The tests could waste scarce NHS resources, a group of senior academics is warning.
Coronavirus: Antibody test lacks ‘proper assessment’
Reply
Category Archives: Mind Building
Health24.com | Can fruits and tea help fend off Alzheimer’s disease?
If you’re worried about developing Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests that eating more fruits or drinking more tea or red wine might help protect your brain.
People who had the lowest amounts of fruits – like apples and berries – and red wine and tea in their diets were two to four times more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease or another related dementia, the study found.
“Diet matters. And the good news is you don’t have to make dramatic changes. Modest changes like going from not eating any berries to eating a cup or two a week can make a difference,” explained the study’s senior author, Paul Jacques. He’s a senior scientist and director of nutritional epidemiology at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston.
The researchers suspect that flavonoids – substances naturally found in plant foods – are providing these potential benefits in brain health. One major health benefit associated with flavonoids is reduced inflammation. Inflammation has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia.
Four categories of flavonoid intake
Jacques noted, however, that the study cannot prove a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between fruits and teas and wine in the diet and dementia. It’s possible that people who eat more fruits or drink more tea or wine may have other healthy habits that affect their dementia risk. But Jacques said the researchers attempted to control for as many of those factors as possible, such as smoking, physical activity and obesity levels.
The research included 2 800 people who were 50 or older when the study began in 1970. Their average age was 59. About half were women, and most participants were white and of European descent.
The study volunteers answered questions about their dietary habits approximately every four years. The information was collected for an average of nearly 20 years. If someone was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or a related dementia, like vascular dementia, the researchers didn’t include diet information in the years leading up to the diagnosis. Jacques explained that as memory and thinking abilities decline, the ability to accurately report what you’ve eaten goes down. Also, people with dementia often change their dietary habits, preferring different foods.
The researchers sorted the diet information into four categories of flavonoids intake. They compared people with the lowest intake to those with the highest intake.
On the low end, people had no berries, about 1.5 apples and no tea during the month. On the highest end, people ate about 7.5 cups of blueberries or strawberries, eight apples or pears and had about 19 cups of tea (green or black) each month.
The researchers found that people consuming the lowest amounts of apples, pears and tea had twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s dementia or other related dementias.
Consuming the lowest level of blueberries, strawberries and red wine was associated with a fourfold risk of developing Alzheimer’s or other related dementias.
Alzheimer’s is complex
Jacques said a number of factors are suspected in Alzheimer’s disease, including genetics and environmental considerations. Previous research has suggested that diet is a strong environmental factor, and this study adds to that evidence.
“This study also seems to tell us that the risk of dementia varies with people’s dietary intake,” Jacques said.
Heather Snyder, vice president of medical and scientific operations for the Alzheimer’s Association, agreed that many factors contribute to Alzheimer’s and other related dementias.
“Alzheimer’s disease is complex. Brains are complex. Looking across the life course, genetics, nutrition, education and other factors are all part of a puzzle. This study is another piece in that puzzle,” she said.
Snyder said a strength of this study is its long-term follow-up. But she said it’s important to learn the effect of diet in a larger, more diverse population.
Both experts said it’s better to have a healthy diet throughout your life. But both also said there are likely brain-health benefits if you change your diet to healthier fare no matter what your age.
The study was published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Image credit: iStock
Analysis of rates of police-related fatalities finds significant race-related differences
A study analyzing and describing US police-involved fatalities across racial/ethnic groups at the level of individual metropolitan statistical areas publishes June 24, 2020 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, by Gabriel Schwartz and Jaquelyn Jahn from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
In the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of the police in Minneapolis and the following surge of protests against police violence, uncovering specific data on police-related fatalities in the US has never been more critical.
In order to estimate rates of fatalities involving police for every metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the US — a level of geographical precision that surpasses previous work in this area — Schwartz and Jahn analyzed 5,494 police-related fatalities from 2013-2017, using a comprehensive and independently-validated database, Fatal Encounters (endorsed by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics). The analysis excluded 1,670 cases reported as suicides, accidents, or vehicle collisions; 547 deaths also lacked race/ethnicity data, and so were excluded from the portion of the analysis related to racial/ethnic inequities. While Fatal Encounters offers the most comprehensive data on police use of deadly force in the US at this time, it likely misses a number of similar cases because not all of these incidents are reported. Other limitations with the dataset include a possibility of racial/ethnic misclassification, since race was not self-reported, and a risk of misclassification of cause of death (e.g.: accidental versus non-accidental death). The database also does not include the circumstances around each police-related fatality, and it’s unclear if every fatality in the database would have been prevented had the police not become involved.
