
Many older people are really eager to be vaccinated
Tribune News Service
Kim Beckham, an insurance agent in Victoria, Texas, had seen friends suffer so badly from shingles that she wanted to receive the first approved shingles vaccine as soon as it became available, even if she had to pay for it out-of-pocket. Her doctor and several pharmacies turned her down because she was below the recommended age at the time, which was 60. So, in 2016, she celebrated her 60th birthday at her local CVS. 'I was there when they opened,' Beckham recalled. After getting her Zostavax shot, she said, 'I felt really relieved.' She has since received the newer, more effective shingles vaccine, as well as a pneumonia shot, an RSV vaccine to guard against respiratory syncytial virus, annual flu shots and all recommended COVID-19 vaccinations. Some older people are really eager to be vaccinated.
Robin Wolaner, 71, a retired publisher in Sausalito, California, has been known to badger friends who delay getting recommended shots, sending them relevant medical studies. 'I'm sort of hectoring,' she acknowledged. Deana Hendrickson, 66, who provides daily care for three young grandsons in Los Angeles, sought an additional MMR shot, though she was vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella as a child, in case her immunity to measles had waned. For older adults who express more confidence in vaccine safety than younger groups, the past few months have brought welcome research. Studies have found important benefits from a newer vaccine and enhanced versions of older ones, and one vaccine may confer a major bonus that nobody foresaw.
The new studies are coming at a fraught political moment. The nation's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has long disparaged certain vaccines, calling them unsafe and saying that the government officials who regulate them are compromised and corrupt. On June 9, Kennedy fired a panel of scientific advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and later replaced them with some who have been skeptical of vaccines. But so far, Kennedy has not tried to curb access to the shots for older Americans. The evidence that vaccines are beneficial remains overwhelming. The phrase 'Vaccines are not just for kids anymore' has become a favorite for William Schaffner, an infectious diseases specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 'The population over 65, which often suffers the worst impact of respiratory viruses and others, now has the benefit of vaccines that can prevent much of that serious illness,' he said.
Take influenza, which annually sends from 140,000 to 710,000 people to hospitals, most of them seniors, and is fatal to 10% of hospitalized older adults. For about 15 years, the CDC has approved several enhanced flu vaccines for people 65 and older. More effective than the standard formulation, they either contain higher levels of the antigen that builds protection against the virus or incorporate an adjuvant that creates a stronger immune response. Or they're recombinant vaccines, developed through a different method, with higher antigen levels. In a meta-analysis in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 'all the enhanced vaccine products were superior to the standard dose for preventing hospitalisations,' said Rebecca Morgan, a health research methodologist at Case Western Reserve University and an author of the study. Compared with the standard flu shot, the enhanced vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalization from the flu in older adults, by at least 11% and up to 18%. The CDC advises adults 65 and older to receive the enhanced vaccines, as many already do. More good news: Vaccines to prevent respiratory syncytial virus in people 60 and older are performing admirably.
RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants, and it also poses significant risks to older people. 'Season in and season out,' Schaffner said, 'it produces outbreaks of serious respiratory illness that rivals influenza.' Because the FDA first approved an RSV vaccine in 2023, the 2023-24 season provided 'the first opportunity to see it in a real-world context,' said Pauline Terebuh, an epidemiologist at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine and an author of a recent study in the journal JAMA Network Open. In analysing electronic health records for almost 800,000 patients, the researchers found the vaccines to be 75% effective against acute infection, meaning illness that was serious enough to send a patient to a health care provider. The vaccines were 75% effective in preventing emergency room or urgent care visits, and 75% effective against hospitalisation, both among those ages 60 to 74 and those older. Immunocompromised patients, despite having a somewhat lower level of protection from the vaccine, will also benefit from it, Terebuh said. As for adverse effects, the study found a very low risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition that causes muscle weakness and that typically follows an infection, in about 11 cases per 1 million doses of vaccine. That, she said, 'shouldn't dissuade people.' The CDC now recommends RSV vaccination for people 75 and older, and for those 60 to 74 if they're at higher risk of severe illness (from, say, heart disease).
As data from the 2024-25 season becomes available, researchers hope to determine whether the vaccine will remain a one-and-done, or whether immunity will require repeated vaccination. People 65 and up express the greatest confidence in vaccine safety of any adult group, a KFF survey found in April. More than 80% said they were 'very 'or 'somewhat confident' about MMR, shingles, pneumonia, and flu shots. Although the COVID vaccine drew lower support among all adults, more than two-thirds of older adults expressed confidence in its safety. Even skeptics might become excited about one possible benefit of the shingles vaccine: This spring, Stanford researchers reported that over seven years, vaccination against shingles reduced the risk of dementia by 20%, a finding that made headlines. Biases often undermine observational studies that compare vaccinated with unvaccinated groups. 'People who are healthier and more health-motivated are the ones who get vaccinated,' said Pascal Geldsetzer, an epidemiologist at the Knight Initiative for Brain Resilience at Stanford and lead author of the study.
'It's hard to know whether this is cause and effect,' he said, 'or whether they're less likely to develop dementia anyway.' So the Stanford team took advantage of a 'natural experiment' when the first shingles vaccine, Zostavax, was introduced in Wales. Health officials set a strict age cutoff: People who turned 80 on or before Sept. 1, 2013, weren't eligible for vaccination, but those even slightly younger were eligible.
In the sample of nearly 300,000 adults whose birthdays fell close to either side of that date, almost half of the eligible group received the vaccine, but virtually nobody in the older group did. 'Just as in a randomized trial, these comparison groups should be similar in every way,' Geldsetzer explained. A substantial reduction in dementia diagnoses in the vaccine-eligible group, with a much stronger protective effect in women, therefore constitutes 'more powerful and convincing evidence,' he said. The team also found reduced rates of dementia after shingles vaccines were introduced in Australia and other countries. 'We keep seeing this in one dataset after another,' Geldsetzer said. In the United States, where a more potent vaccine, Shingrix, became available in 2017 and supplanted Zostavax, Oxford investigators found an even stronger effect.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arabian Post
16 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Covid's Impact on Blood Vessels Raises Long-Term Health Concerns
New research has highlighted the significant long-term effects of Covid-19 on vascular health, revealing that even mild infections can accelerate the aging of blood vessels. The study shows that arterial stiffness increases by approximately five years, particularly in women, raising concerns about the long-term risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes. According to the findings, blood vessels of individuals who had contracted Covid-19 exhibit signs of premature aging, with the most striking effects seen in those who experienced mild cases of the virus. While severe Covid infections have been widely associated with acute damage to various organs, including the heart, this new evidence suggests that even mild or asymptomatic infections may carry hidden cardiovascular risks that could emerge years later. The phenomenon of accelerated vascular aging is believed to result from the inflammatory response triggered by the virus, which disrupts the normal functioning of blood vessels. This heightened inflammation leads to increased stiffness in the arteries, a condition that can result in poor blood flow and elevate the likelihood of future cardiovascular complications. The research underscores how Covid-19's effects extend beyond the acute phase of the infection, revealing lasting damage that may go undetected until much later in life. ADVERTISEMENT Experts suggest that women may be particularly vulnerable to this vascular aging, as the study found that they showed more pronounced arterial stiffness than men post-infection. This finding is concerning, given the growing body of research highlighting gender-specific differences in how Covid-19 impacts various aspects of health. Women, especially those in their middle age or older, may face an increased risk of developing hypertension or other heart-related conditions in the years following a mild Covid infection. Vaccinated individuals appear to have a degree of protection against the vascular changes associated with the virus. The study suggests that those who had received the Covid vaccine showed less arterial stiffness, implying that vaccination may reduce some of the long-term cardiovascular risks tied to the virus. This adds another layer of evidence supporting the benefits of vaccination, not just in preventing acute illness but also in mitigating potential long-term health consequences. While the findings are concerning, they also open the door to important preventative measures that can help mitigate the effects of vascular aging. Health professionals are advising individuals who have had Covid-19, particularly those who were mildly affected, to closely monitor their cardiovascular health. Regular check-ups, including blood pressure monitoring and cholesterol testing, may become even more crucial for those who have recovered from the virus. The long-term implications of Covid-19 on cardiovascular health are still being explored, with experts calling for further studies to better understand how these vascular changes could impact public health in the years ahead. Researchers also stress the importance of identifying early biomarkers of vascular damage, which could help in the development of treatments or interventions to reverse or slow down the process of arterial aging. As the pandemic continues to evolve and more data becomes available, the health community is grappling with the broader implications of Covid-19 beyond its immediate effects. While vaccines and public health measures have drastically reduced the number of severe cases, the subtle, long-term health consequences of mild infections may only be fully understood in the coming years.


Web Release
5 days ago
- Web Release
Barraquer Eye Hospital UAE Warns Parents About the Hidden Risks of Excessive Screen Time on Children's Vision during back to School preparations
As children across the UAE return to classrooms this month, Barraquer Eye Hospital UAE is urging parents and educators to take a closer look, literally, at the impact of screens on young eyes. With schoolwork increasingly moving online and recreational screen use at an all-time high, eye health experts are raising concerns about a silent but growing epidemic: vision problems in children linked to prolonged digital device use. From completing homework on tablets to chatting with friends on smartphones and watching videos on laptops, children today spend more hours in front of screens than ever before. A recent survey found that more than one-third of children in the UAE spend over seven hours a day using screens, far exceeding the safe limits recommended by the World Health Organization. Myopia, or nearsightedness is one of the most significant concerns linked to sustained near work on devices. According to a 2023 global meta-analysis of more than 335,000 children, each additional hour of daily screen use increases the risk of myopia by 21%. At four or more hours, the risk nearly doubles. 'This is not just about blurred vision,' explains Dr. Alina Mugnani Deza – a Specialist Ophthalmologist for Barraquer Eye Hospital UAE. 'Childhood myopia can progress rapidly, increasing the likelihood of serious eye diseases later in life. With so much learning and leisure happening on screens, parents must be proactive in protecting their children's eyes.' Beyond myopia, prolonged screen exposure can strain the retina due to high-energy blue light emitted by digital devices. While short-term effects include eye strain and disrupted sleep, some studies suggest chronic exposure in children may have longer-term consequences. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) is another growing concern, with symptoms such as dry eyes, headaches, blurred vision, and neck pain. Children are particularly vulnerable, as they may hold devices too close to their eyes or forget to take breaks. Barraquer Eye Hospital UAE advises parents and educators to take simple yet effective measures to protect children's vision during the school year. Limiting non-academic screen time—particularly for children under five is an important first step. Encouraging at least one to two hours of outdoor play each day helps reduce the risk of myopia, as natural light plays a protective role in healthy eye development. The hospital also recommends following the 20-20-20 rule, where every 20 minutes of screen use is followed by looking at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds. Adjusting screen settings, such as enabling blue-light filters, increasing font size, and lowering brightness, can further reduce strain. Most importantly, scheduling annual pediatric eye exams ensures that any vision changes are detected early, allowing for timely and effective intervention. 'With the right habits, we can prevent much of the vision damage caused by excessive screen use,' says Dr. Alina Mugnani Deza. 'Parents, teachers, and healthcare providers all have a role in ensuring that today's students can enjoy both the benefits of technology and a lifetime of healthy vision.' As the academic year begins, Barraquer Eye Hospital UAE invites parents to book comprehensive pediatric eye exams to set their children up for visual success—both inside and outside the classroom.


Gulf Today
6 days ago
- Gulf Today
Lawfully present immigrants help stabilise ACA plans
Bernard J. Wolfson, Tribune News Service If you want to create a perfect storm at Covered California and other Affordable Care Act marketplaces, all you have to do is make enrolment more time-consuming, ratchet up the toll on consumers' pocketbooks, and terminate financial aid for some of the youngest and healthiest enrollees. And presto: You've got people dropping coverage; rising costs; and a smaller, sicker group of enrollees, which translates to higher premiums. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have just checked that achievement off their list. They have done it with the sprawling tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed on July 4 and a related set of new regulations released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will govern how the ACA marketplaces are run. Among the many provisions, there's this: Large numbers of lawfully present immigrants currently enrolled in Obamacare health plans will lose their subsidies and be forced to pay full fare or drop their coverage. Wait. What? I understand that proponents of the new policies think the government spends too much on taxpayer subsidies, especially those who believe the ACA marketplaces are rife with fraud. It makes sense that they would support toughening enrolment and eligibility procedures and even slashing subsidies. But taking coverage away from people who live here legally is not health care policy. It's an echo of the federal immigration raids in Los Angeles and elsewhere. 'It's creating a very hostile environment for them, especially after having to leave their countries because of some very traumatic experiences,' says Arturo Vargas Bustamante, a professor of health policy and management at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. 'For those who believe health care is a human right, this is like excluding that population from something that should be a given.' In Covered California, 112,600 immigrants, or nearly 6% of total enrollees, stand to lose their federal tax subsidies when the policy takes effect in 2027, according to data provided by the exchange. In the Massachusetts and Maryland marketplaces, the figure is closer to 14%, according to their directors, Audrey Morse Gasteier and Michele Eberle, respectively. It's not clear exactly how much financial aid those immigrants currently receive in ACA marketplaces. But in Covered California, for example, the average for all subsidised enrollees is $561 per month, which covers 80% of the $698 average monthly premium per person. And immigrants, who tend to have lower-than-average incomes, are likely to get more of a subsidy. The immigrants who will lose their subsidies include victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, as well as refugees with asylum or with some temporary protected status. And 'Dreamers' will no longer be eligible for ACA marketplace health plans because they will not be considered lawfully present. Immigrants who are not in the country legally cannot get coverage through Covered California or most other ACA marketplaces. The nearly 540,000 Dreamers in the United States arrived in the US as kids without immigration papers and were granted temporary legal status by President Barack Obama in 2012. Of those, an estimated 11,000 have ACA health plans and would lose them, including 2,300 in Covered California. Supporters of the policy changes enshrined in the CMS rule and budget law think it's high time to rein in what they say are abuses in the system that started under the Biden administration with expanded tax credits and overly flexible enrollment policies. 'It's about making Obamacare lawful and implementing it as drafted rather than what Biden turned it into, which was a fraud and a waste-infused programme,' says Brian Blase, president of Arlington, Virginia-based Paragon Health Institute, which produces policy papers with a free-market bent and influenced the Republican-driven policies. But Blase doesn't have much to say about the termination of Obamacare subsidies for lawfully present immigrants. He says Paragon has not focused much on that subject. Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, expects most immigrants who lose subsidies will discontinue their enrolment. 'If you look at where those populations fall on the income scale, the vast majority are not going to be able to afford the full cost of the premium to stay covered,' she says. Apart from the human hardship cited by Bustamante, the exodus of immigrants could compromise the financial stability of coverage for the rest of Covered California's 1.9 million enrollees. That's because immigrants tend to be younger than the average enrollee and use fewer medical resources, thus helping offset the costs of older and sicker people who are more expensive to cover. Covered California data shows that immigrant enrollees targeted by the new federal policies pose significantly lower medical risk than US citizens. And a significantly higher percentage of immigrants in the exchange are ages 26 to 44, while 55- to 64-year-olds make up a smaller percentage. Still, it would be manageable if immigrants were the only younger people to leave the exchange. But that is unlikely to be the case. More red tape and higher out-of-pocket costs — especially if enhanced tax credits disappear — could lead a lot of young people to think twice about health insurance. The covid-era enhanced tax credits, which have more than doubled ACA marketplace enrollment since their advent in 2021, are set to expire at the end of December without congressional action. And, so far, Republicans in Congress do not seem inclined to renew them. Ending them would reverse much of that enrollment gain by jacking up the amount consumers would have to spend on premiums out of their own pockets by an average of 66% at Covered California and more than 75% nationally. And an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that a consequent exodus of younger, healthier people from the marketplaces would lead to even greater costs over time. Enhanced tax credits aside, consumers face additional hurdles: The annual enrolment period for Covered California and other marketplaces will be shorter than it is now. Special enrolment periods for people with the lowest incomes will be effectively eliminated. So will automatic renewals, which have greatly simplified the process for a majority of enrollees at Covered California and some other marketplaces. Enrollees will no longer be able to start subsidised coverage, as they can now, before all their information is fully verified. 'Who are the people who are going to decide to go through hours and hours of onerous paperwork?' says Morse Gasteier. 'They're people who have chronic conditions. They have health care issues they need to manage. The folks we would expect not to wade through all that red tape would be the younger, healthier folks.' California and 20 other states this month challenged some of that red tape in a federal lawsuit to stop provisions of the CMS rule that erect 'unreasonable barriers to coverage.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said he and his fellow attorneys general hoped for a court ruling before the rule takes effect on Aug.25. 'The Trump administration claims that their final rule will prevent fraud,' Bonta said. 'It's obvious what this is really about. It's yet another political move to punish vulnerable communities by removing access to vital care and gutting the Affordable Care Act.'