Not going out is the “new normal” post-Covid, say experts

Change Your Home, Work, & Life For Less Chronic Pain
Responses from 34,000 people across the US suggest staying home is the new ‘going out.’

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been spending nearly an hour less each day on activities outside their homes, a change researchers believe is a lasting consequence of the pandemic.

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association found that since 2019, the daily time spent on out-of-home activities has decreased by approximately 51 minutes. Additionally, the study indicates that time spent on daily travel, including driving and using public transportation, has been reduced by nearly 12 minutes.

A recent analysis based on a survey of 34,000 Americans is the first to examine the differences between out-of-home and in-home activities following the pandemic. Researchers from Clemson University and UCLA have noted a trend of decreasing out-of-home time that has been ongoing since at least 2003. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have significantly accelerated this shift towards staying at home.

The trend of “going nowhere fast” is set to impact individuals and society on various levels, including psychology, sociology, and economics. The authors of this paper, who are urban planners, suggest that the decrease in people leaving their homes necessitates reevaluating numerous planning and transportation policies.

Their recommendations include repurposing office and retail real estate, given the increase in working and shopping from home. Restrictions on converting commercial buildings to housing should also be relaxed, and curb space for delivery vehicles should be increased, given the rise in online shopping.

“In a world where cities cannot rely on captive office workers and must work to attract residents, workers, and customers, local officials might seek to invest more heavily in their remaining strengths,” says lead author Eric A. Morris, Professor of City and Regional Planning at Clemson University.

“These include recreation, entertainment, culture, arts, and more opportunities. Central cities might shift toward becoming centres of consumption more than production.”

For example, city centres might capitalize on their strengths by creating the dense, multiunit housing often favoured by younger residents and others who prefer more urban lifestyles. Such changes might also generally benefit lower-income households and society by lowering housing and transportation costs.

In terms of transportation, “policy might focus less on expensive and invasive investments and policies to accommodate waxing peak period travel demand…and more on increasing pedestrian and cyclist safety and serving the basic mobility needs of disadvantaged travelers.”

Although it may involve change and some dislocation, going nowhere faster may also have significant benefits, such as less time spent travelling, which may reduce fuel use and emissions and save people valuable time and money. On the other hand, more cocooning in the home might have downsides, such as social isolation.

The authors found that advancements in information technology and how individuals adapted to using this technology during the pandemic were key drivers behind this trend.

The researchers analyzed work and leisure habits by utilizing data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS). This survey, conducted annually since 2003 by the United States Census Bureau with sponsorship from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, provides insights into how Americans spend their time. The data were compiled from the ATUS-X website, which is managed by the Universities of Minnesota and Maryland.

The authors—who also include Professor Brian D. Taylor and Samuel Speroni from UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies—assessed the years before, during, and after the pandemic, namely 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The year 2020 was excluded because it was not completely affected by the pandemic and because data gathering was halted at the height of the outbreak. The study examined the behaviour of adults aged 17 and over.

The authors grouped time use into 16 activities in the home, such as sleep, exercise, work, and using information technology, plus 12 out-of-home activities, including arts and sporting events, shopping, work, and religious observance. Separately, they analyzed travel by car, walking, and public transport (though they excluded air travel).

Results showed that the time spent on 8 of the 12 out-of-home activities fell from 2019 to 2021, while 11 of the 16 in-home activities rose. The average time for out-of-home activities fell from 334 minutes per day in 2019 to 271 in 2021—roughly from 5.5 hours per day out-of-home to 4.5 hours. The authors note that work from home explains part of this trend, but there were large diminutions in other out-of-home time uses as well.

A similar trend was observed for travel, with participants spending an estimated 13 fewer minutes a day in cars and other forms of transport. The authors say this downward trend could not be attributed solely to the reductions in the daily commute during Covid.  

Further, time spent away from home time has only modestly recovered post-pandemic, rebounding by just 11 minutes from 2021 to 2023, from 270 minutes to 281. This has been reduced by 53 minutes in time away from home since 2019. All out-of-home time, all forms of travel, and seven out-of-home activities remained notably lower in 2023 than in 2019, while eight in-home activities remained higher.

Also, the trend toward staying home seems to be holding post-pandemic, as 2023 out-of-home time was virtually unchanged from 2022.

Other results of note include the fact more shopping was carried out online but this did not amount to a large increase in in-home shopping time, a finding the authors propose is due to online shopping not taking nearly as long as in-person shopping. Perhaps surprisingly, television watching did not increase apart from in the early peaks of the pandemic. More sports and exercise activities are now being done at home, most likely because people bought in-home gym equipment.

New study highlights scale and impact of long COVID

Researchers from the Universities of Arizona, Oxford and Leeds analyzed dozens of previous studies on long-term COVID-19 to examine the number and range of people affected, the underlying mechanisms of the disease, the many symptoms that patients develop, and current and future treatments.

Long COVID, also known as Post-COVID-19 condition, is generally defined as symptoms persisting for three months or more after acute COVID-19. The condition can affect and damage many organ systems, leading to severe and long-term impaired function and a broad range of symptoms, including fatigue, cognitive impairment – often referred to as ‘brain fog’ –  breathlessness and pain.

Long COVID can affect almost anyone, including all age groups and children. It is more prevalent in females and those of lower socioeconomic status, and the reasons for such differences are under study. The researchers found that while some people gradually get better from long COVID, in others the condition can persist for years. Many people who developed long COVID before the advent of vaccines are still unwell.

“Long COVID is a devastating disease with a profound human toll and socioeconomic impact,” said Janko Nikolich, MD, PhD, “By studying it in detail, we hope to both understand the mechanisms and to find targets for therapy against this, but potentially also other infection-associated complex chronic conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.”

If a person has been fully vaccinated and is up to date with their boosters, their risk of long COVID is much lower. However, 3%-5% of people worldwide still develop long COVID after an acute COVID-19 infection. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long COVID affects an estimated 4%-10% of the U.S. adult population and 1 in 10 adults who had COVID develop long COVID.

The review study also found that a wide range of biological mechanisms are involved, including persistence of the original virus in the body, disruption of the normal immune response, and microscopic blood clotting, even in some people with only mild initial infections.

There are no proven treatments for long COVID yet, and current management of the condition focuses on ways to relieve symptoms or provide rehabilitation. Researchers say there is a dire need to develop and test biomarkers such as blood tests to diagnose and monitor long COVID and to find therapies that address root causes of the disease.

People can lower their risk of developing long COVID by avoiding infection – wearing a close-fitting mask in crowded indoor spaces, for example – taking antivirals promptly if they do catch COVID-19, avoiding strenuous exercise during such infections, and ensuring they are up to date with COVID vaccines and boosters.

“Long COVID is a dismal condition but there are grounds for cautious optimism,” said Trisha Greenhalgh, lead author of the study and professor at Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. “Various mechanism-based treatments are being tested in research trials. If proven effective, these would allow us to target particular subgroups of people with precision therapies. Treatments aside, it is becoming increasingly clear that long COVID places an enormous social and economic burden on individuals, families and society. In particular, we need to find better ways to treat and support the ‘long-haulers’ – people who have been unwell for two years or more and whose lives have often been turned upside down.”

Pandemic-era babies do not have higher autism risk

Researchers from Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons found that children born during the first year of the pandemic, including those exposed to COVID in utero, were not more likely to screen positive for autism compared to unexposed or pre-pandemic children.

“Autism risk is known to increase with virtually any kind of insult to a mother during pregnancy, including infection and stress,” says Dani Dumitriu, associate professor of paediatrics and psychiatry and senior author of the study. “The scale of the COVID pandemic had paediatricians, researchers, and developmental scientists worried that we would see an uptick in autism rates. But reassuringly, we didn’t find any indication of such an increase in our study.”

“It is important to note,” Dumitriu adds, “that the study did not examine autism diagnosis but rather the risk of developing autism as indicated by a screening questionnaire completed by the child’s parents. “It’s too early to have definitive diagnostic numbers,” she says. “However, this screening tool is predictive, and it does not indicate that prenatal exposure to COVID or the pandemic increases the likelihood of autism.”

“There has been widespread speculation about how the COVID generation is developing, and this study gives us the first hint of an answer regarding autism risk.”

Investigating autism risk and COVID 

Dumitriu’s team has been researching the possible impact of COVID-19-related maternal stress and maternal infection on child neurodevelopment at various stages from birth through the COMBO (COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes) Initiative. Children who were in the womb during the initial phases of the pandemic are now approaching the age when early signs of autism risk may become apparent.

The recent study looked at almost 2,000 children born at NewYork-Presbyterian’s Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and Allen Hospital from January 2018 to September 2021. The study assessed the risk of autism based on the responses from a neurodevelopment screening questionnaire that paediatricians give to parents to evaluate toddlers’ behaviour. The scores were compared for children born during and before the pandemic and children with and without in-utero exposure to COVID. All the children were screened between 16 and 30 months of age.

Reassuring results 

The researchers found no difference in positive autism screenings between children born before the pandemic and those born during the pandemic.

“COVID is still quite prevalent, so this is comforting news for pregnant individuals who are worried about getting sick and the potential impact on autism risk,” Dumitriu says.

Surprisingly, the study also found that fewer children exposed to COVID in utero screened positive for autism compared with children whose moms did not have COVID.

“We suspect that experiencing COVID during pregnancy may have affected how parents evaluated their child’s behaviours,” Dumitriu explains. “Parents who did not have COVID may have experienced higher stress due to constant worry about getting sick and being vigilant about preventing infection. This might have made them more likely to report concerning child behaviours.”

Could autism show up later in childhood?  

As the children age, the researchers will continue to monitor them for autism diagnoses. But based on the current results, Dumitriu thinks it unlikely that an uptick in autism related to COVID will occur.

“Children who were in the womb early in the pandemic are now reaching the age when early indicators of autism would emerge, and we’re not seeing them in this study,” Dumitriu says. “And because it’s well-known that the prenatal environment influences autism, this is highly reassuring.”

However, other impairments may emerge later, and the researchers will continue to study the children’s neurodevelopment as they age.

Several studies of infants who were in utero during previous pandemics, natural disasters, famines, and wartime have shown that other neurodevelopmental conditions, potentially triggered by the stressful environment, can emerge in adolescence and even early adulthood. 

“We need to recognize the distinct experiences and environment of children born during the pandemic, including parental stress and social isolation. We should continue to monitor them for potential developmental or psychiatric differences,” said Morgan Firestein, the study’s first author and an associate research scientist in psychiatry.

Great news for people with multiple sclerosis – the COVID-19 vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of relapse.

Researchers identified immune cells as a potential key factor for protection against MS disease

“People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are at higher risk of severe coronavirus infection. However, there has been concern about potential relapse after vaccination. A recent study discovered that people with MS may not face a greater risk of relapse after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This study was published in the online issue of Neurology®,

“People with MS face a higher risk of severe COVID infection due to their level of motor disability or exposure to treatments that suppress their immune systems,” said study author Xavier Moisset, MD, PhD, of Clermont Auvergne University in Clermont-Ferrand, France. “Some previous studies have shown relapses after vaccination, causing some people to skip the recommended booster doses. The good news is that our study found no increased risk of relapse after COVID-19 vaccination for nearly all participants.”

Researchers discovered a small increase in relapse risk after a booster dose for patients with high MS activity. This was particularly evident in individuals who experienced at least two relapses in the previous two years, especially those who were not taking any MS medications.

The study included 124,545 individuals with MS in France. They had been living with MS for an average of 14 years and were monitored for 45 days after receiving the vaccine. This period was chosen because potential vaccine-induced relapses typically occur within 28 days after vaccination.

During the study, 102,524 individuals, representing 82% of the participants, received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Among them, 95% completed the full vaccination regimen by receiving a second dose, and 59% received an additional booster dose.

In the 45 days following vaccination, researchers examined relapses that required treatment with high-dose corticosteroids.

“After adjusting for other factors that could affect the likelihood of a relapse, such as the time of year and the effect of disease-modifying therapy, researchers found that COVID-19 vaccination did not increase the risk of severe relapse. These results remained consistent after each dose.”

To confirm the findings, researchers compared people who had relapses with those who did not. Once again, they found no increased risk of vaccine exposure. Instead, they identified a slight decrease in relapse risk following vaccination.

“Our findings are reassuring: these vaccines can be used without any worry about the risk of relapse,” Moisset said. “The absence of such a risk is encouraging for people with MS. They may receive booster shots when needed, especially if booster shots are to be repeated in the future.”

“Moisset emphasized extra caution when considering booster vaccinations for patients with high inflammatory activity. It’s important for these patients to first receive disease-modifying treatment. Undertreated individuals and those with highly active disease showed a slightly increased risk after receiving the third vaccine dose. The risk was highest when both factors were combined.”

Feeling rough after your COVID-19 shot? Congratulations, it’s working!

Headache, chills, and tiredness may be evidence of a supercharged defence, according to a UCSF-led study. 

Fewer than 1 in 4 people in the United States have received last year’s updated COVID-19 vaccine, despite a death toll of more than 23,000 Americans this year. 
 
One of the most common reasons for bypassing the COVID-19 vaccine is concern about side effects like tiredness, muscle and joint pain, chills, headache, fever, nausea and feeling generally unwell. However, a new study led by UC San Francisco found that the symptoms indicate a robust immune response likely to lessen the chances of infection. 


 
The study, which appears online on June 10 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on symptom reports and antibody responses from 363 people who had the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccines when they were first introduced.  
 
After the second dose of the vaccine, the researchers found that those with seven or more symptoms had nearly double the antibody levels of those who did not have symptoms. The participants were mainly in their forties to sixties and had no virus. 
 
About 40% of the study participants also wore a device to monitor their temperature, breathing and heart rate. The researchers found that those whose skin temperature increased by 1 degree Celsius after the second dose had three times the antibody levels six months later than those whose temperature did not increase. 
 
An absence of side effects does not mean the vaccine is not working. 
 
“Generally, we found that the higher the number of side effects, the higher the level of antibodies,” said first author Ethan Dutcher, “But this wasn’t a hard rule: some people without side effects had better antibodies than some people with side effects.” 
 
As the virus has evolved and fatality rates have fallen, many people are underestimating its impact. “The toll of COVID is still high for some – sickness, lost work, lasting fatigue and the dreaded long COVID,” said co-senior author Elissa Epel, PhD, a vice chair in the UCSF Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. “While the symptoms from vaccination can be very unpleasant, it’s important to remember that they don’t come close to the disease’s potential complications,” she said. 
 
“With COVID-19 vaccines likely here to stay, identifying what predicts a strong antibody response will remain important,” said co-senior author Aric Prather, PhD, professor in the UCSF Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 
 
The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations are that everyone 6 months and older should receive the updated vaccine, and those 65 and older should receive an additional dose.