The data showed large variation in the number of police-involved fatalities across MSAs generally — rates of fatal police violence were nine times higher in the metro area experiencing the highest rates than the least lethal metro area. Across all groups, fatalities were higher in the West and South than in the northern Midwest and Northeast. The data also shows large inequities in the rates at which White and Black people were killed during police contact. Across all MSAs, Black people were on average 3.23 times more likely to be killed than White people (95% CI: 2.95, 3.54, p < 0.001). The specific rates varied greatly across MSAs: Black fatalities ranged from 1.81 times greater than White fatalities in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell MSA, to 6.51 times greater than White fatalities in the Chicago-Naperville-Elgin MSA. In general, MSAs with low rates of police-related fatalities against White people tended to exhibit more extreme Black-White inequities. The authors did not calculate MSA-specific rates for people of other races/ethnicities, including Native American, Middle Eastern and Asian/Pacific Islander, due in part to the low total number of deaths for these groups in the Fatal Encounters database.
Importantly, Schwartz and Jahn compare rates of fatal police use of force to the general population, and not to the number of general police contacts with the population, making it impossible to examine rates of fatal police use of force relative to all police contacts. While this paper is descriptive, and thus does not attempt to draw conclusions about the causes of the observed disparities, the authors suggest that place-specific policies, such as firearm regulations, levels of segregation, differences in police training and police department protocols, may help to explain differences in incidence rates.
The data highlights the fatal impact of disparate police use of force on populations and on public health. More and better data, as well as an awareness of the varying historical contexts across the US at a metropolitan and even at a neighborhood level, will enable researchers to dig further into the reasons behind these described disparities to address the public health issue of police-related fatalities in the US.
The authors add: “People’s risk of fatal police violence varies hugely from one metro area to another; some metros have death rates 9 times those of other cities, which points to how preventable these deaths are and why so many people are protesting police violence across the country.” They conclude: “Nationally, Black people are at much higher risk of being killed by the police, but in some places the difference is truly enormous: Black Chicagoans are more than 650% more likely to be killed than White Chicagoans.”
Story Source:
Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Coronavirus: Human trial of new vaccine begins in UK
Over the coming weeks, 300 healthy people will each be given two doses of the jab.
Far-UVC light safely kills airborne coronaviruses, study finds
More than 99.9% of seasonal coronaviruses present in airborne droplets were killed when exposed to a particular wavelength of ultraviolet light that is safe to use around humans, a new study at Columbia University Irving Medical Center has found.
“Based on our results, continuous airborne disinfection with far-UVC light at the current regulatory limit could greatly reduce the level of airborne virus in indoor environments occupied by people,” says the study’s lead author David Brenner, PhD, Higgins Professor of Radiation Biophysics at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
The research was published today in Scientific Reports.
Background
Conventional germicidal UVC light (254 nm wavelength) can be used to disinfect unoccupied spaces such as empty hospital rooms or empty subway cars, but direct exposure to these conventional UV lamps is not possible in occupied public spaces, as this could be a health hazard.
To continuously and safely disinfect occupied indoor areas, researchers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center have been investigating far-UVC light (222 nm wavelength). Far-UVC light cannot penetrate the tear layer of the eye or the outer dead-cell layer of skin so it cannot reach or damage living cells in the body.
The researchers had previously shown that far-UVC light can safely kill airborne influenza viruses.
The new paper extends their research to seasonal coronaviruses, which are structurally similar to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.
Study details
In the study, the researchers used a misting device to aerosolize two common coronaviruses. The aerosols containing coronavirus were then flowed through the air in front of a far-UVC lamp. After exposure to far-UVC light, the researchers tested to see how many of the viruses were still alive.
The researchers found that more than 99.9% of the exposed virus had been killed by a very low exposure to far-UVC light.
Based on their results, the researchers estimate that continuous exposure to far-UVC light at the current regulatory limit would kill 90% of airborne viruses in about 8 minutes, 95% in about 11 minutes, 99% in about 16 minutes, and 99.9% in about 25 minutes.
