Category Archives: Corona Virus

Now that anonymous sources are leaking to The Washington Post that the Department of Justice is officially targeting former President Donald Trump with criminal charges, this is a good time to ask: Just how crazy are the occupants of Washington, D.C.? Do they really think they will indict, prosecute, convict, and imprison the Republican frontrunner for president in 2024 without creating a massive amount of public backlash?

For half the country, trying to take down Trump for giving a speech over a mile away from the Capitol on Jan. 6 while hardly anybody has been held accountable for the atrocious Russia collusion hoax that nearly destroyed his presidency will be nothing less than total confirmation of a two-tiered and irreparably corrupt justice system and could permanently tear the nation in two.

This may come as a shocker to Washington, but Congresss J6 obsession is not high on Americans list of critical issues. Polls show the American peoples top concerns are skyrocketing inflation and economic uncertainty, not what happened on Jan. 6. To say that the American government and the American people are not speaking the same language right now is an understatement.

Had Attorney General Merrick Garland felt that Trump had potentially committed a crime before leaving office, he should have pursued an investigation free from the overtly political atmosphere created by Congresss J6 committee hearings. Whatever Nancy Pelosis Jan. 6 Committee is, it has not been a courtroom pursuing justice. Though witnesses are brought before the committee to confess, as Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., so Stalin-esquely put it, there is no one cross-examining their testimony for truth or accuracy.

While one side presents a damning case against anyone who even thought about attending rallies near the Capitol that day, there is no defense counsel to challenge evidence, offer competing explanations, or provide mitigating circumstances on the accuseds behalf. No one is present to contest the committees allegations at all. Third-party hearsay evidence, normally inadmissible in courts of law, is used to advance the committees narratives. For that matter, long-winded and rhetorical political speeches from admittedly biased committee members advance theories of the case not grounded in evidence at all. Exculpatory evidence that might call into question the committees grave charges is regularly excluded.

Still, the whole proceeding is conducted with such an air of legal seriousness that an ordinary observer could be excused for mistaking it as a place for justice. It is difficult to watch a spectacle such as this one in America, a nation that has generally managed to avoid the kind of theatrical show trials we normally associate with Soviet Russias Iron Curtain days. Yet here we are. The end result is that the Jan. 6 Committee has permanently destroyed any veneer of objectivity and effectively tainted any potential jury pool by flooding primetime television viewing audiences with misinformation and salacious gossip.

While Pelosi, Garland, and President Joe Biden all insist that J6 investigations into Trump are serious legal matters, the nearly two-year public spectacle is so over-the-top that it is difficult not to conclude that the J6 committees principal concern is keeping Trump from running for president again in 2024. Rep. Cheney has gone so far as to explicitly make this point by asserting that he must never again be anywhere close to the Oval Office. In a nation with democratic elections, that would presumably be a decision for the voters to make.

Cheney and her colleagues, however, either fear that the American people will make the wrong choice, or they dont really believe in the value of democratic elections as much as they claim. Either way, the J6 Commissions efforts to turn President Trump into a criminal target for the Justice Department seem like a cynical bureaucratic workaround for depriving the people of their chance to decide Trumps fitness for office on their own.

Should Congresss J6 committee hearings not succeed in keeping Trump off the 2024 ballot, they may ironically be seen years from now as having done much to help Trump get reelected. Its interesting to go back in time to the fall of 2015 when the Republican primaries were still months away and Republican voters had a veritable all-star class of candidates from whom to choose. According to an Associated Press-GfK poll at the time, an overwhelming 77 percent of Republican voters preferred an outsider candidate who will change how things are done, rather than someone with experience in Washington who can get things done. Republicans were so committed to choosing an outsider that their top two choices for the White House according to the poll were Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

Although political pundits expected primary voters to change their minds as the 2016 state contests arrived, Republicans desire for an outsider not only clinched Trumps nomination but also assured his general election victory. Nothing about the electorates mood today suggests that Republican voters are eager to return to mainstream establishment political candidates.

Washingtons vast Never Trump coalition would have been most successful in tanking Trumps political chances in either 2020 or 2024 had they found a way to embrace him as one of their own, force him to compromise his goals and betray his promises, and leave Americans with the impression that Trump had played voters seeking an outsider as fools. Instead, nonstop attacks from D.C.s permanent bureaucracy have been the hallmarks of the Trump presidency.

From the Russia collusion hoax, the two-year Mueller inquisition, two congressional impeachments, countless administration betrayals, and now two additional years of J6 investigations intent on seeking his prosecution and conviction, it is unmistakably clear that Trump is just as much an outsider today as he was before his first victory. And should voters appetites for an outsider candidacy remain as high as they were in 2016, then nobody will have greater tried and true credibility than Trump.

