, which found the sharpest spike in cases was in 2022 as a result of the highly transmissible omicron variant. In all, 25% of U.S. adults say they had COVID-19 in 2020, 34% in 2021, 46% in 2022, 32% in 2023, and just 8% so far this year.

###Embeddable###

Four years after COVID-19 swept across the country, with nearly 1.2 million COVID-related deaths in the U.S. to date, six in 10 U.S. adults believe the pandemic is over. That does not mean that most Americans have resumed their pre-pandemic lives or expect to ever do so. In fact, 43% do not expect their lives to ever return to a pre-COVID state. But their worry about contracting the disease has waned as increasing numbers of Americans have developed antibodies as a result of infection or vaccination.

To stay up to date with the latest Gallup News insights and updates, follow us on X.

Learn more about how the Gallup Panel works.

###Embeddable###

Follow this link:

After Four Years, 59% in U.S. Say COVID-19 Pandemic Is Over - Gallup

Four years on from the COVID-19 pandemic, the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is still contested. The most widely accepted hypothesis in the scientific community is that the virus naturally emerged from an animal source. However, there are others who believe that the virus leaked from a Chinese laboratory.

To add to this debate, a controversial new research paper from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, has suggested that the available evidence points toward an unnatural origin for the virus. But many others are unconvinced.

"The study uses an established tool to show that an unnatural origin is as plausible, if not more plausible, than a natural origin and not a low-probability, fringe theory," the study's senior author, Chandini Raina MacIntyre, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Research Program at the Kirby Institute of the University of New South Wales, told Newsweek.

"It does this by considering a large range of different intelligence and analyses using a framework that has been tested and trained on past natural and unnatural epidemics."

Much of our understanding of the origins of COVID-19 comes from genetic analysis and subsequent reconstruction of the virus's evolutionary tree. This so-called phylogenetic analysis allows us to understand how SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved from existing lineages in nature. Indeed, researchers have shown that SARS-CoV-2 shares 96 percent of its DNA with coronaviruses found in bats. But MacIntyre said that this data does not prove a natural origin for the virus.

"The question of origins of a virus cannot be answered by phylogenetics alone because gain-of-function research may not leave obvious signs of manipulation, and a resulting virus may appear 'natural,'" MacIntyre said. "A natural origin of SARS-COV-2 is, of course still possible, but there are no grounds to dismiss the suggestion of an unnatural origin.

"It remains a fact that no animal host or intermediary animal has been identified yet to support a zoonotic origin."

Gain-of-function research involves the manipulation of an organism's DNA (or in this case, a virus's DNA) to introduce or enhance new capabilities, such as its potential to infect new hosts. This is often performed to gain a better understanding of how an animal virus might mutate to infect humans, and thus how we can prepare for future outbreaks. However, this type of research is also controversial because there is always a small risk that these artificially infectious viruses could escape.

The Wuhan Institute for Virology, the location most often cited as the most likely source for any potential lab leak under this hypothesis, has a published record of conducting such gain-of-function research, the U.S. Department of State said in a statement. However, no direct evidence of SARS-CoV-2 resulting from gain-of-function research has been found.

Nevertheless, the lab leak theory, as it has become known, has remained one of the most contentious aspects of the pandemic, with accusations of cover-ups and the political obstruction of scientific inquiry.

In February 2020, White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci was alerted during a conference call with a group of scientists that COVID-19 might have originated from a lab. Shortly after, a paper titled "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" was authored by conference participants and published in Nature Medicine. It doubted that a lab leak was "plausible."

That same month, the medical journal The Lancet published a statement signed by 27 scientists rejecting the theory, which expressed "solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China". It added: "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."

However, such statements were quickly contested, not least by then-President Donald Trump, who in April 2020 was asked by a reporter if he had "seen anything that gives you a high degree of confidence, at this point, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the source of this virus?"

"Yes, I have," replied Trump.

Also in April 2020, Newsweek published a report detailing an assessment of the origins of COVID-19 by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.

"We have no credible evidence to indicate SARS-CoV-2 was released intentionally or was created as a biological weapon," the intelligence report said. However, it added that the virus likely originated "accidentally" from "unsafe laboratory practices."

President Joe Biden ordered intelligence officials to "redouble their efforts" into investigating the theory in May 2021, but the report proved inconclusive. However, the same year, Fauci said he was "not convinced" the virus originated naturally.

In March 2023, the Wall Street Journal published a story detailing a classified report from the U.S. Department of Energy that the virus likely originated from a lab leak in Wuhan. The agency made the determination with a "low confidence" rating. The FBI, meanwhile, leaned towards a lab leak with "moderate confidence."

Despite such assessments, the scientific consensus is that the virus emerged naturally.

In the latest study, published in the journal Risk Analysis, MacIntyre and colleagues Xin Chen and Fatema Kalyar analyzed the existing evidence around the origins of the virus using a series of 11 criteria and an algorithm for risk scoring to determine the likelihood of either hypothesis. The criteria included biorisk, peculiarities of the strain, geographic distribution, rapid spread and mode of transmission.

Using these methods, the team concluded that the pandemic was slightly more likely to have originated in a laboratory. However, others are not convinced.

"This type of publication is dangerous and misleading," Alice Hughes, associate professor in Biological Sciences at the University of Hong Kong, told Newsweek. "Many of the criteria used are subjective, or may be based on guesswork."

As an example, Hughes highlighted the authors' focus on a unique characteristic of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that allows it to infect human cells more effectively. This adaptation, called the furin cleavage site, is not known to exist in other SARS-related coronaviruses, which the authors suggest may be evidence of its unnatural origins.

However, Hughes disputes any such suggestion. "We see putative ones in wild-caught bat viruses (as well as wild influenza viruses), and with more sampling we would almost certainly find more," she said.

James Wood, co-chair of the Cambridge Infectious Diseases Interdisciplinary Research Centre and Alborada professor of equine and farm animal medicine at the University of Cambridge, also highlighted this discrepancy with existing data.

"This work uses essentially unvalidated methods and the paper contains a number of really basic errors," Wood told Newsweek. "These include that the Wuhan laboratory conducted a U.S.-funded gain-of-function study (the proposal was not funded) and that furin cleavage sites are not found on naturally occurring animal viruses (there are a number where this has been reported).

"This appears to me to be highly misleading, poor-quality research with no proper basis for the conclusions reached."

Among the criteria, the authors also point towards the lack of positive animal samples for SARS-CoV-2 in the wake of the pandemic despite the high number of positive swabs taken from surfaces across the Huanan Seafood Market, a location that many in support of the natural spillover hypothesis have flagged as the likely epicenter of the pandemic. "This supports the positive samples having originated from infected human cases," the authors write.

However, Hughes highlighted several issues with these conclusions. "This shows more clearly than any other point that the authors do not understand the sampling," Hughes said. "No live animal samples were taken until after the outbreaks, no wildlife from the market was tested. It is likely that animals were actively destroyed when the rumor that an epidemic might have occurred to avoid blame. Very few live animals were sampled at all."

MacIntyre rejects this claim, pointing to data that suggests "457 animal samples, including dead animals in refrigerators and freezers and stray animals and their feces, were collected, with some stray animals sampled until March 30th."

MacIntyre said that his team's analysis acknowledges the subjective nature of the scoring, thus collating scores from two independent researchers and using the algorithm to calculate average probabilities rather than definitive results. However, this two-step scoring is not enough for others.

"It's barely research, more subjective handy-wavy opinions than actual science," David Robertson, virology professor at the University of Glasgow and head of the Glasgow Center for Virus Research Division of Bioinformatics, told Newsweek.

"It mostly ignores the existing evidence. The approach is based on entirely arbitrary and subjective assignment of scores to 11 criteria so adds nothing to our understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. A different set of people would come up with totally different results."