Using far-UVC light in occupied indoor spaces
The sensitivity of the coronaviruses to far-UVC light suggests that it may be feasible and safe to use overhead far-UVC lamps in occupied indoor public places to markedly reduce the risk of person-to-person transmission of coronaviruses, as well as other viruses such as influenza.
Ongoing studies in SARS-CoV-2
In a separate ongoing study, the researchers are testing the efficacy of far-UVC light against airborne SARS-CoV-2. Preliminary data suggest that far-UVC light is just as effective at killing SARS-CoV-2.
“Far-UVC light doesn’t really discriminate between coronavirus types, so we expected that it would kill SARS-CoV-2 in just the same way,” Brenner says. “Since SARS-CoV-2 is largely spread via droplets and aerosols that are coughed and sneezed into the air it’s important to have a tool that can safely inactivate the virus while it’s in the air, particularly while people are around.”
Brenner continues, “Because it’s safe to use in occupied spaces like hospitals, buses, planes, trains, train stations, schools, restaurants, offices, theaters, gyms, and anywhere that people gather indoors, far-UVC light could be used in combination with other measures, like wearing face masks and washing hands, to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses.”
More information
The paper is titled, “Far-UVC light (222-nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne coronaviruses.”
The other authors (all CUIMC) are Manuela Buonnano, David Welch, and Igor Shuryak.
The study was funded by the Shostack Foundation and the NIH (grant R42-AI125006-03).
The authors declare that the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York have a pending patent on the technology: “Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus.”
The authors declare no additional financial or other conflicts of interest.
Puget Sound eelgrass beds create a ‘halo’ with fewer harmful algae, new method shows
Eelgrass, a species of seagrass named for its long slippery texture, is one of nature’s superheroes. It offers shade and camouflage for young fish, helps anchor shorelines, and provides food and habitat for many marine species.
A University of Washington study adds one more superpower to the list of eelgrass abilities: warding off the toxin-producing algae that regularly close beaches to shellfish harvests. Researchers found evidence that there are significantly fewer of the single-celled algae that produce harmful toxins in an area more than 45 feet, or 15 meters, around an eelgrass bed.
“We’re not in the laboratory. The effect we’re seeing is happening in nature, and it’s an effect that’s really widespread within this group of harmful algae. What we see is this halo of reduced abundance around the eelgrass beds,” said Emily Jacobs-Palmer, a research scientist at the UW. She is the lead author of the study published this spring in the open-access journal PeerJ.
Researchers sampled five coastal sites three times in the spring and summer of 2017. Four sites were within Puget Sound and one was in Willapa Bay, on Washington’s outer coast.
In addition to a traditional visual ecological survey at each site, the researchers used a type of genetic forensics to detect species that might not be easily seen or present at the time of the survey.
Scientists put on waders and walked parallel to shore in water less than knee deep while scooping up seawater samples to analyze the environmental DNA, or eDNA, present. This method collects fragments of genetic material to identify organisms living in the seawater.
The researchers sampled water from each site at the same point in the tidal cycle both inside the eelgrass bed and at regular intervals up to 45 feet away from the edge. For comparison they also surveyed a location farther away over bare seabed.
“In the DNA fragments we saw everything from shellfish to marine worms, osprey, bugs that fell in the water,” Jacobs-Palmer said. “It’s quite fascinating to just get this potpourri of organisms and then look for patterns, rather than deciding on a pattern that we think should be there and then looking for that.”
The researchers analyzed the eDNA results to find trends among 13 major groups of organisms. They discovered that dinoflagellates, a broad class of single-celled organism, were scarcer in and around the eelgrass beds than in surrounding waters with bare seabed.
“We were asking how the biological community changes inside eelgrass beds, and this result was so strong that it jumped out at us, even though we weren’t looking for it specifically,” said senior author Ryan Kelly, a UW associate professor of marine and environmental affairs.
The result has practical applications, since certain species of dinoflagellate populations can spike and produce toxins that accumulate in shellfish, making the shellfish dangerous or even deadly to eat.
The phrase “harmful algal bloom” has a formal definition that was not measured for this study. But authors say the trend appeared when the overall dinoflagellate populations were high.
“I have heard people talk about a trade-off between shellfish and eelgrass, in terms of land use in Puget Sound. Now, from our perspective, there’s not a clean trade-off between those things — these systems might be able to complement one another,” Kelly said.