J.B. Shurk is a freedom-minded, anti-establishment, sometimes unorthodox, committed generalist and a proud American from Daniel Boone country.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Continued here:

Is The J6 Committee Trying To Get Trump Re-Elected? - The Federalist

Abortion proponents have embraced a drastic shift in messaging over the past few decades. In the 1990s, Bill Clintons safe, legal, and rarewasthe standard line which isa far cry fromtodays well-traveled maxims like Free Abortion on Demand Without Apology and Shout Your Abortion. Indeed, in the heart of abortions most ardent base, the strategy entails encouraging pride over shame and celebration over regret. But does this shift reflect the experiences of those who are disinclined to shout their abortions?

Theresan accusation lurking in the subtext of the abortion debate over abortion regret, implying that no woman should feel bad terminating a pregnancy if it was never suggested that abortion itself is bad. How paternalistic. First, Big Abortion sells women short by suggesting they will never be able to handle both a career and a family, and then they sell them an abortion. And now, abortion zealots make themselves the masters of how women must feel about it.

The pro-life movement at large has consistently perceived two victims in an abortion scenario a child whose life is on the line, and a mother who is vulnerable toan industry that profits from violence and deceit. Those sellingabortionmust sever the one-of-a-kind physical relationship between mother and gestating child through abortion lethal pregnancy violence that will be painfully understood by a mother when she finds herself empty of life.

Widespread abortion regret issupported by data, yet seldom reported.Thephysical and psychologicalrisks of abortion are well known to those of us who support post-abortive women.New studieshave shown that women who have abortions are 81 percent more likely to experiencesubsequentmental health problems. This includes being110 percentmore likely to abuse alcohol and 115 percent more likely to develop suicidal behavior following abortion. Another study notes women who ended their first pregnancy by abortion arefive times more likelyto reportsubsequentsubstance abuse than women who carried the pregnancy to term and four times more likely to report substance abuse compared to those whose first pregnancy ended naturally.

But the bestsource for understanding abortion regret is the women who have experienced it firsthand.Consider an entire legionof both men and women who were traumatized by abortion yet feel unwelcome in the Shout Your Abortion era.

For every handful of celebrities shouting their abortions,theresone who courageously goes against the abortion-loving mob to tell a different truth. In 2015, Nicki Minajsaid in an interviewthat her high school abortion has haunted her all her life. Eminems 2017 song Riverputson full display his abortion regret as a father. In 2020, Kanye Westbroke down in publicwhile explaining how much pain he suffers for even considering aborting his daughter, North, as well as his wrestling with the knowledge that he himself was almost aborted.

From our own work at Students for Life of AmericasStanding with You program. We know that women struggle for years to grapple with the loss of their child through abortion or the fallout of abortion fathers and families experience. Healing ministries likeProject Rachel,Rachels Vineyard, andSupport After Abortion exist to offer loving care to those experiencing grief.

But the second flaw in the argument against the realities of abortion regret is in who is making it.Consider that those encouraging the celebration of abortion are also in the abortion business. This is further evidenced by the fact that a disproportionate number ofabortionresearchers are funded by pro-abortion entities.

If, for example, the everyone loves abortion research comes from the Bixby Centerat the University of California(asitoften does),itshighly relevant that the Center is funded and organized to find in favor of abortion.The Bixby Centertrains abortionists through itsRyan Residency Training Programand is funded by population control-loving Warren Buffett, along with Planned Parenthood and their Guttmacher Institute andGynuity Health Projects, which profits from chemical abortion sales and so on.The Bixby Center is as unbiased on abortion as The Tobacco Instituteis on cigarettes.

Even worse than the clear and present bias in abortion data is the audacity of those blaming pro-lifers for abortion regret to cite TheTurnawayStudy, which isfamously so flawedthat a Planned Parenthood exec could drive their Lamborghini through the holes in its reasoning.

The studywas published in 2015 by the abortion group ANSIRH and, in simplest terms, is an attempt to dismiss the trauma and long-standing pain many women feel following an abortion. It tries to conclude that women are hurt by being denied an abortion, but as explored at lengthby Live Action,Turnawayhas four glaring problems: a bad study sample, no true control group, a lackluster assessment of physical health, and misleading questions.

The study tracks only a small number of women fewer than 200 who were denied abortions. Additionally, the results were only presented at an academic conference. This data has not appeared in an academic journal nor gone through the peer-review process. Finally, the study and the full results do not appear to be publicly available. Thus, despite shamefully poor research practices and an utter failure to prove the claim it set out to, that womendontregret abortion,itsstill propped up Weekend at Bernies style by abortion proponents.

