Category: Covid-19

More than a thousand additional Aussies are likely to die from bowel cancer because of disruptions caused by COVID-19, researchers say.

Scientists say they expect pandemic disruptions would lead to a 2.4 per cent increase in deaths related to the cancer, compared with a scenario when there were no screening disruption, diagnostic or treatment delays.

The Aussie-led research expects an additional 234 bowel cancer cases and 1186 deaths in Australia over 20202030.

READ MORE: Perth musician diagnosed with advanced bowel cancer

READ MORE: Caroline's brain was 'almost torn in half' after horror holiday crash. Now she wants to inspire others

The researchers modelled the impact of disruptions on colorectal cancer cases and deaths in both Canada and Australia.

But they also found that increasing diagnostic and treatment capacities by five per cent to address the backlog could help prevent 350 Aussie deaths.

Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney,n and The Daffodil Centre were involved in the research.

Bowel cancer is the third most diagnosed and second deadliest cancer in Australia, after lung cancer.

But an easy test can help diagnose it.

Government advice body the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) announced a recommendation to lower the screening age for the disease from 50 to 45 late last year.

READ MORE: Severe weather warning for Victoria after wild Melbourne storm

How the UK press reacted to Kate's cancer announcement

But the federal government needs to give it the green light.

Last year, a mother who was diagnosed with cancer after returning her screening kit urged Aussies not to ignore them.

A bowel cancer screening kit is sent to all Australians aged 50 to 74 every two years.

An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report in 2023 showed bowel cancer screening participation rates had dropped - and also blamed the pandemic.

It dropped to 40.9 per cent in 2020-2021, an almost three per cent decline from the previous screening period.

More than 2.6 million Aussies were invited to send tests over that period, yet a huge 1.5 million did not return a sample.

But even in normal times, around 60 per cent of Australians don't bother to complete the test.

READ MORE: mile Soleil: What happened to missing French toddler

UK tabloid goes black as it reports 'King has cancer'

Bowel cancer is the second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer.

However, if caught at the earliest stage, 99 per cent of people survive at least five years.

That drops to 14 per cent at stage four.

One in nine new bowel cancer cases - more than 1700 a year - are in people under 50.

Under the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBSCP), Australians aged 50 to 74 are sent testing kits in the mail to collect a fecal sample that is then posted to a pathology laboratory to be examined.

READ MORE: JK Rowling dares police to arrest her after transgender law passes

Blood in stools, unexplained weight loss, abdominal pain, unexplained anaemia and a persistent change in bowel habits can all be signs of the disease.

For more details, visit Bowel Cancer Australia.

Read the original:

More Aussies will die from bowel cancer because of COVID-19 disruption, research finds - 9News

$11 million from Oklahoma's Emergency Assistance for Non-Public Schools Fund will be used to fund scholarships for students working toward much-needed professions, according to Gov. Kevin Stitt.

Monday, April 1st 2024, 6:24 am

By: News 9

Governor Kevin Stitt announced his intention to move more than $11 million from Oklahomas unused Emergency Assistance for Non-Public Schools Fund.

The governor said the money will be moved from the Oklahoma State Department of Education to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.

Governor Stitt said the money will be used as scholarships for students working toward degrees in education, childcare and other much-needed industries.

View post:

Over $10 Million In Unused COVID-19 Funds Will Be Used To Support Student Scholarships, Gov. Stitt Announces - News On 6

In this study, we found that maternal hybrid immunity provides heightened protection against infant COVID-19 hospitalization during the first six months of life, as compared to natural immunity. Our analyses show that hybrid immunity effectiveness reached 84% (95% CI, 7590%) throughout the study period, whereas natural immunity effectiveness was 56% (95% CI, 3968%). These results emphasize the significance of immunizing women who have recovered from COVID-19 infection during pregnancy to confer robust protection against early infant COVID-19 illness. Infant hospitalizations for COVID-19 were in general brief in all maternal immunity subgroups, and admission to the pediatric ICU was rare. We studied the effect of maternal hybrid immunity on infant COVID-19 hospitalizations, rather than infant SARS-CoV2 infections. Recorded infection rates may be biased by varying testing frequencies among different population groups, particularly among unvaccinated individuals. In Israel, while not consistently implemented across all healthcare facilities, routine SARS-CoV-2 testing of infants presenting with upper respiratory infection symptoms was widely established as a standard procedure in most hospitals during the study period. Given the unbiased approach to testing, and the fact that COVID-19 hospitalization better reflects significant disease burden, we analyzed the data accordingly.

This study concentrated on the indirect benefits of maternal hybrid immunity for unvaccinated newborns. Our findings augment the growing body of evidence underscoring the considerable protective effects of maternal vaccination during pregnancy on early infant COVID-19 disease. Prior research has primarily focused on vaccinating pregnant women who have not been previously exposed to the virus. A Norwegian study published in 2022 linked maternal vaccination with a reduced risk of infant infection during the first four months of life18, while a U.S. study associated pregnancy vaccination with a decreased risk of infant hospitalizations and critical disease up to six months of age12. Our 2023 study, summarizing data from Israel, demonstrated the significant impact of maternal third booster dose in limiting infant COVID-19 hospitalization11. However, clinical data on the durability and benefits of maternal hybrid immunization remain limited. Information on this type of protection stems from studies investigating maternal and newborn protective antibody levels, which indicate high levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulins in maternal blood, cord blood, and milk after vaccinating recovered pregnant women, compared to recovered non-vaccinated pregnant women13,19,20. Our study further expands current knowledge with substantial clinical data, illustrating how maternal hybrid immunity translates to early infant protection. Importantly, we demonstrate that hybrid immunization offers greater protection than all other maternal immunization status groups.

Despite significant differences in infant hospitalization rates based on maternal immunity, we observed similar hospitalization durations across all groups, regardless of maternal immunization status. We postulate that the uniformity in stay length may be due to a shared clinical presentation, primarily fever in infants, which necessitates brief hospital stays. However, it is important to note that we lack data regarding the prevalence of fever.

Two studies from 2021 demonstrated that administering the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine during the late second or early third trimester of pregnancy results in increased antibody levels in umbilical cord blood21,22, and a reduced risk of infant COVID-19 morbidity, compared to earlier gestation vaccination4,12. Our previous research supports these findings, revealing that vaccination during the third trimester leads to elevated anti-COVID-19 antibodies in cord blood compared to the first trimester13. Our findings align with this observation, indicating that when immune stimulation occurs after 20 weeks of gestation, the level of protection appears to be higher compared to stimulation during the first 20 weeks. However, the difference in protection was somewhat reduced compared to previous reports on vaccination alone4,12. It is worth noting that the number of infants born to mothers who were last stimulated before pregnancy was limited in our data, which restricts our ability to accurately predict the true protective effect for infants in that particular group.

Intriguingly, protection resulting from immune stimulation before pregnancy was more robust than that conferred during the first 20 weeks of gestation. This suggests that the durability of immunity acquired through early pregnancy immunization may differ from that obtained pre-pregnancy. Further investigations should focus on these disparities, striving to better understand their origins.

Hybrid-mediated immunity resulted in robust infant protection regardless of the sequence of stimulations (i.e., vaccination before infection or vice-versa). Additionally, our findings suggest that the effectiveness of hybrid-mediated immunity acquired from one vaccine dose is lower than that obtained after two or more doses. Overall these new data provide novel insights into daily clinical questions relevant for patients and families, obstetricians, and healthcare policy. As COVID-19 spread continues, we predict that future guidelines will adopt recommendations for routine SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination before pregnancy, or during the third trimester23, aiming to reduce early infant morbidity, similar to recommendations for pertussis and influenza prevention24,25,26.

In our analysis, we focus on two key waves of SARS-CoV-2 variants: Delta and Omicron. While Omicron variants have become more prevalent, examining the Delta wave is crucial to understanding the evolving dynamics of the pandemic. This comparison highlights differences between the waves which can be crucial for understanding the importance of updating vaccines to match the currently circulating strains and boosting immunity to overcome waning. However, hybrid immunization enhances protection for both waves.

Our national data reveals a 2.8-fold increase in hospitalization rates among infants aged less than six months during the peak week of Omicron predominance compared to the period of Delta predominance. These results are consistent with CDC reports, which documented a five-fold increase in hospitalization rates when comparing these periods3. The observed differences could be due to higher infant infection rates, decreased protection from vaccines and natural immunity, or increased virulence of variants in infants. Our study did not examine the causes underlying these differences: further research is needed to understand these key factors.

Our study has several strengths. We used population-based databases covering the entire Israeli population with high data completeness. In Israel, a substantial proportion of the convalescent pregnant population received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, providing a large cohort for analysis. The mandatory reporting of information to the Israeli national registries, as described in the Methods section, limited the potential for selection bias and provided detailed data on clinical and sociodemographic factors. However, data did not include disease symptoms, constraining any evaluation of severity.

Our investigation presents certain limitations. As a real-world observational study, participants opted for vaccination at different times, making it difficult to account for potential disparities in asymptomatic (and unrecorded) infections, household exposures, health-seeking, behaviors, or risk aversion among individuals.

While we made efforts to adjust for multiple potential confounding factors, the absence of data on critical variables such as breastfeeding practices, enrollment in daycare centers, and other family or behavioral variables could have influenced the observed outcomes. Additionally, during the study period, changes in testing eligibility occurred, and data on home rapid antigen test results were unavailable. These limitations underscore the complexities of real-world observational research, emphasizing the need for future investigations that incorporate a more comprehensive dataset and account for these variables.

Maternal vaccination during pregnancy offers infant protection through two primary mechanisms: (a) the transfer of protective antibodies via the placenta and breast milk, and (b) a reduction in the infants exposure to infectious agents due to a better-protected mother (resulting in decreased vector susceptibility and infectiousness)27,28,29. While it is crucial to comprehensively understand the relative contribution of each protective factor, the necessary data for such determination was not available in this study, highlighting the need for further investigation in future research.

In summary, this real-world assessment revealed that maternal hybrid immunization was associated with a reduced risk of infant hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to natural immunity via infection alone. Our results show that effectiveness of hybrid immunity remains robust regardless of the timing of stimulation during pregnancy. Our findings supply crucial evidence to reinforce current recommendations advocating for COVID-19 vaccination of previously infected individuals during pregnancy to mitigate substantial illness in early infancy.

Read more:

Maternal hybrid immunity and risk of infant COVID-19 hospitalizations: national case-control study in Israel - Nature.com

Photograph courtesy of Suzanne Brennan Firstenberg.

In the fall of 2021, Suzanne Brennan Firstenberg blanketed a 20-acre portion of the National Mall with more than 700,000 tiny white flags as part of an installation called In America: Remember. Each represented a life lost to the coronavirusa stark illustration of the cost of Covid-19 up to that point. The emotional piece drew attention around the world.

Now Firstenberg is at work on her next DC project, and this time shes drawing attention to a different crisis: gun violence. Its the leading cause of death for children in the United States, and it makes no sense that were at a stalemate on something thats so important, says the artist, who works out of a studio in Bethesda. The new piece, Alienable Right to Life, will be on display at Freedom Plaza from May 10 through May 20.

Much like the Covid installation, this gun-violence project is, at its heart, a form of data visualization. It features an American flagabout 30 feet wide and stretched across scaffoldingwhich bears the names of more than 1,000 victims. The goal is for viewers to grasp the sheer number of lives lost to firearms. Firstenberg tried to include the names of people killed in every mass shooting since Columbine in 1999, although shes excluding ones in which victims knew the perpetrator, such as those related to gangs or domestic violence. These are people who had absolutely no way of knowing that was their last day, she says. They were mowed down in public places.

In addition to the names on the flag, Alienable Right to Life makes use of a large-scale rendition of the Declaration of Independence that highlights Americans unalienable right to life. With each name I add, I become more angry, because peoples lives have been taken away through no act of their own, says Firstenberg. These lives have been taken because politicians didnt have enough courage to do the right thing. When the piece is installed in Freedom Plaza, there will be another visual element: a view of the actual US Capitol in the distance.