To explore the reasons for the result, the authors looked at differences in water chemistry or current motion around the bed. But neither could explain why dinoflagellate populations were lower around the eelgrass.
Instead, the authors hypothesize that the same biological reasons why dinoflagellates don’t flourish inside eelgrass beds — likely bacteria that occur with eelgrass and are harmful to dinoflagellates — may extend past the bed’s edge.
“It was known that there is some antagonistic relationship between eelgrass and algae, but it’s really important that this effect seems to span beyond the bounds of the bed itself,” Jacobs-Palmer said.
The discovery of a “halo effect” by which eelgrass discourages the growth of potentially harmful algae could have applications in shellfish harvesting, ecological restoration or shoreline planning.
“These beds are often really large, and that means that their perimeter is also really large,” Jacobs-Palmer said. “That’s a lot of land where eelgrass is potentially having an effect.”
In follow-up work, researchers chose two of the sites, in Port Gamble on the Kitsap Peninsula and Skokomish on Hood Canal, to conduct weekly sampling from late June through October 2019. They hope to verify the pattern they discovered and learn more about the environmental conditions that might allow the halo to exist.
Irrational Neutrality
Do you have any people in your life who, in the face of today’s many social storms, will say things like this?
- I just prefer to remain neutral.
- I like to see both sides.
- I’m not into hating people on either side.
- The media makes everything look bad.
How does this land with you? Do you think it’s a valid perspective?
I agree that there are some issues where intelligent, rational, and compassionate people will come to different thoughtful conclusions. People have different values, so this is to be expected.
Some examples include:
- Where the government should spend more or less money
- Abortion rights
- What to do about illegal immigrants
- Crime prevention
- How to fix the educational system
- How to reopen the economy during a pandemic
For instance, I’m pro-choice regarding abortion rights. I can understand that some people will disagree with my position, and I don’t fault them for it. If other people want to swear me off because of this (including the fact that I’ve paid for an abortion before), that’s their choice. But I wouldn’t hold it against someone for having a different well-reasoned opinion on this. To me it’s mainly a value judgement.
There is some rationality to consider here, however, which is that in places that outlaw abortion, crime surges significantly about 20 years later. Forcing people to have babies they’d prefer not to have causes bigger problems for society down the road. So I do consider these ripples. Outlawing abortion actually does a lot of measurable harm where it’s been tried.
If someone is anti-abortion, and they base their concerns on valuing and protecting that new life, and they see this as being more important than an adult’s right to choose, I think that’s honorable. I can see that POV as a rational stance too, even with the negative ripples this could cause to society.
But if someone bases their stance on what the Bible says, I’d dismiss them as being irrational. It’s not rational to obey an old religious text that’s full of self-contradictions. I don’t respect this kind of non-reasoned approach, which is based on obedience, not intelligence.
There are other societal issues, however, that seem a lot more straightforward to me in terms of the intelligent choice. It’s harder to imagine a genuinely rational argument against these.
These include:
- Creating a less racist society
- Decreasing the wealth gap
- Moving the world away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy
- Curing diseases
- Making new scientific discoveries
- Advancing LGBTQ rights
- Increasing global happiness
- Providing people with clean water
For several years now, I’ve been donating money each month to Charity Water. Their mission is to help provide clean water to the hundreds of millions of people who still don’t have reliable access to this precious resource. For instance, Charity Water builds new wells in Africa.
Is there a rational POV that would make this look like a bad idea? Is this even controversial? Do you know any intelligent person who’d claim that so many people shouldn’t have access to clean water or that we should do the opposite and make more people drink dirty and disease-ridden water?
I’ve shared before that I’ve been donating to this charity, and not a single person has objected to it. But if I were to share a more controversial charity, some people would complain. Of course if a charity turned out to be corrupt, that could become a source of objection, but I think it would be hard to find intelligent people who’d object to the stated mission to bring clean water to people who don’t have it.
When someone wants to straddle the fence on genuinely controversial issues where rational people may disagree, I don’t see that as such a big deal. When people claim to see both sides here, I don’t fault them for it.
But when someone tries to straddle the fence about issues where it seems really tough to stretch rationality to validate a clearly irrational perspective, I lose respect for them. I find much less value in friendships with such people. I think their stance is cowardly and lacking integrity.
I think one reason people do this is that they’re trying to preserve their relationships across a wide spectrum, but when they cross into irrationality to do so, they sacrifice their integrity. They become part of the problem. They enable more stupidity in the world because they’re too afraid to call it out.