Furthermore, these women were denied abortions not because of legal restrictions, but because many facilities do not carry out late-term abortions.

Itsfascinating that a movement once sold as pro-choice refuses to allow women the freedom to feel loss after receiving an abortion.Every parent who made an abortion decision, from the main streets of pro-life communities to the pro-abortion hills of Hollywood, deserves the freedom to be honest about their experience. And for those who want to process those feelings, the pro-life community is heretohelp.

Working mother Brenna Lewis is a staff writer with Students for Life of America.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read the original here:

Pro-Abortion Crowd Silences Women Who Regret Them - The Federalist

Two new studies provide more evidence that the coronavirus pandemic originated in a Wuhan, China market where live animals were sold further bolstering the theory that the virus emerged in the wild rather than escaping from a Chinese lab.

The research, published online Tuesday by the journal Science, shows that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was likely the early epicenter of the scourge that has now killed nearly 6.4 million people around the world. Scientists conclude that the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, likely spilled from animals into people two separate times.

"All this evidence tells us the same thing: It points right to this particular market in the middle of Wuhan," said Kristian Andersen a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research and coauthor of one of the studies. "I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer."

In one study, which incorporated data collected by Chinese scientists, University of Arizona evolutionary biologist Michael Worobey and his colleagues used mapping tools to estimate the locations of more than 150 of the earliest reported COVID-19 cases from December 2019. They also mapped cases from January and February 2020 using data from a social media app that had created a channel for people with COVID-19 to get help.

They asked, "Of all the locations that the early cases could have lived, where did they live? And it turned out when we were able to look at this, there was this extraordinary pattern where the highest density of cases was both extremely near to and very centered on this market," Worobey said at a press briefing. "Crucially, this applies both to all cases in December and also to cases with no known link to the market And this is an indication that the virus started spreading in people who worked at the market but then started to spread into the local community."

Andersen said they found case clusters inside the market, too, "and that clustering is very, very specifically in the parts of the market" where they now know people were selling wildlife, such as raccoon dogs, that are susceptible to infection with the coronavirus.

In the other study, scientists analyzed the genomic diversity of the virus inside and outside of China starting with the earliest sample genomes in December 2019 and extending through mid-February 2020. They found that two lineages A and B marked the pandemic's beginning in Wuhan. Study coauthor Joel Wertheim, a viral evolution expert at the University of California, San Diego, pointed out that lineage A is more genetically similar to bat coronaviruses, but lineage B appears to have begun spreading earlier in humans, particularly at the market.

"Now I realize it sounds like I just said that a once-in-a-generation event happened twice in short succession," Wertheim said. But certain conditions were in place such as people and animals in close proximity and a virus that can spread from animals to people and from person to person. So "barriers to spillover have been lowered such that multiple introductions, we believe, should actually be expected," he said.

Many scientists believe the virus jumped from bats to humans, either directly or through another animal. But in June, the World Health Organization recommended a deeper probe into whether a lab accident may be to blame. Critics had said the WHO was too quick to dismiss the lab leak theory.

"Have we disproven the lab leak theory? No, we have not," Andersen said. "But I think what's really important here is there are possible scenarios and there are plausible scenarios and it's really important to understand that possible does not mean equally likely."

The pandemic's origins remain controversial. Some scientists believe a lab leak is more likely and others remain open to both possibilities. But Matthew Aliota, a researcher in the college of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, said in his mind the pair of studies "kind of puts to rest, hopefully, the lab leak hypothesis."

"Both of these two studies really provide compelling evidence for the natural origin hypothesis," said Aliota, who wasn't involved in either study. Since sampling an animal that was at the market is impossible, "this is maybe as close to a smoking gun as you could get."

Read more here:

New studies bolster theory coronavirus emerged from the wild - CBS News

Cough, sore throat, fever, and chills: Not again! When a positive COVID-19 test comes back, you may feel like you just had it.

As time passes, immunity wanes, and new virus variants emerge. So, reinfections are certainly possible. But can you get COVID-19 twice in just 1 month?

While that specific scenario is pretty unlikely, the risk of reinfection is increasing. In this article, we discuss what we know so far about COVID-19 reinfections.

Generally, a number of factors contribute to COVID-19 reinfections. These include the:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), were still learning many things about COVID-19 reinfections. This includes how soon reinfection can happen.

Before the arrival of the Omicron variant, reinfections werent that common. Researchers in a May 2022 study looked at reinfections from the start of the pandemic until Omicron. Overall, they found that reinfection risk was 6.7% in the 18 to 22 months after a first infection.

However, now Omicron and its subvariants have changed the landscape of reinfections. Heres what the research has found.

Reinfections werent that common before Omicron. Research found that protection from reinfection typically lasted for at least several months.

A 2021 study looking at PCR testing data from 2020 found that a prior infection still gave about 80% protection 6 months after a first infection.

A February 2022 study brought vaccination into the mix. Researchers looked at the effect of vaccination on reinfection from December 2020 to September 2021.

Immunity from a prior infection waned after 1 year in unvaccinated people. However, in people vaccinated after having COVID-19, immunity stayed high, even if a prior infection was over 18 months ago.

Viruses can change over time, and thats certainly been true with this coronavirus. As changes accumulate, they can make it easier for a virus to escape immunity generated by vaccination, a previous infection, or both.

A July 2022 study, still in preprint, looked into the qualities of protection that a pre-Omicron infection provided:

A June 2022 study looked at the protection previous infection and vaccination provided on symptomatic infections with the original Omicron variant (BA.1) or its first subvariant, BA.2. Overall, there was no difference in protection between people who were vaccinated, who had had a previous infection, or both.

The new BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants are now the main drivers of COVID-19 in the United States. Theyre also very good at escaping the immune system.

A July 2022 study looked into the neutralization of BA.4 and BA.5 by antibodies from vaccination or a previous COVID-19 infection. Neutralizing antibodies prevent the virus from binding to a host cell.

Antibodies from vaccinated people had a harder time neutralizing these subvariants. Neutralization was also lower with antibodies from people with a prior infection, including BA.1, the original Omicron variant that was dominant in late 2021 and early 2022.

Another July 2022 study supports this. Researchers found that neutralization of BA.4 and BA.5 was lower than that of BA.1 or BA.2 in both vaccinated people and those with a prior infection.

What this means is that if you had COVID-19 during the first or most recent (BA.2) Omicron wave, reinfection with BA.4 or BA.5 is possible now. However, its still pretty likely youre well protected at this point in time.

Researchers in a July 2022 study, still in preprint, found that while the effectiveness of a pre-Omicron infection against symptomatic BA.4 or BA.5 infections was only 15.1%, it was still rather high (76.1%) if you had a previous Omicron infection.

COVID-19 reinfections appear to be less severe than first infections. A 2021 study looked at the risk of serious illness or death from reinfections. Compared with first infections, reinfections had a 90% lower risk of serious illness or death.

An April 2022 study also found that COVID-19 reinfections carried a lower risk of death than first infections. Similar to first infections, age, sex, and underlying health conditions were risk factors for severe illness from reinfection.

However, theres some evidence that reinfections may increase the risk of lasting health effects. A June 2022 study, still in preprint, found that, compared with first infections, reinfections boosted the risk of:

These effects were seen regardless of vaccination status. The level of risk was also found to increase in line with the number of infections study participants reported.

One limitation of this study is that it may not reflect risk in the general population. Researchers focused on people using Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare resources. As such, the study population is more likely to be older and male, and have poorer health.

Paxlovid is an antiviral drug doctors prescribe to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in people at high risk of severe illness. To be effective, Paxlovid needs to be started within 5 days of symptom onset.

Rebounds of COVID-19 have been reported after Paxlovid treatment. While its still unclear why this happens, its possible that the coronavirus isnt completely cleared from the body while taking Paxlovid, allowing it to replicate again after treatment ends.

Increasing reports of these rebounds prompted the CDC to release a health advisory. In this advisory, the CDC noted that Paxlovid rebounds:

Rebounds after Paxlovid are rare. A June 2022 study found that, of 483 people treated with Paxlovid, only 4 (0.8%) had a rebound. Another June 2022 study, still in preprint, found a higher rebound rate: about 3.5% in the 7 days after treatment.

People experiencing COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid may also be able to transmit the infection to others. A small May 2022 study, still in preprint, involving 10 people documented transmission to family members during rebounds.

The amount of virus during a rebound was also similar to where it was before Paxlovid treatment. Researchers stated that these findings support that people who are having a rebound should isolate until their symptoms go away.

COVID-19 rebounds may also happen without taking Paxlovid. A June 2022 research article mentions anecdotal reports of rebounds in people who never took Paxlovid. Authors note that perhaps Omicron takes longer to clear in some people than earlier virus variants.

Yes. A study published in March 2022 signaled an increased risk of reinfections due to Omicron. Within the study population, researchers noted that an increase in third infections was seen beginning in November 2021.

Researchers stated that people who had third infections had their first infection early in the pandemic and a second infection during the Delta variant wave. Their third infection was from Omicron.

The best way to prevent getting COVID-19 reinfections is to continue to take steps to protect yourself, including:

According to the CDC, we know little about the risk of transmission during COVID-19 reinfections. Overall, its best to err on the side of caution and assume you can transmit the virus to others.