Alienable Right to Life started as a much smaller piece, which Firstenberg first displayed at a DC gallery in 2019. During the unveiling ceremony, phones started pinging with notifications about a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso. Firstenberg later added those names while the work was still hanging on the gallery wall. Since then, many more victims have joined the names on the flag. As Firstenberg prepares the full-size version for its debut at Freedom Plaza, shes aware of a grim fact: There may be people out there right now who have no idea theyre about to become part of it.

This article appears in the April 2024 issue of Washingtonian.

Read more:

A Striking New Work From the Artist Behind the Covid Flags on the Mall - Washingtonian

A new scientific review highlights the potential of CBD to treat and manage the symptoms of conditions like epilepsy, pain, cancer, schizophrenia, diabetes and COVID-19, among others.

The wide-ranging 11-page review takes up the broad task of trying to summarize comprehensively the impact of cannabis on human health, finding that while the field has yet to be thoroughly explored, the plant and its components exhibit neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, anti-bacterial, analgesic, and antiepileptic properties.

The study, Beneficial effects of cannabidiol from Cannabis, was published last month in the journal Applied Biological Chemistry. In addition to the overview of cannabis on human health, it delves into recent CBD research advancements, highlighting the compounds potential medical applications.

Our exploration encompasses its pharmacological properties, mechanisms of action, and the accumulating evidence supporting its use in various medical conditions, authors wrote. Additionally, we critically assess challenges and controversies surrounding CBD research, including regulatory considerations and potential adverse effects.

It features sections on cannabinoids as treatment for the form of epilepsy known as Dravet syndrome, as a promising pain relief alternative, as a way to manage the symptoms of schizophrenia and even as a possible inhibitor of COVID-19 infection. It also touches on the diverse anticancer properties of cannabinoids that authors said present promising opportunities for future therapeutic interventions in cancer treatment, as well as CBDs apparent effects on diabetes-related biological processes.

Cannabis exhibits neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, anti-bacterial, analgesic, and antiepileptic properties.

The studyfrom an eight-author team out of South Korea, representing Gachon University, Chung-Ang University, the Gyeongbuk Institute for Bioindustry and the National Product Institute of Science and Technologyalso acknowledges industrial applications of CBD and hemp, such as for pharmaceutical drugs, skincare products, fuel, paper, clothing, rope and even massage oil production.

While many of findings of the new review, funded by South Koreas National Product Institute of Science and Technology, may be familiar to audiences well versed in cannabis research, South Koreas drug laws remain some of the strictest in the world. Though medical cannabis was partially legalized in 2018, marijuana and CBD are otherwise prohibited.

In the United States, meanwhile, the government has begun wading into hemp research and regulation since the plant and its products became legal through the 2018 Farm Bill.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, for instance, has been attempting to work more closely with hemp growers and breeders. Last year, the department released updated guidance on how to identify, describe and evaluate different varieties of the plant.

Last month, USDA also issued a new Hemp Research Needs Roadmapdivided into four areas: Breeding and Genetics, Best Practices for Production, Biomanufacturing for End Uses and Transparency and Consistency. The document reflects stakeholder input in identifying the hemp industrys greatest research needs, USDA said in a press release.

While much of it consists of a survey of research goals around hemp, the roadmap also included a proposal to develop a public-private hemp consortium, saying that collaboration is critical to ensuring value along the entire hemp supply chain.

USDA also last month said a genetically modified version of hemp produced by researchers in Wisconsin may be safely grown and bred in the United Statesand is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated plants.

The hemp variety, dubbed Badger G, does not produce THC or CBD but is designed to have higher levels of the cannabinoid CBG. Its at least the second type of genetically modified hemp to get the OK from the agencys Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) afteranother modified plant, which produces lowered levels of THC and CBC, was approved in October.

Amid state-level legalization of marijuana and the federal governments legalization of low-THC hemp and its derivative products, interest in research around hemp industry and commerce has ballooned in recent years.

In February, new federally funded research into how to distinguish hemp and marijuana in order to assist crime labs identified two new methods for differentiating the two forms of cannabis.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also put out a solicitation in 2022, seekingportable marijuana analyzers to quickly identify cannabinoid profilesand help distinguish between marijuana and hemp.