For instance, Trump recently stated publicly that he wants to reduce testing for coronavirus. He blamed testing itself for the rise of new cases. Reducing testing during a pandemic is idiotic, which is why Trump’s own advisors have been cringing at the idea. Moreover, you can’t blame the media for sharing videos of what he actually said himself.
Are there really multiple sides to this that are equally valid? Maybe if you’re really dumb, you might think that way, but if you have at least half a brain, it should be obvious enough that more testing, not less, is the rational and intelligent way to go here.
Are honesty and lying just two different sides? What about rationality and irrationality? Should you maintain friendships with people all along the honesty and rationality spectrum? Are you just being extra friendly, kind, and forgiving when you do that? Ha! I don’t think so.
At some point people are clearly going too far here and turning their backs on truth and rationality when they pretend that there are equally valid sides to consider. Such a posture is just delusional.
Here’s a quote from long-term Republican Steve Schmidt, who’s been a key strategist for some major Republican campaigns:
Donald Trump has been the worst president this country has ever had. And I don’t say that hyperbolically. He is. But he is a consequential president. And he has brought this country in three short years to a place of weakness that is simply unimaginable if you were pondering where we are today from the day where Barack Obama left office. And there were a lot of us on that day who were deeply skeptical and very worried about what a Trump presidency would be. But this is a moment of unparalleled national humiliation, of weakness.
When you listen to the President, these are the musings of an imbecile. An idiot. And I don’t use those words to name call. I use them because they are the precise words of the English language to describe his behavior. His comportment. His actions. We’ve never seen a level of incompetence, a level of ineptitude so staggering on a daily basis by anybody in the history of the country whose ever been charged with substantial responsibilities.
It’s just astonishing that this man is president of the United States. The man, the con man, from New York City. Many bankruptcies, failed businesses, a reality show, that branded him as something that he never was. A successful businessman. Well, he’s the President of the United States now, and the man who said he would make the country great again. And he’s brought death, suffering, and economic collapse on truly an epic scale. And let’s be clear. This isn’t happening in every country around the world. This place. Our place. Our home. Our country. The United States. We are the epicenter. We are the place where you’re the most likely to die from this disease. We’re the ones with the most shattered economy. And we are because of the fool that sits in the Oval Office behind the Resolute Desk.
Now that’s refreshingly direct and honest. I have a lot more respect for this tell-it-like-it-is statement than for someone who pretends that Trump’s over-the-top incompetence are just a matter of perspective and that they “see both sides.”
I see both sides too, but they aren’t political sides. One side is rationality and honesty. The other side is bullshit. When people pretend that these are equally valid perspectives, I lose respect for them and tend to regard them as having low integrity, low intelligence, or both.
Trying to preserve your relationship with me at the expense of your own reason and integrity doesn’t score you any points with me. It costs you points. If you don’t respect honesty and rationality, you lose my respect. Trying to straddle this particular fence just makes you look weak and spineless.
I’m surely not alone in having this low opinion of people who try to straddle the rationality-irrationality fence, as if it’s just a political issue. Defending bullshit isn’t a political issue. It’s an issue of being a complete idiot. Your politics aren’t the issue. But if you descend into idiocy, that will put a damper on our relationship.
How do you honestly feel about people who try to straddle the fence between truth and bullshit? Do you feel they’re just being open-minded, accepting, and tolerant? Or do you feel they lack integrity?
It’s fine to have genuine differences about real political issues. We can still respect people with well-reasoned views different from our own. But I don’t think we should extend this courtesy to those who treat bullshit as if it’s a valid perspective. I don’t think this kind of attitude serves society. It just encourages the spread of more irrationality and indifference towards genuine issues that could use well-reasoned solutions.
When I see people doing this this type of fence sitting, I’m inclined to shake the fence (or perhaps set it ablaze) to see where they’ll land. And if they land on the side that’s full of shit, oh well!
Coronavirus: More than half wait too long for non-Covid tests
A Labour Party analysis of NHS England figures revealed the growing backlog.
Coronavirus: UK must prepare for second virus wave – health leaders
The warning comes as the prime minister announced sweeping relaxations to lockdown rules in England.
Top US health official Fauci warns of ‘disturbing’ new US surge
They also told US lawmakers that they had never been asked to slow testing for coronavirus.