A July 2022 study found that viral shedding (aka the contagious period) among people with Omicron infections can last up to 10 days.

So, its a good idea to isolate and quarantine for at least 10 days or until you are symptom-free and test negative from a rapid COVID-19 test.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), boosters targeting Omicron are slated to be available starting in fall 2022. The FDA has also recommended a BA.4 and BA.5 component be included in this booster.

Moderna has announced that its Omicron booster yields a significantly higher neutralizing antibody response to BA.4 and BA.5 than its current booster.

Pfizer-BioNTech stated that, compared with their current booster, their Omicron booster gave higher levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.1. Neutralizing antibodies for BA.4 and BA.5 were present but to a lesser extent.

The risk of COVID-19 reinfections is increasing. Because of this, you may hear of more and more people in your life getting COVID-19 for a second time, sometimes not too long after their first infection.

The latest reinfections are largely driven by the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, which can escape immunity from vaccines and prior infections. Things like naturally waning immunity and reduced COVID-19 precautions also contribute.

Reinfections of COVID-19 are typically less severe than first infections. However, some research says that repeat infections increase the risk of health issues later. As such, its important to continue to take steps to prevent COVID-19.

See more here:

Can You Get COVID-19 Twice in a Month? Reinfections and Rebounds - Healthline

Hospitals have reported the largest sustained decline in coronavirus hospitalizations since March, with 64 fewer patients occupying hospital beds Wednesday than when the current surge peaked 10 days ago at 464 hospitalizations.

Hospital space remains in short supply, however, with only 8% of intensive care units available for patients statewide and 7% of regular hospital beds available.

Health officials warned Oregonians last week that the hospital system is again facing a crisis, even though COVID-19 hospitalizations amount to less than half of what they were during the delta and omicron surge peaks. The strain on hospitals is driven at least in part by delays in getting people out of hospitals, staff burnout and patients coming in for issues they had left untreated during the worst of the pandemic.

COVID-19 community levels are high in 19 Oregon counties, according to federal benchmarks that incorporate hospitalizations, hospital admissions and new case counts. They include Multnomah County, though not Washington and Clackamas counties, which were previously listed, too. At high levels, health officials recommend that everyone wear masks when in indoor public places.

New reported coronavirus cases fell for the second consecutive as of Wednesday, though the 5% decline this week coincided with a 10% decline in testing. The 8,751 cases reported over the last seven days are considered a profound undercount, as have all cases reported since at-home tests became widely available.

The share of positive tests, reported at nearly 13% Wednesday, has remained above 10% since May.

a

Since it began: Oregon has reported 848,046 confirmed or presumed infections and 8,061 deaths.

Hospitalizations: 400 people with confirmed coronavirus infections are hospitalized, down 24 since Wednesday, July 20. That includes 43 people in intensive care, down two since July 20.

Vaccinations: As of July 25, the state has reported fully vaccinating 2,937,559 people (68.8% of the population), partially vaccinating 302,252 people (7.1%) and boosting 1,714,863 (40.2%).

New deaths: Since July 20, the Oregon Health Authority has reported 80 additional deaths connected to COVID-19.

Fedor Zarkhin

Where to buy a COVID-19 test online: How to find BinaxNow, iHealth, more at-home kits for sale with fast shipping

Restock your N95 or KN95 face masks, respirators as COVID-19 omicron BA2 variants persist: Best deals with fast shipping

See more here:

Coronavirus in Oregon: Hospitalizations fall in welcome sign of receding surge - OregonLive

By Maggie Brown, WRAL multiplatform producer

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday updated a map of COVID-19 in the community to show that 61 of North Carolina's 100 counties are at high risk. The majority of counties in eastern and southern North Carolina are at high risk.

The CDC recommends that North Carolina residents who are at high risk for severe illness consider wearing a mask in public and take additional precautions, like get a booster shot, avoid poorly ventilated spaces or crowds and test frequently.

Wake and Johnston counties are not currently seeing as much coronavirus in the community as other surrounding counties, according to the CDC's analysis of coronavirus data.

This week, Wake County saw on average around 308 coronavirus cases for each 100,000 residents. Health leaders say that number is likely not the full the picture because of many people who are testing positive for the virus at home and not reporting the data to the state.

Around 8 people per 100,000 in Wake County are currently being admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, which keeps Wake County in the "medium" risk category as defined by the CDC.

Wake County's positivity rate, however, has been on a steady incline since May. As of Thursday, North Carolina's positivity rate was at 19%, which means more than 1 in 6 coronavirus tests that are taken in North Carolina come back positive. That number doesn't include at-home tests.

Around 95% of the population in Wake County has received some sort of vaccination against coronavirus. Not everyone is fully vaccinated, and even fewer people have received booster shots.

The counties with the lowest percent of the population vaccinated are Rutherford, Robeson, Montgomery, Hoke, Tyrrell, Polk and Harnett.

Harnett County around 40 miles away from Wake County has a high vaccination rate among those 65 an older, but a relatively lower vaccination rate among those who are below the age of 65.

Only 43% of Harnett County's population is fully vaccinated against coronavirus, compared to Wake's 95%. According to the CDC, fully-vaccinated is defined as completing two doses of either a Moderna or Pfizer two-dose vaccine or a single shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. For people who are severely immunocompromised, that definition changes, the CDC says.

The curves below, showing a 7-day rolling average of reported new cases in each county, use data collected from state health officials by Johns Hopkins University's Coronavirus Resource Center. The counties are sorted by the largest total of lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases, and the top-20 counties are shown by default. Vertical axes are scaled by default based on the largest number of new cases. Select the variable axis setting to scale each county's cases individually to see their respective spikes. Enter a county below to highlight it for comparison. NOTE: Starting on Sept. 25, the Johns Hopkins data began including cases identified through antigen testing reported by DHHS. The addition of these cases appears as a sharp spike in some counties.

Source: Johns Hopkins CSSE Graphic: Tyler Dukes, WRAL // Get the data

For every 100,000 people in Harnett County, the CDC estimates that nearly 300 people are testing positive with coronavirus this week. The county's test positivity rate is higher than the state's more than 26% of people who get tested in the county are testing positive for coronavirus, according to CDC data.

On the other hand, Rutherford County has the lowest vaccination rate but is not in the CDC's high risk category. The county is one of the 36 under medium risk for community spread. According to CDC data, it falls into this category because new coronavirus-related hospital admissions are falling below 10 per 100,000 people.

However, around the same number of people per capita are testing positive for COVID-19 in Rutherford County as in Harnett County.

The U.S. announced Thursday that coronavirus vaccines specific to the latest omicron variants -- BA.4 and BA.5 -- will be available to the public starting in September.

Everyone has been eligible for a booster shot, however, many people have not taken advantage of the opportunity. A second booster shot is recommended for Americans over 50 and those over 12 with certain immune deficiencies.

But there's little hope in the data that people are interested in getting another booster shot. Only 28% of North Carolinians 18 and older have been fully vaccinated and also received a first booster shot, CDC data shows.

Experts worry about another fall surge in cases as new highly-contagious variants of omicron are emerging.

The number of North Carolinians testing positive for COVID-19 and going to the hospital has increased by 17% this week compared to last week, according to data released by the state on Wednesday.

North Carolina is seeing levels of coronavirus cases and hospitalizations not seen since the end of omicron's peak in February, the data shows.

A total of 1,290 people were admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 in the week ending July 24, which is the most North Carolina has seen since the week ending on February 19.

See the article here:

More than 60 NC counties at 'high' risk for COVID in the community, CDC says - WRAL News

CLEVELANDFive Northeast Ohio counties have high COVID-19 transmission spread, according to information the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention released on Thursday.

The following counties are under high transmission rates:

There are a total of 2,817 cases in Cuyahoga County, which is a 19.92% increase over the last seven days. Out of those total cases, 228 of them are new.

Over 65% of the population in the county are fully vaccinated, with 75% with at least one dose.

The CDCs community-level classifications are now based on a mixture of new case numbers, new hospital admissions and the percentage of hospital beds devoted to COVID-19 patients.

Download the News 5 app for free to easily access local coronavirus coverage, and to receive timely and limited news alerts on major COVID-19 developments. Download now on your Apple device here, and your Android device here.

See complete coverage on our Coronavirus Continuing Coverage page.

Vaccinating Ohio - Find the latest news on the COVID-19 vaccines, Ohio's phased vaccination process, a map of vaccination clinics around the state, and links to sign up for a vaccination appointment through Ohio's online portal.

See data visualizations showing the impact of coronavirus in Ohio, including county-by-county maps, charts showing the spread of the disease, and more.

View a map of COVID-19 testing locations here.

Visit Ohio's Coronavirus website for the latest updates from the Ohio Department of Health.

View a global coronavirus tracker with data from Johns Hopkins University.

Read the rest here:

COVID-19 levels 'high' in 5 Northeast Ohio counties - News 5 Cleveland WEWS

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed everything. What should we know about how you approach the world now? How has the pandemic changed your social life, your work life, your interactions with your neighbors? Get in touch here.

It may be time to delete another app on your phone.

Pennsylvania has discontinued its COVID-19 exposure app, and Delaware plans to discontinue its COVID exposure alerts in the coming months.

The Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey health departments launched their respective apps in 2020 as part of an effort to prevent the spread of the virus.