And in 2019, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) separately announced that it was seeking a device toprovide specificity to distinguish between hemp and marijuanasince the former crop was legalized.

USDA has alsosent out thousands of surveys to hemp farmers, meant to understand how the industry is growing but also identify challenges in business and regulation. The departmentlaunched its first annual survey in 2021, and itupdated the questionnaire last year before distributing it to farmersand releasing a report with findings thatshowed significant declines in the value and production of the cropin 2022.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for its part, isconsidering a proposal to allow hemp seed meal as livestock for hens.

Meanwhile, USDA has been reportedlyrevoking hemp licenses for farmers who are simultaneously growing marijuanaunder state-approved programs, underscoring yet another policy conflict stemming from the ongoing federal prohibition of some forms of the cannabis plant.

Federal hemp rules could be further amended as part of the next iteration of large-scale agriculture legislation. The 2018 Farm Bill that legalized the crop was supposed to be updated last year, but its been extended through much of 2024.

Last week, 21 attorneys general urged congressional leaders to take action on intoxicating hemp productsthat became legal through the 2018 change. Federal lawmakers should amend the definition of hemp, they wrote, and clarify that states can take their own measures to regulate the plant and its derivative products.

As Congress prepares to embark on a new five-year reauthorization of the Farm Bill, we strongly urge your committees to address the glaring vagueness created in the 2018 Farm Bill that has led to the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products across the nation and challenges to the ability for states and localities to respond to the resulting health and safety crisis, the top state law enforcement officials wrote. We urge Congress in the strongest possible terms to address this reckless policy.

Lawmakers and stakeholders are eyeing a number of other proposals that could be incorporated in the new farm bill, including measures tofree up hemp businesses to legally market products like CBDas dietary supplements or in the food supply and to remove restrictions on participation in the industry by people with certain prior drug convictions.

FDA has regulatory jurisdiction over that issue, but at the beginning of last year, the agency said it didnt have a pathway to make it happen and instead offered to work with Congress on a solution.

In response, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), along with Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), filed legislation last July that wouldremove regulatory barriers that FDA claims prevents it from allowing CBD marketing.

Congressional researchers cautioned last November thatvarying policy priorities among industry stakeholders could make the task of updating the federal farm bill more difficult.

The CRS report also referenced several recent hemp bills that federal lawmakers may consider folding in to the broader agricultural legislation.

One bipartisan bill filed last Marchseeks to end what critics say is a discriminatory federal policythat bars people with prior felony drug convictions from owning or leading legal hemp businesses. Another bipartisan measure wouldreduce regulations on farmers that grow industrial hempfor non-extraction purposes.

For the time being, the hemp industry continues to face unique regulatory hurdles that businesses have blamed for the crops value plummeting in the short years since its legalization. Despite the economic conditions, however, a recent report found thatthe hemp market in 2022 was larger than all state marijuana markets, and it roughly equaled sales for craft beer nationally.

Meanwhile, internally at USDA, food safety workers have beenencouraged to exercise caution and avoid cannabis products, including federally legal CBD, as the agency observes an uptick in positive THC tests amid confusion as more states enact legalization.

21 State Attorneys General Push Congress To Regulate Intoxicating Hemp Products

Photo courtesy of Kimzy Nanney.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Originally posted here:

CBD's Potential To Treat Pain, Cancer, Schizophrenia, COVID And Other Conditions Highlighted In New Scientific ... - Marijuana Moment

March 28, 2024

A study recently reported at a medical meeting* suggested that people with MS who get COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized than people in the general population and are also more likely to die from COVID.

The study looked at medical records in the United Kingdom to see who was hospitalized for a COVID-19 infection during the Omicron wave in 2022.

The findings in the study are difficult to interpret because they grouped all people with MS together regardless of:

when they received COVID-19 vaccines,

their level of disability, or

any history of prior infections.

Importantly, this study has not yet been peer reviewed. Peer review means that the paper is analyzed by fellow scientists, who evaluate the methods used and identify any potential flaws in logic or methodology that might shed doubt on the findings.

The FACTS:

Simply having MS does not increase a persons likelihood of developing COVID-19 or increase the risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19.

Certain factors, like older age, higher level of physical disability and taking certain disease modifying therapies increase the risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19.

People who use B cell depletion therapies (such as Ocrevus, Kesimpta, Briumvi and Rituxan and rituximab biosimilars) are more vulnerable to certain infections, including COVID-19.

People who do not have an adequate antibody response to the vaccine may be more at risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19.

Studies of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses in people living with MS have shown a reduced or absent antibody response among those who use the following disease- modifying therapies (DMTs):

alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) treatment within the past 24 months, and

anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (Ocrevus, Kesimpta, Briumvi, Rituxan and biosimilars).

*This study was reported at the 2024 European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Learn more:

Read these sources for the FACTS listed above:

Additional Resources:

More about COVID-19 and MS from the National MS Society

Learn about taking MS therapies during COVID-19

Guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for people with MS

Multiple sclerosis is an unpredictable disease of the central nervous system. Currently there is no cure. Symptoms vary from person to person and may include disabling fatigue, mobility challenges, cognitive changes, and vision issues. An estimated 1 million people live with MS in the United States. Early diagnosis and treatment are critical to minimize disability. Significant progress is being made to achieve a world free of MS.

The National MS Society, founded in 1946, is the global leader of a growing movement dedicated to creating a world free of MS. The Society funds cutting-edge research for a cure, drives change through advocacy and provides programs and services to help people affected by MS live their best lives. Connect to learn more and get involved: nationalMSsociety.org, Facebook, X, formerly known as Twitter, Instagram, YouTube or 1-800-344-4867.

Originally posted here:

COVID-19 and Multiple Sclerosis: Get the Facts - National MS Society

TOPLINE: There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

IN PRACTICE:

"Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies," the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online on March 16, 2024, in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Here is the original post:

The ED Sailed Smoothly in the Early COVID-19 Days - Medscape

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on peoples lives and mental health, leading to post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, financial loss, and increased rates of depression and anxiety disorders [1, 2]. To address these issues, recent studies have emphasized the importance of social support in mitigating the negative psychological effects caused by the quarantine [1], such as alleviated stress [3,4,5], lower loneliness [67], reduced anxiety [8, 9], and less depression [10]. The current paper focuses on the relationship between social support and subjective well-being (SWB) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although studies have revealed a positive association between social support and SWB after the outbreak of the pandemic [11, 12], their limitations warrant attention. Firstly, these studies adopted cross-sectional designs, which provide very limited information for causal interpretations. Secondly, these works failed to consider the underlying mechanisms through which social support predicts SWB. Lastly, the boundary conditions of the relationship between social support and SWB have rarely been investigated.

Therefore, in this paper, we adopted a prospective design to investigate the predictive effect of social support on subsequent SWB during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, in a sample of citizens living in the U.K., we tested the underlying mechanism of how perceived social support longitudinally predicted the cognitive component of SWB (i.e., life satisfaction) through the affective component of SWB (i.e., affect balance), after controlling for the baseline measure of SWB and other confounding factors such as personality traits. We also tested the boundary condition of when social support could predict future life satisfaction via affect balance by considering peoples household income.

Social support has been studied enormously in past decades considering its significance in coping with disasters or crises [13]. Social support includes a variety of social interactions between friends, family members, neighbours, and others [14], and is usually defined as the existence or availability of those people on whom we can rely, and of those who let us know that they care about, value, and love us [15]. Social support is also believed to be supplied by the community, social networks, and confiding partners [16].

In terms of its conceptualization, social support can be defined by both a main effect model and a buffering effect model [17]. The main effect model conceptualizes social support as the extent to which a person is integrated in a large social network, whereas the buffering effect model conceptualizes social support as the availability of interpersonal resources that are responsive to the needs elicited by stressful events. Embeddedness in a social network is conducive to well-being because it precludes negative feelings resulting from social isolation and induces positive feelings of stability, predictability, and self-worth. However, the mere existence of a social network may not be necessarily beneficial in the face of stress. Instead, coping with stress requires the social network to provide relevant means and resources. Considering the stressful pandemic during which our study was conducted, we conceptualized social support based on the buffering effect model.