Robertson added that speculative and subjective studies like this could do more harm than good for our understanding of the pandemic and its origins. "This [study] further feeds the misinformation bubble that there's doubts about SARS-CoV-2's natural origin," he said.

"Although there's been much speculation about a lab-based origin, this remains devoid of evidence. The ongoing issue is what is possible, and we can speculate about versus what's probable and we have actual evidence for. The scientific analysis is all firmly in support of a natural spillover associated with live animal trade much like the first SARS virus."

MacIntyre said that, while their study could draw no definitive conclusions, it was important to continue investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2. "If the worst pandemic of our lifetimes could possibly have arisen from a lab accident, I believe the public, whose taxes fund much of the research, would absolutely expect the scientific community to ensure we improved biosafety in the future.

"For policy, it matters if there is any possibility that SARS-COV-2 has a lab origin, because we have more control over mitigation and prevention of unnatural outbreaks, many of which arise from simple human error or inadequate biosafety. A recent paper by Blacksell and colleagues in Lancet Microbe showed hundreds of such accidents in a 20-year period. Improving processes and protocols for biosafety can make a difference."

Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about Covid? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Read the original:

COVID Lab Leak Theory Resurfaces After Controversial New Study - Newsweek

After collecting the information, at first, the data analyzed and the understanding of the relationships governing the components and the ideological construction was done based on Cress and Van Leeuwen model51. All communication processes are somewhat law-based; Although the nature of these laws may be infinitely diverse. Image components, like words, have wide meanings. The meanings that are conveyed to the audience through images are the meanings that cannot be conveyed through language. Visual communication, like language, plays its role in creating and maintaining the desired ideologies of society, which can serve to create, perpetuate and legitimize some social concepts. Table 2 shows the billboards and infographics of this research.

The conceptual look is dependent on the object. The field of looking includes the act of seeing, the act of being seen, the act of receiving, and the act of interpretation. In fact, when the audience looks at the object, they are first seen by that object. Therefore, at first, the audience is called by the look of the object and is invited to look with the look of the object53. Types of looks from the point of view of Kress and Van Leeuwen, it is: the staring look at the spectator, which indicates a demand and request from the audience, and the absence of staring look at the spectator, which indicates a presentation.

In the Fig.1, the content producer asks the audience to wear a mask before leaving the house. Therefore, to portray this concept and attract the audience, she/he has used the staring look at the spectator.

The staring look at the spectator.

In the Fig.2, the content producer intends to present and teach the correct method and principles of masking to the audience. Therefore, in order to better present the content to the audience, the method of the absence of staring look at the spectator is used so that the audience is attracted to the content presented.

The absence of staring look at the spectator.

The composition of the image and the position of the subject in the range of the frame seen by the camera is called the shot54. Therefore, the shot includes how the subject is placed in the image frame, the size of the subject that covers the surface of the image, and the angle that the camera has to the subject54. The types of shot are: close-up, medium shot, long shot54.

A close-up shows the details of the subject and accentuates the emotions54. In other words, close-up is used to portray concepts that involve personal and intimate relationships54. In the image below, a close-up of the subject, which represents personal and intimate relationships, along with a Dutch angle shot, which represents isolation, portrays the concept of presentation to the audience. In the Fig.3, the inconsistency of the shot and camera angle with the desired concept causes the audience to fail to attract.

In the medium shot, in addition to emphasizing the main subject, the surrounding environment of the subject is also depicted, which shows the creation of social relationships54. In the Fig.4, the family, which is a social institution, is depicted in a frame and in a medium shot without showing the surrounding environment of the subject. Considering that the concept of the text indicates the creation of intimate relationships between the subject and the audience, presenting the desired concept in close-up will attract the audience better.

In the long shot, the subject is displayed from a distance and the content producer emphasizes the position and location54. Also, in the distant view, non-personal relationship is depicted54. In the Fig.5, the desired subject, which is the image of the Coronavirus disease, is depicted from a long shot. Also, the desired subject is placed on the left side and on the top of the billboard. In terms of information value, the elements on the left are pre-existing and known elements, and the top of the billboard is the ideal information location55,56. Considering that the phrase in the image is related to the new strain of Coronavirus disease, i.e. Omicron, which is not a pre-existing and known element, therefore placing the subject in this position and in the long shot reduces the importance of the subject for the audience. As a result, it causes not attracting the audience and not encouraging them to follow health solutions to prevent the spread of the virus.

The shot angle is a way to describe the subject. The position of the camera angle relative to the ground creates different shots. Diversity in the angle of view creates different concepts that play an essential role in presenting the material to the reader. In other words, with the help of the camera angle, the importance and special status of the event and effective communication with the audience occurs54. In general, shots angles are divided into several main categories, which are: head-on shot, Dutch angle shot, high-angle shot, level shot, down shot54.

The head-on shot means that the audience is standing face to face with the subject54. In this case, the camera is placed directly in front of the subjects eyes, and since this angle of view is usually used in human communication, it will induce a sense of intimacy and closeness between the audience and the subject. In fact, this state means equality and lack of feeling of superiority between the subject and the audience. In the Fig.6, the head-on shot is used to express the concept of we and being together.

Dutch angle shot means looking at the subject crookedly54. This type of camera angle is often used to present concepts such as separation, war, imbalance, inner turmoil, hallucinations, explosions, discordant and disturbing events, worry, etc. to the audience54. In the Fig.7, the concepts of combating and escaping the Coronavirus disease using a vaccine are depicted from Dutch angle shot.

High-angle shot means looking from top to bottom. In this angle, the camera is pointing down, where the object or character is54. The high-angle shot has different degrees. In the Fig.8, the camera angle is above the characters head and depicts the subject vertically and 90. In this type of camera angle, usually most of the shots and angles are made from the point of view of the character and the same size as humans, which sometimes gives a feeling of limitation to the audience, and for this reason, this type of camera angle represents power to the audience. In the Fig.8, the content producer powerfully limits the audience to take the situation seriously and wear a mask and stay healthy, as opposed to not taking the situation seriously and not wearing a mask and illness, which ultimately creates unfavorable conditions for the individual.

One of the most common camera angles and heights to show the content creators point of view is the level shot. In the level shot, the person or object represented is in its natural angle. Using the level shot is to express equality and remove the barrier between the audience and the produced content 54. The Fig.9 shows the level shot. In the Fig.9, the camera angle is the state where the height of the camera from the ground is equal to the height of the waist or the middle part of the subjects body. This type of camera angle is used when one subject is sitting and the other is standing, and it is used to increase the tension or show the power of the subject.

Down shot means looking from bottom to top. When the subject is seen from a down shot in the frame, so that the camera is positioned below the subjects eye line, it indicates a dramatic space that generally emphasizes the dynamic force between the characters54. Like the scene of a hand-to-hand fight between two warriors54. Among the capabilities of the down shot is to show the strength and superiority of a character and also create a sense of participation for the represented person54. In the Fig.10, the combat between the two characters of Coronavirus disease and the vaccine is depicted. In this combat, the vaccine is more powerful and it is the armor that protects people in the combating the Coronavirus disease and makes the virus escape.