The apps use bluetooth technology to track whether one user has been in close proximity to another who reports a positive COVID-19 test to the app. Unlike traditional contact tracing, even strangers can be alerted about a possible exposure.

So, Im in the grocery store, Im positive. Youre in the grocery store, and you come in contact with me. We dont know each other. Theres nothing that can replace that, said Dr. Tracey Johnson, Delawares Director of Contact Tracing.

Unlike its neighboring states, New Jersey plans to continue operating its app, for now. However, Pennsylvanias and Delawares health departments say the app is no longer critical.

Every case in Delaware comes through our lab, and we are able to send them a text notification. We are able to do that, and say, Hey, youre positive, and we can give them the guidance right there, Johnson said. So, were actually taking on some of that role that we didnt have before, when we needed that app, and now we can do [ourselves].

She said the app will likely be discontinued in about two months.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health did not agree to an interview with WHYY News, but spokesperson Maggi Barton said in an email that the app is no longer necessary because more people are educated about COVID-19.

Now, more than ever, residents are familiar on what COVID-19 symptoms are, where to find a test (whether a PCR test or a test they take in the comfort of their home), and what those next steps are after testing positive like isolating and quarantining, she said. People using at-home tests are encouraged to notify the people they have come in contact with to notify them of potential exposure.

She said that contact tracing efforts continue without any further assistance from the app, and that the department has continued to adapt and build long-term supports and resources during the pandemic.

Originally posted here:

A 'lost opportunity': Pa. and Del. are discontinuing their COVID-19 exposure apps - WHYY

COVID-19 can have many impacts, both physical and psychological. One question that keeps coming up in the media and recent literature is whether there is a link between COVID-19 and erectile dysfunction.

In this article, we look at numerous studies on the associations between COVID-19 and erectile dysfunction (ED).

We also explore whether ED can increase the risk of COVID-19, potential complications of COVID-19, treatments for ED, and when to contact a doctor.

Several studies explore COVID-19s effects on ED.

Researchers involved in a 2021 pilot study examined the penile tissues of four people, two with a history of COVID-19 infection and two without. Results suggests the two that had COVID-19 showed a presence of the virus function in their biopsies. The scientists conclude that the bodys cell dysfunction from COVID-19 infection can contribute to ED.

A 2022 statistical study involving global data of over 66 million people excluding those that already had ED before January 2020 indicates there is a higher chance of getting ED after COVID-19 infection. However, this study relies on statistical data from a global database instead of a blind clinical study, which is an important limitation.

Another 2022 study among 348 participants attempts to determine if COVID-19 can cause testicular damage. Comparing testosterone levels before and after COVID-19 in a 1-year span, this study suggests those positive for COVID-19 had a greater decrease in testosterone levels than those who did not get the infection.

A 2022 report looking at 693 publications in the realm of COVID-19 and ED points to compelling evidence that the virus may harm males health and sexual function. This includes a nearly 6-fold higher risk of getting ED.

One 2022 study among 156 males at the beginning of COVID-19 infection and in the month after getting COVID-19 found they had more depression and anxiety and a lower erectile function score. This could indicate that COVID-19 may result in more anxiety, which in turn increases the chance of ED.

A 2020 report explores how experiencing an infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2002 affected peoples mental health. It suggests that the infection was capable of having a long-term negative impact on mental health and that COVID-19 may be similar.

According to a 2022 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), people with chronic long-term depression or persistent feelings of loneliness were 81% more likely to experience hospitalization after a COVID-19 diagnosis. This suggests that COVID-19 may be a psychological risk factor for mental health.

A 2020 report states that sexual performance anxiety contributes to premature ejaculation and ED. Therefore, it seems reasonable that general anxiety may also have an effect. In fact, a 2021 study involving adult males suggests that those with anxiety disorders have a high risk of developing ED.

The above studies show an association between COVID-19, anxiety or depression, overall health, and ED.

However, people can have underlying health conditions that affect the results. Most of the studies state that more research is necessary to truly explore the link between COVID-19 and ED.

Very few studies have explored the risk of getting COVID-19 in people with ED.

One 2021 study looked at 100 participants, 25 of which were positive for a COVID-19 infection. It found that people with ED were more likely to have COVID-19 than those without ED.

This study points out that its results are preliminary and more research is necessary. It is also important to note that correlation does not equal causation.

However, there is also another viewpoint.

An older 2013 study found that males with ED have a higher chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). According to a 2022 study, while scientists need to do larger studies, evidence suggests that CVD increases COVID-19 severity. This means there is an indirect association that ED may increase the risk of COVID-19.

The CDC recommend a number of ways to decrease the chance of getting COVID-19.