In general, the availability of interpersonal resources can be measured in two ways: One is the available assistance perceived by individuals, while the other is what they actually receive. It has been found that the former had greater influence on peoples mental well-being [18]. Similarly, compared with received social support, perceived social support also has a more substantial effect on various physical health outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and mortality [19]. Therefore, although social support can be gained from multiple sources and providers, what really matters is how people perceive the support they have received. In this paper, we aim to investigate how perceived social support is associated with different components of SWB.

SWB encompasses both cognitive and affective aspects to measure an individuals level of well-being [20]. The cognitive component of SWB, often referred to as life satisfaction, represents an individuals overall evaluation of their life based on their personal values, priorities, and what the person deems important [21,22,23]. The affective component of SWB consists of both positive affect and negative affect. Positive affect includes a persons desirable or pleasant emotions, such as enjoyment, gratitude, and contentment, whereas negative affect contains unwanted or unpleasant emotions, such as anger, sadness, and worry [24]. The coexistence of positive affect and negative affect is referred to as affect balance, which is distinct from but correlated with life satisfaction [25, 26].

Importantly, affect balance is often considered as an important information source of life satisfaction, with substantial studies reporting the mediation role played by affect balance in the relationship between various measures and life satisfaction [27, 28]. When people judge life satisfaction, they need to consider various aspects of their lives. According to the affect-as-information hypothesis [29], people typically rely on their affect balance (i.e., the extent to which they feel good or bad) to evaluate their life satisfaction (i.e., the extent to which they are satisfied with their lives). That is, affect balance is one of the most critical inputs of life satisfaction judgment. In line with this reasoning, it has been found that affect balance could mediate the effects of many predictors on life satisfaction, such as emotional intelligence [30, 31], self-esteem [32], social capital [33], and positive life attitudes [34]. However, these results were mainly based on cross-sectional studies. It remains unknown whether affect balance could mediate social supports predictive effect on life satisfaction, especially in a prospective design.

The idea that social support has a positive effect on health and well-being is widely accepted. When it comes to SWB, it has been consistently found that social support is associated with better affect balance and higher life satisfaction, both before the COVID-19 pandemic [30, 35], and during the pandemic [11]. However, the designs adopted in these studies are cross-sectional, which limits causal inferences. Therefore, in the current study, we aim to adopt a prospective design to test whether the baseline measure of social support could predict future affect balance and life satisfaction after controlling for the baseline measures of affect balance and life satisfaction. Considering that people often rely on their affect balance to evaluate their life satisfaction and that affect balance could mediate the effects of many predictors on life satisfaction, we will also test whether future affect balance mediates the relationship between baseline social support and future life satisfaction. We propose the following hypotheses.

Baseline social support predicts subsequent affect balance.

Baseline social support predicts subsequent life satisfaction.

Subsequent affect balance mediates the relationship between baseline social support and subsequent life satisfaction.

Meanwhile, based on conservation of resources theory, the association between perceived social support and SWB might be moderated by household income. According to this theory, in order to protect themselves and cope with the challenges of daily life, individuals have to acquire and safeguard relevant resources, which include material resources such as money and properties, intrapersonal resources such as self-efficacy and growth mindsets, and interpersonal resources such as social support [36, 37]. Importantly, different types of resources can compensate for each other. For example, growth mindsets are particularly helpful in buffering against the deleterious effects of poverty on academic achievement [38, 39]. In our context, coping with stressful events such as the COVID-19 pandemic consumes resources, which in turn negatively affects well-being. However, such effect may vary depending on possessed material resources. Compared with rich people, those with low monthly household income tend to face more difficulties during the pandemic due to their lack of control in many domains of their lives [40,41,42], which makes them rely more on other types of resources such as social support. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses.

Household income moderates the mediating effect of affect balance in the relationship between social support and life satisfaction, such that the mediating effect is stronger for people with lower household income.

In order to rule out the confounding effects of demographic and personality factors, we control for age, gender, education, and the Big-Five personality traits when we test this proposed model (both the mediation and the moderated mediation).

Go here to see the original:

Social support predicted subsequent subjective well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective study - BMC ... - BMC Public Health

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

See the article here:

Arlington ISD Cuts Jobs as COVID-19 Federal Funding Expires, Unbalanced Budget Looms - The Texan

In a recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers investigated the effects of physical activity (PA) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms among young females.

The protective role of PA against several respiratory infections is well established. Regular PA augments immune function and reduces the risk of acute respiratory infections. Conversely, a sedentary lifestyle is linked to an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 severity.

Further, one-third of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals report long-term symptoms that persist for over four weeks post-infection. Common symptoms of this post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) include shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain, changes in taste/smell, cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, and headache. Studies have reported inverse associations between (greater adherence to) a healthy lifestyle and PCC risk.

Several risk factors for severe COVID-19 have been identified, such as sex, advanced age, and comorbidities, which are also related to physical inactivity. PA levels generally differ between females and males; females in most countries are less physically active than males. While males have higher COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, females show an increased PCC prevalence.

Study: Higher level of physical activity reduces mental and neurological symptoms during and two years after COVID-19 infection in young women. Image Credit:lzf/ Shutterstock

In the present study, researchers evaluated whether regular PA alleviates COVID-19 and PCC symptoms among young females. Data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptoms were collected using the World Health Organization (WHO) post-COVID case report form between July 20, 2022, and October 5, 2023.

Besides, functioning was measured on a five-point scale and was compared to a pre-COVID-19 scenario on a three-point scale. The international PA questionnaire short form was used to measure PA levels. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined group differences. Pearsons correlation coefficients were computed.

Overall, the study included 802 females aged 1834. Of these, 442 contracted SARS-CoV-2, and 370 had a laboratory-confirmed infection. Most cases were mild. Over 92% of participants were vaccinated; 373 individuals received three doses, and 336 received two. Further, 167 individuals were reinfected, mostly post-vaccination.

26.3% of participants reported persistent or intermittent symptoms. Approximately 43% of subjects reported low PA, 34.8% had moderate PA, and 22.3% had high PA. The team found a significant association between COVID-19 prevalence and PA categories. A higher infection rate was observed in the moderate PA group compared to other groups. COVID-19 severity was mild in most cases, irrespective of PA levels.

Nevertheless, two cases with severe illness had a low PA. The high PA group showed a higher rate of moderate disease than other groups. There was no statistically significant association between PA and reinfection or PCC. However, the rate of reinfection declined with increasing levels of PA. An average of 14 symptoms were reported during acute COVID-19.

Symptoms reduced with increasing PA levels. The high PA group had the lowest symptoms, whereas the low PA group had the highest. Most symptoms were general, neurological, and mental, regardless of PA levels, and symptoms of these categories were more frequent in subjects with moderate or low PA. The most common symptoms of acute COVID-19 were fatigue, anxiety, dysmenorrhea, dizziness, forgetfulness, loss of interest, and depressed mood.

Further, around 12 symptoms were reported, on average, in PCC. Likewise, symptoms are reduced in individuals with high PA. Similarly, the most common PCC symptoms included fatigue, forgetfulness, lightheadedness, anxiety, palpitations, loss of interest, and difficulties in concentrating. Forgetfulness, lightheadedness, and depression were more frequent in those with low or moderate PA.

Cardiovascular symptoms (chest pain, palpitations, and post-exertional malaise), dysmenorrhea, anxiety, and loss of interest were more frequent in individuals with moderate PA. The total functioning score ranged between 0 and 72.5 among individuals who contracted SARS-CoV-2, implying mild or no difficulties in functioning. Only five individuals had moderate difficulties and aggravated status in functioning.

Taken together, the study explored whether regular PA decreases symptoms during and after COVID-19 in young females. PCC was common, with about a quarter reporting persistent or intermittent mental and neurological symptoms two years post-infection. Symptoms declined with PA levels in acute COVID-19 and PCC. Besides, the reinfection rate decreased with higher levels of PA.

Journal reference:

More here:

Exercise reduces long-term COVID symptoms in young women - News-Medical.Net