Suchergebnisse

Developing safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at a breakneck speed has been an exceptional human achievement. It remains our best hope of containing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, newer, more aggressive SARS-CoV-2 viral strains, as well as the possibility of fading immunity following vaccination, have prompted health officials to investigate the necessity for additional immunization. This has put further pressure on disregarded human life in lower-income countries that already have minimal access to COVID-19 vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have recommended a third COVID-19 vaccine dose in immunocompromised individuals in a recent announcement. Governments and health care officials need to develop usage guidelines for COVID-19 vaccine booster doses while considering the dangers of potential waning immunity and new viral strains and prioritizing vulnerable populations everywhere, including those living in lower-income countries.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are highly persistent synthetic organic contaminants that can cause serious human health concerns such as obesity, liver damage, kidney cancer, hypertension, immunotoxicity and other human health issues. Integrated crop–livestock systems combine agricultural crop production with milk and/or meat production and processing. Key sources of PFAS in these systems include firefighting foams near military bases, wastewater sludge and industrial discharge. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances regularly move from soils to nearby surface water and/or groundwater because of their high mobility and persistence. Irrigating crops or managing livestock for milk and meat production using adjacent waters can be detrimental to human health. The presence of PFAS in both groundwater and milk have been reported in dairy production states (e.g., Wisconsin and New Mexico) across the United States. Although there is a limit of 70 parts per trillion of PFAS in drinking water by the U.S. EPA, there are not yet regional screening guidelines for conducting risk assessments of livestock watering as well as the soil and plant matrix. This systematic review includes (i) the sources, impacts and challenges of PFAS in integrated crop–livestock systems, (ii) safety measures and protocols for sampling soil, water and plants for determining PFAS concentration in exposed integrated crop–livestock systems and (iii) the assessment, measurement and evaluation of human health risks related to PFAS exposure.

Vaccine reluctance among healthcare workers (HCW) can have widespread negative ramifications, including modeling behavior for the general population and challenges with maintaining a healthy workforce so we can respond to a resurgence of the pandemic. We previously reported that only one-third of HCW were willing to take the vaccine as soon as it became available prior to its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Here, we re-examine the attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines among HCW several months after the vaccines have been made widely available. In this study, only 7.9% (n = 107) of respondents were hesitant to take the first or second dose of the vaccine. Younger age (18–40 years) and lower level of education attainment (GED or less) were associated with higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas self-identified Asian racial identity was associated with greater acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Among the vaccine-hesitant group, more respondents noted mistrust of regulatory authorities (45.3%), government (48.6%), and pharmaceutical companies (50%) than mistrust of doctors (25.4%). Nearly two-thirds of respondents were concerned that vaccination may be ineffective against new strains and booster doses may be required ; however, vaccine-hesitant respondents' acceptance of a hypothetical booster dose was only 14.3%. Overall, vaccine hesitancy was observed to have demographic predictors similar to those previously reported ; the hesitancy of some US HCW to receive booster doses may reflect a general hesitancy to receive other forms of vaccination.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately impacted lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) people. Despite developing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, LGBTQ+ communities still faces challenges due to inequitable access and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in the acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services. Various studies have explored and tried to address factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. However, the LGBTQ+ population remains under- and misrepresented in many of these studies. According to the few studies that have focused on the LGBTQ+ population, several factors influencing vaccine hesitancy have been identified, with the most common factors in studies being concern about vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy, and history of bad experiences with healthcare providers. In order to rebuild the confidence of LGBTQ+ people in vaccines, governments, healthcare policymakers, and healthcare providers need to start by acknowledging, and then resolving, these disparities ; building trust ; dismantling systemic suppression and discrimination ; and prioritizing the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in research studies and public health policies.

Developing safe and effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at a breakneck speed has been an exceptional human achievement. It remains our best hope of containing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, newer, more aggressive SARS-CoV-2 viral strains, as well as the possibility of fading immunity following vaccination, have prompted health officials to investigate the necessity for additional immunization. This has put further pressure on disregarded human life in lower-income countries that already have minimal access to COVID-19 vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have recommended a third COVID-19 vaccine dose in immunocompromised individuals in a recent announcement. Governments and health care officials need to develop usage guidelines for COVID-19 vaccine booster doses while considering the dangers of potential waning immunity and new viral strains and prioritizing vulnerable populations everywhere, including those living in lower-income countries.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are highly persistent synthetic organic contaminants that can cause serious human health concerns such as obesity, liver damage, kidney cancer, hypertension, immunotoxicity and other human health issues. Integrated crop–livestock systems combine agricultural crop production with milk and/or meat production and processing. Key sources of PFAS in these systems include firefighting foams near military bases, wastewater sludge and industrial discharge. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances regularly move from soils to nearby surface water and/or groundwater because of their high mobility and persistence. Irrigating crops or managing livestock for milk and meat production using adjacent waters can be detrimental to human health. The presence of PFAS in both groundwater and milk have been reported in dairy production states (e.g., Wisconsin and New Mexico) across the United States. Although there is a limit of 70 parts per trillion of PFAS in drinking water by the U.S. EPA, there are not yet regional screening guidelines for conducting risk assessments of livestock watering as well as the soil and plant matrix. This systematic review includes (i) the sources, impacts and challenges of PFAS in integrated crop–livestock systems, (ii) safety measures and protocols for sampling soil, water and plants for determining PFAS concentration in exposed integrated crop–livestock systems and (iii) the assessment, measurement and evaluation of human health risks related to PFAS exposure.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately impacted lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) people. Despite developing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, LGBTQ+ communities still faces challenges due to inequitable access and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in the acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services. Various studies have explored and tried to address factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. However, the LGBTQ+ population remains under- and misrepresented in many of these studies. According to the few studies that have focused on the LGBTQ+ population, several factors influencing vaccine hesitancy have been identified, with the most common factors in studies being concern about vaccine safety, vaccine efficacy, and history of bad experiences with healthcare providers. In order to rebuild the confidence of LGBTQ+ people in vaccines, governments, healthcare policymakers, and healthcare providers need to start by acknowledging, and then resolving, these disparities; building trust; dismantling systemic suppression and discrimination; and prioritizing the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in research studies and public health policies.