The current research aims to discover and identify the best visual factors presented in billboards and infographics related to Covid-19 in order to have a greater impact on the audience and encourage people to perform preventive behaviors and general vaccination. In this regard, exploratory analysis according to the purpose was carried out based on the valid approach of qualitative research and using the analysis of expert researchers. Next, the main question of the research is whether the expert-oriented approach about the best visual items is really aligned with the public opinion about the most attractive and effective visual items. Therefore, in order to investigate public opinion, quantitative method and descriptive statistics have been used so that the results of this research can be used in the real context of peoples lives and in accordance with the culture of the target society. In this section, peoples attitude towards pictures and their content is investigated using a survey that was distributed an online questionnaire, so that based on the highest frequency, the pattern of medical advertisements can be discovered and compiled. This study was conducted with the participation of 350 Iranian adults. The average age of the participants was41.94%. 199 (56.86%) of the participants were female and 151 (43.14%) were male. 224 (64%) were married, 95 people (27.14%) were single, 12 people (3.43%) were divorced and 19 people (5.43%) were widows. 48 people (13.71%) have free jobs, 59 people (16.86%) have government jobs, 15 people (4.29%) workers, 117 people (33.43%) were students, 24 people (6.86%) are housewives, 54 people (15.43%) are retired, 14 people (4%) were unemployed and 19 people (5.42%) had other jobs. Also, the number of 12 people (3.43%) low education, 40 people (11.43%) diploma, 114 people (32.57%) were bachelors degree, 83 people (23.71%) were masters degree, 63 people (18%) were PhD and 38 people (10.86%) were postdoctoral.

As Table 3 shows, the analyzed data includes 36 images containing advertising texts, of which 17 (47.22%) images have a medium shot (creating a social relationship), 15 (41.67%) images have a dutch angle shot (separation), 11 (30.56%) images with a level shot (equality), 9 (25%) images with a head-on shot (inclusion), 8 (22.22%) images containing the absence of staring look at the spectator (presentation), the staring look at the spectator (demand) and close-up (intimate/individual relationship) both 7 cases with an average of 19.44%, 6 (16.67%) images with a down shot (creating a sense of participation for the represented person), 3 (8.33%) images with a long shot (creating a non-individual relationship) and 1 (5.56%) image have a high-angle shot (presenting power to the spectator).

Table 4 contains survey information on peoples interest in research data (billboards and infographics). The total number of people participating in this research is 350 people, of which 342 (97.71%) of the participants chose staring look at the spectator (demand). After that, in order from the highest to the lowest number, it is as follows: 337 (96.29%) people, head-on shot (inclusion); 315 (90%) people, down shot (creating a sense of participation for the represented person); 311 (88.86%) people, close-up (intimate/individual relationship); 291 (83.14%) people, level shot (equality); 259 (74%) people, high-angle shot (presenting power to the spectator); 165 (47.15%) people, the absence of staring look at the spectator (presentation); 143 (40.86%) people chose the dutch angle shot (separation); 94 (26.86%) people, medium shot (creating a social relationship) and 54 (15.43%) people chose the long shot (creating a non-individual relationship).

Read more here:

Picture analysis of billboards and infographic graphics advertising COVID-19 on promoting preventive behaviors and ... - Nature.com

Nearly four years to the day that COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, a group of far-right Republican legislators held a four-hour, unofficial committee meeting that elevated conspiracy theories and dubious treatments of the virus that has killed at least 3 million people worldwide.

The Arizona Senates Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee convened Friday and featured testimony from multiple doctors affiliated with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative non-profit widely known for its medical misinformation.

One of those doctors was Texas cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who defended his use of ivermectin and said the FDA overstepped in its public campaign that advised against treating Covid-19 with an anti-parasite drug meant for livestock.

It's safer than Tylenol, through a large range of doses. Every single American admitted to the hospital should have been administered ivermectin because it gave a chance at survival and there was nothing to suggest that it was unsafe, he said.

Ivermectin is not FDA approved to treat the virus.

McCullough also blamed the medical system, not the virus itself, on the millions of deaths caused by COVID-19.

Virtually all the deaths occurred in the hospital. So the question on the table is what occurred at the hospital that failed to save lives?

McCullough has consistently contradicted public health recommendations in conservative circles since 2020.

The committee is made up of Republican Covid skeptics who have consistently supported unsubstantiated claims of COVIDs origins and its treatments

However, the committee is unofficial, meaning they cant propose legislation or make formal recommendations.

Read more:

4 years later, COVID-19 conspiracy still thrives in the Arizona Senate - AZPM