Why this is the worst flu season in 15 years
This flu season has also been "highly unpredictable," Nagata explains, with multiple waves of flu infections and both H1N1 and H3N2 strains circulating at the same time. The virus normally only sees one peak per season and has a strong predominance of one strain over another, so multiple peaks and two strains sharing the same stage is unusual.
One preliminary report indicates that such unpredictability may have made this year's flu shots a poorer match with the virus than in previous years—but there isn't enough data yet to know if that's actually the case, explains Jason Newland, chief of infectious diseases at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Ohio. "We do know that even in mismatched years or where the effectiveness isn't as good, we still get some protection against severe disease," he says.
Likely the biggest contributing factor behind this year's abnormally high number of flu cases is that many people aren't getting the vaccine at all. "Flu vaccination rates have declined, which is a major cause of the surge," says Elizabeth Mack, a physician and the head of the pediatric critical care unit at the Medical University of South Carolina's Children's Health.
(How the additives in your vaccines rev up your immune system.)
Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that as of February 1, 146.5 million doses of the vaccine were given in the country, while data from the same week last year shows 156.9 million people received the shot—a 7 percent decline. 'Flu vaccination rates are at their lowest level in years, with fewer than half of Americans currently immunized," says Nagata.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Salmon Recall Update as FDA Sets Most Serious Risk Level
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced its classification of Santa Monica Seafood Company's recall of its "Atlantic Salmon Portions with Seafood Stuffing" product as the highest risk category. The FDA classified the recall as a Class I, due to the fact the product contained an undeclared allergen—soy. Newsweek has contacted Santa Monica Seafood Company outside of regular hours via email for comment. Why It Matters Soy is one of the nine major allergens alongside tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, sesame, milk, eggs, fish and crustacean shellfish. While it is not the most common allergy in the country, almost 2 million Americans cannot eat soy, according to a report by Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE). For Americans with food allergies, products that do not have clear allergen information pose high and even life-threatening risks. Allergic reactions can vary from milder symptoms to severe skin reactions, sneezing, vomiting or life-threatening airway swelling. A photo of the affected product in the Santa Monica Seafood Company. A photo of the affected product in the Santa Monica Seafood Company. FDA What To Know Santa Monica Seafood recalled its "Atlantic Salmon Portions with Seafood Stuffing" on May 24, and the FDA proceeded to classify the recall on June 12. A Class I classification indicates it is a situation in which "there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death." The affected product was sold in 16 oz packages, with a lot number of 197940521, a use or freeze by date of June 2, 2025, and a UPC 4061459716313. In total, 150 cases of the product were distributed to Aldi stores in California, Nevada, and Arizona. The company identified the issue during an inspection of label proofs from a completed production batch, when it was found that the allergen, soy, was not listed in the ingredients. "This labeling error means that individuals with a soy allergy may unknowingly consume the product," the company said in its announcement. No allergic reactions connected to this recall had been reported as of May 24, and the FDA did not disclose if any had been reported in its classification update. What People Are Saying James R. Baker Jr., a professor of biologic nanotechnology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, told Newsweek: "A person with soy allergy would react immediately after they ate a contaminated food. In that it could be within actually a few minutes of eating, they can experience reactions such as a skin, rash or swelling, trouble breathing, and that could evolve into dangerously low blood pressure. There may be a little warning of this type of allergic reaction however, they may notice some tingling in their lips or tongue before the more serious elements of the reaction occur." What Happens Next Consumers with soy allergies who purchased the recalled salmon are urged not to eat it and to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. For questions, consumers may contact Santa Monica Seafood at 1-800-969-8862, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
House tax-and-spending bill and other Trump administration changes could make millions of people lose their health insurance coverage
President Donald Trump has promised not to cut Medicaid many times over the past decade, including in the tax-and-spending legislative package he has made a top priority in his second administration. But several provisions in the bill, which the House of Representatives passed in a largely party-line 215-214 vote in May 2025, could cause millions of Americans enrolled in Medicaid to lose their health insurance coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and the states. The program provides nearly 80 million Americans, most of whom are low-income or have disabilities, with health insurance. The legislation, which advances Trump's agenda, faces a tough battle in the Senate despite the Republican Party majority in that chamber. Several GOP senators have either said they oppose it or have expressed strong reservations for a variety of reasons, including the trillions of dollars the package would add to the U.S. government's debt. As a scholar who researches access to health care, I am concerned about the possibility that millions of people will lose their health insurance coverage should this bill become law. In many cases, that could occur due to new bureaucratic obstacles the bill would introduce. About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million in 2010. Most of this 46% decline occurred because of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides evidence-supported information to Congress, estimates that 10.9 million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034 if the House of Representatives' version of that package were to become law. Of these, as many as 7.8 million would lose access to Medicaid. Another 2.1 million people who the CBO estimates would end up uninsured are Americans who today have coverage they bought in the marketplaces that the Affordable Care Act created. In addition to the measures in the tax-and-spending bill, other changes are looming. These include the expiration of some ACA-related measures adopted in 2021 that Trump does not intend to renew, and new regulations. All told, the number of Americans losing their health insurance by 2034 could total 16 million, according to the CBO. Other estimates suggest that the number of Americans losing their coverage could run even higher. The House bill would reduce incentives the federal government provides states to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the ACA. Eliminating these incentives would make it even less likely that Texas and the other nine states that still have not expanded Medicaid eligibility would do so in the future. The bill would also make it harder for states to come up with their share of Medicaid funding by limiting 'provider taxes.' These taxes are charged to hospitals, doctors and other medical providers. The revenue they raise help pay for the state's share of Medicaid costs. And the legislative package would also reduce federal funding to cover Medicaid costs in states that provide coverage to unauthorized immigrants using only their own funds. Threatened with billions in losses, the states that do this are unlikely to maintain these programs. In California alone, this would jeopardize the coverage of 1.6 million of its residents. Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care. Other proposed changes in the House bill would indirectly cut Medicaid coverage by forcing people to deal with more red tape to get or keep it. This would happen primarily through the introduction of 'work requirements' for Medicaid coverage. When enrolled in the program, applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old would need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service. Work requirements specifically target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than the other people eligible for this benefit. Arkansas gave Medicaid work requirements a try during the first Trump administration. Researchers who studied what happened found that 1 in 4 of the Arkansans enrolled in Medicaid affected by the policy lost their health insurance coverage. They also found that in most cases, this occurred because of bureaucratic obstacles, and that the policy didn't lead to more people getting jobs. By some estimates, the work requirements provision alone would lead to close to 5 million people of the 7.8 million being denied Medicaid coverage. At the same time, the bill would increase how often Medicaid beneficiaries have to reapply to the program to keep their coverage from once every 12 months to twice a year. It also would delay or reverse several policies that made it easier for Americans to enroll in Medicaid and maintain their coverage. Many of those who aren't kicked out would also face either new or higher co-payments for appointments and procedures – restricting their access to health care, even if they don't wind up without insurance. There is ample evidence that obstacles like these make it hard to remain enrolled in safety net programs. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income, people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well. The bill would also affect the more than 24 million Americans who get health insurance through Affordable Care Act Marketplace plans. Changes in the House version of the bill would make it harder to get this coverage. This includes reducing the time Americans have to enroll in plans and eliminating certain subsidies. It also makes the enrollment process more complicated. Combined with other changes the Trump administration has made, experts expect Marketplace premiums to skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office expects more than 2 million beneficiaries to lose coverage due to these new policies. