Connect with us

Spread & Containment

IWD: Spotlight on women in life sciences

To celebrate International Women’s Day, we speak to design engineer at Envair Technology Darina Shopova; managing director, UK
The post IWD: Spotlight…

Published

on

To celebrate International Women’s Day, we speak to design engineer at Envair Technology Darina Shopova; managing director, UK & ROI at Healthcare Business of Merck Doina Ionescu; and vice president of clinical development, medical, and regulatory affairs, Novo Nordisk UK Avideh Nazeri about their careers, how their field is progressing and how the industry can encourage more women and girls to pursue roles in STEM.

 

What has your career path been? How did you get into life sciences?

Darina Shopova (DS): My first job, in 2005, was as a structural CAD engineer in my home country of Bulgaria. Four years ago, I pivoted in my career, becoming a mechanical design engineer for a Manchester-based Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) company – designing air handling units for hospitals, pharmacies, schools and supermarkets.

In October 2021, I joined the engineering department at Envair Technology, designing isolators. Our products are used primarily in the fight against cancer – to aid drug discovery – while also ensuring patients and laboratory workers are safe.

Dr Doina Ionescu (DI): After completing my PhD in physics at the University of Southampton, I joined Merck as a research scientist in 1998. After a few years, I decided I wanted to move into the commercial side of the business, so I completed an MBA and went on to hold various positions in Corporate Business Development, Life Science and Healthcare. I have been general manager for Merck Healthcare UK & Ireland since 2020.

Avideh Nazeri (AN): I always dreamt of having a career that would take me around the world, and when I was younger, I thought I wanted to be a flight attendant. I was encouraged instead to use my interest in science and study medicine, and I trained to be a hospital doctor at King’s College London.

I made the decision to join Novo Nordisk in 2006 as a medical manager because I felt this move would best give me the opportunity to have an international career without geographical boundaries whilst remaining close to science and developing solutions for people who are struggling with chronic conditions.

 

What has been the biggest challenge you have had to overcome in your career, and what did you learn from it?

DS: The biggest challenge for me has been going back to college in my 40s to study mechanical design. This would not have been possible without the support of my family and an apprenticeship scheme. Being able to continue to work while studying meant I could achieve a recognised qualification and gain valued experience, all while continuing to earn an income.

DI: Transitioning from being a research scientist to a mergers & acquisitions project manager was not easy. The knowledge I had acquired from my MBA was very academic and trying to position myself in the new role was challenging. I also had to learn to navigate internal politics, which I was not used to.

To position myself in that world, I had to rely on my transferable skills – my ability to listen, plan and focus on delivery. I also learnt that it’s not what you say and who you say it to but how you say it – you have to speak your mind and make it clear what you want. And I’ve always spoken my mind since then. Effectively managing internal politics does not mean you have to be subdued; you must communicate in an effective way that retains your values.

AN: Moving from working as a hospital doctor to my role as a scientist working in industry was a huge challenge – suddenly, instead of spending my time with patients, I was spending time in boardrooms and business meetings.

I felt that I also had to overcome a dual bias – coming not just with a scientific background but also as a female scientist. I was surprised to find that some people assumed I might not be cut out for working in industry. Or that there is only one way to be successful in industry; if you are sufficiently ambitious, you want to be the next CEO.

I also learnt the value of a strong support network – as a doctor, you are trained to be quite independent, but in industry I found that working with people I looked up to as role models, who gave me opportunities but challenged me at the same time, really helped me. Now, I know that a core part of my purpose is to help other women succeed by helping to make the industry more accessible and improving representation.

 

Why is it important to encourage girls and young women to pursue life sciences roles?

DS: I think there is a systemic lack of awareness, among girls in particular, about the variety of roles out there in STEM. Ultimately, this has to start at school. We need strong allies within the education setting – clued up careers advisors and teachers – along with inspiring female mentors who can visit schools and talk about their experiences.

We need a stream of young people entering the sector. Our industry needs open minds and a fresh outlook so we can continue to find solutions to the problems we face.

DI: More women than ever are in life science roles, but we still need to encourage more because it’s a very rewarding and interesting career. But also because the best companies (and teams in general) are a balanced mix of genders, backgrounds and cultures. The industry needs diversity in all its forms.

AN: Representation matters, and we currently don’t have sufficient representation of girls across all areas of science. It is also important as we know diverse teams generate higher-quality science and results.

 

What advice would you give to girls or young women contemplating a career in life sciences?

DS: There is so much I would like to say to young girls interested in a career in life sciences. It’s important to retain your curiosity, to constantly explore and question things – even the obvious. It’s easy to say, but being brave and allowing yourself to step outside of your comfort zone is how boundaries are pushed in STEM. Also, don’t be afraid to make mistakes. Mistakes are another way of learning.

Finally, find support. I would recommend joining a professional organisation or local group supporting women in your field. That way, you can connect and find inspiration from other amazing women like you.

DI: I know from my own daughter that many girls and young women today feel a lot of pressure to focus on things like looks, perception and followers. But these are not sustainable. Sustainability comes with understanding and being smart. A career in life sciences gives you the skills to run rings around most people. Aside from being a fascinating and rewarding career, life sciences also really nurture some of the qualities women naturally possess, such as analysis, multitasking, understanding and listening.

AN: Remain curious, as that is what probably got you interested in science in the first place. Ask yourself the toughest questions to define your whys, but thereafter don’t be too tough on yourself; you won’t have all the answers. Passion, perseverance, and purpose are your North Stars. A career in science is a journey of discoveries. Just give yourself the chance to surprise yourself and inspire others.

 

How important is it to have role models for young women working in the sector? Who has helped to inspire and shape your career?

DS: It’s a shame that there aren’t more well-known female scientists young girls can be inspired by – in the same way they are by pop stars, actresses or other influencers. It is so important to celebrate women in the pharmaceutical industry and their achievements; they need to be seen by young girls as visible role models. Maybe platforms like TikTok could change that and make the industry seem more accessible.

In terms of my current role models, the MD at Envair Technology, Gary Bagshaw, has more than 25 years in the business. I’m constantly learning from his deep technical knowledge of the aseptic and healthcare processes.

DI: It is very important, and we all need role models. Mine were diverse and not all female. My biggest role model was Albert Einstein, as he was, in my view, by far the cleverest person who ever lived. Growing up, Julia Roberts was actually my inspiration. I liked her because she never came across as fragile, she knew what she wanted, and she excelled both personally and professionally.

AN: I have encountered many women through my career who I look up to and admire. Women who have defined their own paths, using science and technology to create new molecules that have ultimately changed lives. Not all of these women were driven to become CEOs, but they were no less inspiring to me because of that fact. What these women all embodied was their ability to find their own purpose and forge ahead.

I am also inspired by the new generation of girls & women around me every day. Their tenacity, their approach to breaking the mould, their independent way of thinking and their impatience for change versus my generation is truly inspiring to me.

 

Is there anything pharma could do to encourage more women to take up science careers?

DS: Celebrating women’s achievements is a good place to start. If we make women more visible, this will foster a culture where they feel more valued and appreciated. Also, businesses investing in mentoring schemes, training and support is how the ‘glass ceiling’ will ultimately be broken.

DI: I think as a whole, the industry could offer more internships and work experience opportunities, and this is something we are looking into in the UK & Ireland at Merck – we offer some already but I feel we should offer more.

There are still challenges, but the reputation of industry following the COVID pandemic has improved, and I think it’s shown many people that the pharma industry has a lot to offer – it’s not just a job. It allows you to make a contribution to the world.

AN: As an industry, we need to do more to champion and showcase the success of women. We, as women in the industry, can start to cultivate this by doing more to expand the talent pool and spreading the message that science is interesting, creative and a good career.

Companies also need to put structural changes and KPIs in place to hold themselves accountable for ensuring good gender representation at every level and in every department and ensuring intersectional diversity within that, to ensure that a career in this industry is accessible to all women regardless of their background.

 

What are the most exciting developments you’re seeing in your field at the moment?

DS: By constantly improving the design of our isolators, we are making pharmaceutical manufacturing more sustainable here at Envair Technology. This is hugely exciting for me.

We are implementing the latest electronically commutated (EC) fan technology with highly efficient HEPA filters to reduce the carbon footprint of our units and ultimately support the pharmaceutical industry in striving for net-zero [emissions].

DI: Oncology is a hugely exciting area at the moment, particularly the further focus on genome testing to help identify specific mutations in the DNA and select the best treatment option for the patient and their type of cancer. As well as personalised medicine, at Merck we’re also very interested in personalised healthcare as the data speaks for itself: Supporting people to play a greater role in managing their own health keeps people living well at home and out of GP surgeries and hospitals.

AN: The UK is an exciting place to be in the life sciences industry right now, because on top of its legacy of academic strength, in the last couple of years – partly due to the way the pandemic has driven us to accelerate innovation – we have seen a real culture of openness. Companies within the industry are collaborating with each other and with the public sector and NGOs, which has led to a really high quality of science.

 

About the interviewees

Darina Shopova
Darina Shopova is design engineer at Envair Technology, working on the design and development of rigid isolators. Envair’s isolators prevent pharmacy and laboratory workers from dangerous exposure to cytotoxic drugs and ensure products are protected from microbiological contamination.

 

Avideh Nazeri
Avideh Nazeri is vice president clinical development, medical, and regulatory affairs, Novo Nordisk UK. She is an endocrinologist and worked at King’s College London before joining Novo Nordisk in 2006.

 

Dr Doina Ionescu
Dr Doina Ionescu has been Merck’s General Manager for the UK & Ireland since May 2020. Since joining Merck as a research scientist in 1998, she has held a diverse range of roles within the company including in Corporate Business Development, Corporate Mergers & Acquisitions and Commercial Operations.

A physicist by background, she holds a Master’s degree in nuclear physics from the University of Bucharest, a PhD in physics from the University of Southampton and an Executive MBA from Ashridge Business School.

The post IWD: Spotlight on women in life sciences appeared first on .

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Chinese migration to US is nothing new – but the reasons for recent surge at Southern border are

A gloomier economic outlook in China and tightening state control have combined with the influence of social media in encouraging migration.

Published

on

By

Chinese migrants wait for a boat after having walked across the Darien Gap from Colombia to Panama. AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko

The brief closure of the Darien Gap – a perilous 66-mile jungle journey linking South American and Central America – in February 2024 temporarily halted one of the Western Hemisphere’s busiest migration routes. It also highlighted its importance to a small but growing group of people that depend on that pass to make it to the U.S.: Chinese migrants.

While a record 2.5 million migrants were detained at the United States’ southwestern land border in 2023, only about 37,000 were from China.

I’m a scholar of migration and China. What I find most remarkable in these figures is the speed with which the number of Chinese migrants is growing. Nearly 10 times as many Chinese migrants crossed the southern border in 2023 as in 2022. In December 2023 alone, U.S. Border Patrol officials reported encounters with about 6,000 Chinese migrants, in contrast to the 900 they reported a year earlier in December 2022.

The dramatic uptick is the result of a confluence of factors that range from a slowing Chinese economy and tightening political control by President Xi Jinping to the easy access to online information on Chinese social media about how to make the trip.

Middle-class migrants

Journalists reporting from the border have generalized that Chinese migrants come largely from the self-employed middle class. They are not rich enough to use education or work opportunities as a means of entry, but they can afford to fly across the world.

According to a report from Reuters, in many cases those attempting to make the crossing are small-business owners who saw irreparable damage to their primary or sole source of income due to China’s “zero COVID” policies. The migrants are women, men and, in some cases, children accompanying parents from all over China.

Chinese nationals have long made the journey to the United States seeking economic opportunity or political freedom. Based on recent media interviews with migrants coming by way of South America and the U.S.’s southern border, the increase in numbers seems driven by two factors.

First, the most common path for immigration for Chinese nationals is through a student visa or H1-B visa for skilled workers. But travel restrictions during the early months of the pandemic temporarily stalled migration from China. Immigrant visas are out of reach for many Chinese nationals without family or vocation-based preferences, and tourist visas require a personal interview with a U.S. consulate to gauge the likelihood of the traveler returning to China.

Social media tutorials

Second, with the legal routes for immigration difficult to follow, social media accounts have outlined alternatives for Chinese who feel an urgent need to emigrate. Accounts on Douyin, the TikTok clone available in mainland China, document locations open for visa-free travel by Chinese passport holders. On TikTok itself, migrants could find information on where to cross the border, as well as information about transportation and smugglers, commonly known as “snakeheads,” who are experienced with bringing migrants on the journey north.

With virtual private networks, immigrants can also gather information from U.S. apps such as X, YouTube, Facebook and other sites that are otherwise blocked by Chinese censors.

Inspired by social media posts that both offer practical guides and celebrate the journey, thousands of Chinese migrants have been flying to Ecuador, which allows visa-free travel for Chinese citizens, and then making their way over land to the U.S.-Mexican border.

This journey involves trekking through the Darien Gap, which despite its notoriety as a dangerous crossing has become an increasingly common route for migrants from Venezuela, Colombia and all over the world.

In addition to information about crossing the Darien Gap, these social media posts highlight the best places to cross the border. This has led to a large share of Chinese asylum seekers following the same path to Mexico’s Baja California to cross the border near San Diego.

Chinese migration to US is nothing new

The rapid increase in numbers and the ease of accessing information via social media on their smartphones are new innovations. But there is a longer history of Chinese migration to the U.S. over the southern border – and at the hands of smugglers.

From 1882 to 1943, the United States banned all immigration by male Chinese laborers and most Chinese women. A combination of economic competition and racist concerns about Chinese culture and assimilability ensured that the Chinese would be the first ethnic group to enter the United States illegally.

With legal options for arrival eliminated, some Chinese migrants took advantage of the relative ease of movement between the U.S. and Mexico during those years. While some migrants adopted Mexican names and spoke enough Spanish to pass as migrant workers, others used borrowed identities or paperwork from Chinese people with a right of entry, like U.S.-born citizens. Similarly to what we are seeing today, it was middle- and working-class Chinese who more frequently turned to illegal means. Those with money and education were able to circumvent the law by arriving as students or members of the merchant class, both exceptions to the exclusion law.

Though these Chinese exclusion laws officially ended in 1943, restrictions on migration from Asia continued until Congress revised U.S. immigration law in the Hart-Celler Act in 1965. New priorities for immigrant visas that stressed vocational skills as well as family reunification, alongside then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s policies of “reform and opening,” helped many Chinese migrants make their way legally to the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.

Even after the restrictive immigration laws ended, Chinese migrants without the education or family connections often needed for U.S. visas continued to take dangerous routes with the help of “snakeheads.”

One notorious incident occurred in 1993, when a ship called the Golden Venture ran aground near New York, resulting in the drowning deaths of 10 Chinese migrants and the arrest and conviction of the snakeheads attempting to smuggle hundreds of Chinese migrants into the United States.

Existing tensions

Though there is plenty of precedent for Chinese migrants arriving without documentation, Chinese asylum seekers have better odds of success than many of the other migrants making the dangerous journey north.

An estimated 55% of Chinese asylum seekers are successful in making their claims, often citing political oppression and lack of religious freedom in China as motivations. By contrast, only 29% of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the U.S. have their claim granted, and the number is even lower for Colombians, at 19%.

The new halt on the migratory highway from the south has affected thousands of new migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. But the mix of push factors from their home country and encouragement on social media means that Chinese migrants will continue to seek routes to America.

And with both migration and the perceived threat from China likely to be features of the upcoming U.S. election, there is a risk that increased Chinese migration could become politicized, leaning further into existing tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Meredith Oyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Vaccine-skeptical mothers say bad health care experiences made them distrust the medical system

Vaccine skepticism, and the broader medical mistrust and far-reaching anxieties it reflects, is not just a fringe position in the 21st century.

Women's own negative medical experiences influence their vaccine decisions for their kids. AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Why would a mother reject safe, potentially lifesaving vaccines for her child?

Popular writing on vaccine skepticism often denigrates white and middle-class mothers who reject some or all recommended vaccines as hysterical, misinformed, zealous or ignorant. Mainstream media and medical providers increasingly dismiss vaccine refusal as a hallmark of American fringe ideology, far-right radicalization or anti-intellectualism.

But vaccine skepticism, and the broader medical mistrust and far-reaching anxieties it reflects, is not just a fringe position.

Pediatric vaccination rates had already fallen sharply before the COVID-19 pandemic, ushering in the return of measles, mumps and chickenpox to the U.S. in 2019. Four years after the pandemic’s onset, a growing number of Americans doubt the safety, efficacy and necessity of routine vaccines. Childhood vaccination rates have declined substantially across the U.S., which public health officials attribute to a “spillover” effect from pandemic-related vaccine skepticism and blame for the recent measles outbreak. Almost half of American mothers rated the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine as medium or high in a 2023 survey by Pew Research.

Recommended vaccines go through rigorous testing and evaluation, and the most infamous charges of vaccine-induced injury have been thoroughly debunked. How do so many mothers – primary caregivers and health care decision-makers for their families – become wary of U.S. health care and one of its most proven preventive technologies?

I’m a cultural anthropologist who studies the ways feelings and beliefs circulate in American society. To investigate what’s behind mothers’ vaccine skepticism, I interviewed vaccine-skeptical mothers about their perceptions of existing and novel vaccines. What they told me complicates sweeping and overly simplified portrayals of their misgivings by pointing to the U.S. health care system itself. The medical system’s failures and harms against women gave rise to their pervasive vaccine skepticism and generalized medical mistrust.

The seeds of women’s skepticism

I conducted this ethnographic research in Oregon from 2020 to 2021 with predominantly white mothers between the ages of 25 and 60. My findings reveal new insights about the origins of vaccine skepticism among this demographic. These women traced their distrust of vaccines, and of U.S. health care more generally, to ongoing and repeated instances of medical harm they experienced from childhood through childbirth.

girl sitting on exam table faces a doctor viewer can see from behind
A woman’s own childhood mistreatment by a doctor can shape her health care decisions for the next generation. FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images

As young girls in medical offices, they were touched without consent, yelled at, disbelieved or threatened. One mother, Susan, recalled her pediatrician abruptly lying her down and performing a rectal exam without her consent at the age of 12. Another mother, Luna, shared how a pediatrician once threatened to have her institutionalized when she voiced anxiety at a routine physical.

As women giving birth, they often felt managed, pressured or discounted. One mother, Meryl, told me, “I felt like I was coerced under distress into Pitocin and induction” during labor. Another mother, Hallie, shared, “I really battled with my provider” throughout the childbirth experience.

Together with the convoluted bureaucracy of for-profit health care, experiences of medical harm contributed to “one million little touch points of information,” in one mother’s phrase, that underscored the untrustworthiness and harmful effects of U.S. health care writ large.

A system that doesn’t serve them

Many mothers I interviewed rejected the premise that public health entities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration had their children’s best interests at heart. Instead, they tied childhood vaccination and the more recent development of COVID-19 vaccines to a bloated pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care model. As one mother explained, “The FDA is not looking out for our health. They’re looking out for their wealth.”

After ongoing negative medical encounters, the women I interviewed lost trust not only in providers but the medical system. Frustrating experiences prompted them to “do their own research” in the name of bodily autonomy. Such research often included books, articles and podcasts deeply critical of vaccines, public health care and drug companies.

These materials, which have proliferated since 2020, cast light on past vaccine trials gone awry, broader histories of medical harm and abuse, the rapid growth of the recommended vaccine schedule in the late 20th century and the massive profits reaped from drug development and for-profit health care. They confirmed and hardened women’s suspicions about U.S. health care.

hands point to a handwritten vaccination record
The number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased over time. Mike Adaskaveg/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images

The stories these women told me add nuance to existing academic research into vaccine skepticism. Most studies have considered vaccine skepticism among primarily white and middle-class parents to be an outgrowth of today’s neoliberal parenting and intensive mothering. Researchers have theorized vaccine skepticism among white and well-off mothers to be an outcome of consumer health care and its emphasis on individual choice and risk reduction. Other researchers highlight vaccine skepticism as a collective identity that can provide mothers with a sense of belonging.

Seeing medical care as a threat to health

The perceptions mothers shared are far from isolated or fringe, and they are not unreasonable. Rather, they represent a growing population of Americans who hold the pervasive belief that U.S. health care harms more than it helps.

Data suggests that the number of Americans harmed in the course of treatment remains high, with incidents of medical error in the U.S. outnumbering those in peer countries, despite more money being spent per capita on health care. One 2023 study found that diagnostic error, one kind of medical error, accounted for 371,000 deaths and 424,000 permanent disabilities among Americans every year.

