As the coronavirus pandemic wears on, it’s clear that not everyone’s on the same page when it comes to preventing the risk of infection. Lots of people wear masks, try to maintain social distancing and avoid large gatherings. But plenty of others forgo a mask or wear it on their chin, go to busy bars and attend social gatherings, like weddings. Both sides think they’re right. And that’s led to friction and frustration among friends and families. How can you deal with these differences and keep your relationships intact? “This is a super-charged topic. Your beliefs about science are now injected with politics,” said Dr. Richard Catanzaro, chief of psychiatry at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco, N.Y. “My fundamental approach to stuff like this is to be as direct as possible. Express the concerns that you have, and acknowledge that the other person might not agree, but explain it’s how you feel. For example, ask the person to wear a mask when you’re interacting with them. If they refuse, say, ‘Let’s talk virtually then,’” Catanzaro said. He added that the tone of the conversation hinges on how important the relationship is to you. “In a marriage or more permanent relationship, be more open with the person, and try to get them to see how their behavior is impacting you,” Catanzaro said. For more casual…  read on >

THURSDAY, Sept. 17, 2020 (Healthday News) — The details of a plan to rapidly deliver a future coronavirus vaccine to Americans were unveiled by federal officials on Wednesday. Two of the key parts of the plan are to begin distributing a vaccine with 24 hours of any approval or emergency authorization and offering the vaccine for free, The New York Times reported. Officials from Operation Warp Speed — the multiagency effort to quickly vaccinate Americans against coronavirus — also said the timing of a vaccine was still unclear, the Times reported. That despite repeated statements from President Donald Trump that a shot could be ready before the election on Nov. 3. “We’re dealing in a world of great uncertainty. We don’t know the timing of when we’ll have a vaccine, we don’t know the quantities, we don’t know the efficacy of those vaccines,” Paul Mango, the deputy chief of staff for policy at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told the Times. “This is a really quite extraordinary, logistically complex undertaking, and a lot of uncertainties right now. I think the message we want you to leave with is, we are prepared for all of those uncertainties.” Who will get the vaccine first? Initial distribution of a vaccine, possibly on an emergency basis, would to a limited group of high-priority people, such as…  read on >

Hearts donated by severely obese donors aren’t more risky for recipients than hearts from people who aren’t obese, a new study indicates. “These findings were somewhat surprising because the severely obese donors did tend to have more medical problems, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, than the non-obese donors,” said study author Dr. Leora Yarboro. She’s an associate professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville. Her team analyzed the outcomes of 26,000 heart transplants in the United States from 2003 to 2017. About 3.5% of the donors were severely obese. There were no significant differences in short-term outcomes, one-year survival rates or long-term death rates between patients who received a heart from a severely obese donor and those who received a heart from a non-obese donor, the findings showed. The researchers also found that the percentage of heart transplants from donors with severe obesity rose from 2.2% in 2013 to 5.3% in 2017. Some of the obese donors did have other medical issues: 10% had diabetes versus 3% of non-obese donors, and 33% had high blood pressure versus 15% of donors who weren’t severely obese. The study was published Sept. 16 in the journal Circulation: Heart Failure. “This study shows that with careful selection, hearts from obese donors can be used without an increased risk to the recipient,” Yarboro said in…  read on >

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 16, 2020 (Healthday News) — A single infusion of an experimental drug dramatically lowers levels of coronavirus in the bodies of newly infected patients and cuts their chances of hospitalization, the drug’s maker reported Wednesday. Eli Lilly’s announcement did not include detailed data and hasn’t been peer-reviewed or published yet, The New York Times reported. The news comes from interim results of a trial sponsored by Eli Lilly and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. NIH officials would not comment on the announcement until they have seen more detailed data from the trial, the Times reported. How does the drug work its magic? It is a monoclonal antibody, a manmade copy of an antibody produced by a patient who recovered from COVID-19, the Times reported. Scientists around the world have high hopes that that monoclonal antibodies will prove to be powerful coronavirus treatments, but they come with a caveat: They are difficult to manufacture, and would take time to produce, the Times reported. In the trial, 452 newly diagnosed COVID patients received the monoclonal antibody or a placebo infusion. Some 1.7 percent of those who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 6 percent of those who received a placebo — a 72 percent reduction in risk, Eli Lilly said. At the same time, blood levels of the coronavirus plummeted among those who…  read on >

HVAC repairman Brad Sissell shrugged off the acid-yellow air surrounding him and kept working, preparing a gas pipe for a new range going into a Salem, Ore., home. Less than a half-hour’s drive away, nearly 200,000 acres were burning in one of the major Oregon wildfires that has sent a full tenth of the state’s population fleeing for shelter. But it was a workday and so Sissell kept at his job, masked in the driveway with smoke wreathing his efforts. “We haven’t stopped,” Sissell, 35, said. “We’ve been working the whole time. I know they say the air’s not good for you. I think it’s going to suck for everybody.” The air quality index in Salem has been at the hazardous level since late last week, with people urged to stay indoors lest they risk their health. In fact, the West Coast cities of Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and Vancouver, B.C., have had the worst air quality of all major metropolitan areas in the world as wildfires burn unchecked, the Washington Post reported. Public health experts have warned people up and down the coast to remain indoors with the windows shut and their air conditioners running on recirculated air. The smoke from these wildfires contains fine particles and a toxic mix of chemicals that can irritate the lungs and inflame the airways, said Dr. Clayton…  read on >