These include:

The CDC also states that people with a weakened immune system should take extra precautions.

According to the National Institue of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, treatments for ED include:

According to a 2020 article, other emerging treatments include low intensity shockwave therapy, stem cells, and nitrate oxide donors. However, scientists need to do long-term studies to determine their efficacy, safety, downsides, and overall results.

People with COVID-19 who have concerns about its long-term effects on their particular health condition should consult a doctor to see if there are any precautions or tests they can take. Many online health services can help people access a doctor, even if they cannot leave their house.

Similarly, those with CVD or any underlying medical condition that increases their chance of getting COVID-19 should also talk with a doctor to increase preventive measures. The CDC lists a number of conditions that pose a high risk of getting severe illness with COVID-19.

Some people may feel anxious or uncomfortable at the prospect of speaking with a doctor about ED. However, the condition is nothing to be embarrassed about, and a doctor or urologist can most likely help resolve or treat the symptoms.

Both COVID-19 and ED affect many people. Numerous studies suggest links between the two, including direct and indirect associations.

In particular, it seems that people with COVID-19 may have a higher chance of getting ED or worsening their current ED. The opposite could also be true. However, more research is necessary to determine the long-term impact.

One way to prevent ED may be to increase protection against COVID-19. There are numerous ways to do this, including wearing masks. People with a weakened immune system or ED and those experiencing complications from COVID-19 may find it helpful to speak with a doctor about their concerns.

More:

COVID-19 and erectile dysfunction: Link, risks, and more - Medical News Today

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted schools worldwide to cancel in-person learning for weeks and months, but a new study argues schools canand shouldsafely operate with a mix of vaccination and regular testing of unvaccinated students.

The study, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, is based on a model of school transmission developed based on contact data and pilot screenings from 683 French schools.

Corresponding author Vittoria Colizza, PhD, of Sorbonne University, said the experience of the pandemic has made 2 things clear: having schools open leads to an increase in community transmission and yet keeping schools open should be a primary objective to safeguard the educational, emotional, and social needs of children.

Assessing vaccination and protocols in schools is therefore key to maintaining schools open in light of a continuously evolving pandemic, Colizza and colleagues said.

Using data from 2 periods in 2021, the authors created a model that could be used to see how various interventions might affect transmission and risk in a school setting. The authors calculated school-specific reproductive numbers for COVID-19 for both the Alpha and Delta variants.

For the Alpha variant, the reproductive number was 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.45) in the primary school and 1.46 (95% CI 1.41-1.51) in secondary schools. They noted that that rate was higher than the rate estimated via community surveillance.

For the Delta variant, they found something of a divergence, with a significantly higher reproductive number in primary schools, 1.66 (95% CI 1.60-1.71), and a lower reproductive number in secondary schools, 1.10 (95% CI 1.06-1.14).

Using those rates, the investigators calculated that if the schools tested 75% of unvaccinated students on a weekly basis and tested any student with symptoms, they could reduce cases by 34% in primary schools and 36% in secondary schools.

Moreover, such a regime would translate into fewer lost days of instruction. In fact, the authors said such a strategy could reduce lost days by 80% compared to simply testing symptomatic children and then closing their classes.

Our analysis indicates that regularly screening the school population is efficient in preventing infections while reducing absence from school, especially in settings where the school population is not yet vaccinated, coverage is low to moderate, or vaccine protection has largely waned, Colizza and colleagues wrote.

The investigators said even with masks and other precautions, transmission is likely at schools. They said their model affirms that a regular testing protocol is a critical component of viral mitigation at school.

It also provides a cost-benefit analysis considering successive variants, comparing multiple protocols, and evaluating the key role of adherence in the context of partly vaccinated school populations, they wrote.

Notably, while the authors said their goal was to limit both community spread and missed days of school, they said it is not clear that reactive classroom closures are even particularly effective, given that the virus can spread silently, and some people do not have obvious symptoms. They said proactive screening allows school officials to detect more cases, enabling them to take a more targeted approach when deciding which students need to isolate.

Colizza and colleagues emphasized that vaccinating students is essential. While vaccination of teachers is beneficial, the authors said it does not significantly limit spread, even if a schools entire teaching staff is vaccinated.

This results from the small number of teachers and the observed lower rate of interaction they have with students, and it is confirmed even when community incidence in adults is much higher than in the student-age classes, they wrote.

The authors concluded that COVID-19 is likely to continue to be a factor affecting public health and education for the foreseeable future.

Regular testing remains a key strategy to epidemic control in school settings with moderate vaccination coverage or following waned vaccine protection, all the while minimizing days lost, they concluded.

View original post here:

Regular COVID-19 Screening in Schools Can Control Infections, Limit Closures - Contagionlive.com