Studies reveal particularly high rates of medical error in the treatment of vulnerable communities, including women, people of color, disabled, poor, LGBTQ+ and gender-nonconforming individuals and the elderly. The number of U.S. women who have died because of pregnancy-related causes has increased substantially in recent years, with maternal death rates doubling between 1999 and 2019.

The prevalence of medical harm points to the relevance of philosopher Ivan Illich’s manifesto against the “disease of medical progress.” In his 1982 book “Medical Nemesis,” he insisted that rather than being incidental, harm flows inevitably from the structure of institutionalized and for-profit health care itself. Illich wrote, “The medical establishment has become a major threat to health,” and has created its own “epidemic” of iatrogenic illness – that is, illness caused by a physician or the health care system itself.

Four decades later, medical mistrust among Americans remains alarmingly high. Only 23% of Americans express high confidence in the medical system. The United States ranks 24th out of 29 peer high-income countries for the level of public trust in medical providers.

For people like the mothers I interviewed, who have experienced real or perceived harm at the hands of medical providers; have felt belittled, dismissed or disbelieved in a doctor’s office; or spent countless hours fighting to pay for, understand or use health benefits, skepticism and distrust are rational responses to lived experience. These attitudes do not emerge solely from ignorance, conspiracy thinking, far-right extremism or hysteria, but rather the historical and ongoing harms endemic to the U.S. health care system itself.

Johanna Richlin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Survey Shows Declining Concerns Among Americans About COVID-19

Survey Shows Declining Concerns Among Americans About COVID-19

A new survey reveals that only 20% of Americans view covid-19 as "a major threat"…

Published

on

Survey Shows Declining Concerns Among Americans About COVID-19

A new survey reveals that only 20% of Americans view covid-19 as "a major threat" to the health of the US population - a sharp decline from a high of 67% in July 2020.

(SARMDY/Shutterstock)

What's more, the Pew Research Center survey conducted from Feb. 7 to Feb. 11 showed that just 10% of Americans are concerned that they will  catch the disease and require hospitalization.

"This data represents a low ebb of public concern about the virus that reached its height in the summer and fall of 2020, when as many as two-thirds of Americans viewed COVID-19 as a major threat to public health," reads the report, which was published March 7.

According to the survey, half of the participants understand the significance of researchers and healthcare providers in understanding and treating long COVID - however 27% of participants consider this issue less important, while 22% of Americans are unaware of long COVID.

What's more, while Democrats were far more worried than Republicans in the past, that gap has narrowed significantly.

"In the pandemic’s first year, Democrats were routinely about 40 points more likely than Republicans to view the coronavirus as a major threat to the health of the U.S. population. This gap has waned as overall levels of concern have fallen," reads the report.

More via the Epoch Times;

The survey found that three in ten Democrats under 50 have received an updated COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 66 percent of Democrats ages 65 and older.

Moreover, 66 percent of Democrats ages 65 and older have received the updated COVID-19 vaccine, while only 24 percent of Republicans ages 65 and older have done so.

“This 42-point partisan gap is much wider now than at other points since the start of the outbreak. For instance, in August 2021, 93 percent of older Democrats and 78 percent of older Republicans said they had received all the shots needed to be fully vaccinated (a 15-point gap),” it noted.

COVID-19 No Longer an Emergency

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently issued its updated recommendations for the virus, which no longer require people to stay home for five days after testing positive for COVID-19.

The updated guidance recommends that people who contracted a respiratory virus stay home, and they can resume normal activities when their symptoms improve overall and their fever subsides for 24 hours without medication.

“We still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory viruses, this includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick,” CDC director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement.

The CDC said that while the virus remains a threat, it is now less likely to cause severe illness because of widespread immunity and improved tools to prevent and treat the disease.

Importantly, states and countries that have already adjusted recommended isolation times have not seen increased hospitalizations or deaths related to COVID-19,” it stated.

The federal government suspended its free at-home COVID-19 test program on March 8, according to a website set up by the government, following a decrease in COVID-19-related hospitalizations.

According to the CDC, hospitalization rates for COVID-19 and influenza diseases remain “elevated” but are decreasing in some parts of the United States.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/10/2024 - 22:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending