Loneliness is a significant public health issue and is associated with worse physical and mental health as well as increased mortality risk. Systematic review findings recommend that interventions addressing loneliness should focus on individuals who are socially isolated. However, researchers have lacked a comprehensive understanding of how vulnerability to loneliness might be different in the context of a pandemic.

In the new study, researchers used an online survey to collect data about UK adults during the initial phase of COVID-19 lockdown in the country, from March 23 to April 24, 2020. 1,964 eligible participants responded to the survey, answering questions about loneliness, sociodemographic factors, health, and their status in relation to COVID-19. Participants were aged 18 to 87 years old (average 37.11), were mostly white (92.7%), female (70.4%), not religious (57.5%) and the majority were employed (71.9%).

The overall prevalence of loneliness, defined as having a high score on the loneliness scale (ie., a score of 7 or higher out of 9), was over a quarter of respondents: 26.6%. In the week prior to completing the survey, 49% to 70% of respondents reported feeling isolated, left out or lacking companionship. Risk factors for loneliness were being in a younger age group (aOR: 4.67 — 5.31), being separated or divorced (OR: 2.29), meeting clinical criteria for depression (OR: 1.74), greater emotion regulation difficulties (OR: 1.04), and poor-quality sleep due to the COVID-19 crisis (OR: 1.30). Higher levels of social support (OR: 0.92), being married/co-habiting (OR: 0.35) and living with a greater number of adults (OR: 0.87) were protective factors.

The authors hope that these findings can inform support strategies and help to target those most vulnerable to loneliness during the pandemic.

Groarke adds: “We found that rates of loneliness during the early stages of the UK lockdown were high. Our results suggest that supports and interventions to reduce loneliness should prioritise young people, those with mental health symptoms, and people who are socially isolated. Supports aimed at improving emotion regulation, sleep quality and increasing social support could reduce the impact of physical distancing regulations on mental health outcomes.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

The study, led by PSU graduate student Sebastian Busby, examined temperate forests that burned expansively, severely and repeatedly between 2003 and 2015 in the central Cascade Range of Oregon and Washington. On Mt. Adams, these wildfires included the 2008 Cold Springs, 2012 Cascade Creek and 2015 Cougar Creek fires. On Mt. Jefferson, the wildfires included the 2003 Booth and Bear Butte Complex, 2007 Warm Springs Area Lightning Complex and 2014 Bear Butte 2 fires. Some areas Busby studied have burned again this summer as part of the Lionshead fire in the Mt. Jefferson area.

Busby said that historically, wet and cool climate limited fire events in these humid forest environments to an interval of 50 to 200-plus years. But climate change has led to warmer winters, reduced mountain snowpack and longer, drier summers and fire seasons. The time between repeated wildfire events in this study was less than 12 years.

“These forests are drying out earlier in the year, making them more vulnerable to frequent, severe and larger wildfires,” Busby said. “Because these forests have not historically burned very often, they’re composed of high densities of tree species that are not well-adapted to frequent and very large severe fires.”

True firs were the dominant conifer tree species across the study areas, but post-fire tree regeneration was generally very poor due to a lack of live mature trees remaining after the fires to reseed the forest.

The burned areas, however, did support the establishment of pines at a low density, which are functionally better adapted to fire. The findings suggest that in the near term, these forests may transition from a dense fir-dominated conifer forest into a patchy, low-density, pine-dominated forest that will likely lack the fuel connectivity conducive to crown fires. Busby said that while widespread forest composition change and forest cover loss may be alarming, the results indicate that the altered structure and composition are likely to be more resilient in the face of future fire and climate conditions, such as drought and heatwave events.

“From an ecological point of view, these reburned forests are going to have a greater abundance of tree species that are better adapted to fire and potentially have less flammable forest structure overall,” he said. “Now, in these post-reburned forests that are growing in a warmer and drier world, it will be up to us to decide whether we let future fires burn or not.”

If forest managers and other stakeholders choose to suppress them, they risk returning these forests to their historical dense structures, which thrived in cool and wet climates. However, under ongoing warming conditions, this alternative might increase the likelihood of severe and expansive fires in the future, negatively impacting human life, property, and natural resources.

“Wildfires are a natural ecological process on these landscapes and have been for thousands of years,” Busby said. “Wildfire can be a great catalyst for change, but that change doesn’t have to be entirely negative. We must learn to co-exist with wildfires, use them effectively, and embrace the positive elements they bring to our regional forests and ecosystems.”

The findings are published in the journal Ecosphere. Busby’s co-authors are Andrés Holz, associate professor of geography at PSU, and Kevan Moffett, assistant professor of environmental hydrology at Washington State University-Vancouver.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Portland State University. Original written by Cristina Rojas. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Throat and nose swab tests for SARS-CoV-2 establish if someone is infected with the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These tests are highly sensitive — capable of detecting very low viral RNA levels — and are optimal for the early detection of the virus. The performance of these tests depends on the time the sample is collected, with viral load declining after the first week of symptoms. By contrast, antibody tests can determine whether someone has had the virus in the past. For diagnosis later in disease, or in delayed-onset syndromes, antibody tests could form an important part of hospital diagnostic capabilities. In the new study, the researchers developed their own sensitive and specific antibody assay and used it to conduct unbiased, head-to-head comparisons of ten commercial antibody test kits on an identical panel of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive blood samples from patients admitted to hospitals with COVID-19 and 50 pre-pandemic negatives.

There was a broad range of performance among the tests, with specificity — the ability of the test to correctly identify those without the disease (true negative rate) — ranging from 82% to 100%, and overall sensitivity — the ability of a test to correctly identify those with the disease (true positive rate) — ranging from 60.9% to 87.3%. But all gave the best results when used 20 days or more after the start of symptoms, with most tests reaching a sensitivity value greater than 95%. In addition, antibody levels were higher in individuals with severe illness compared to those with asymptomatic or mild disease. When all commercial tests were compared, lateral flow immunoassays called Accu-Tell, SureScreen and Spring demonstrated highest sensitivity at earlier time points, while maintaining specificities of 98% or above. Such lateral flow immunoassays are affordable, quick and easy to use, and if they are deployed appropriately, could have considerable usefulness in healthcare settings.

Co-author Jonathan Edgeworth notes, “We found that some of the quick single-use kits (LFIAs) are as accurate as our sophisticated laboratory technologies. Encouraged by these findings we are piloting LFIAs in the hospital to give doctors a quick reliable answer in a range of clinical settings.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.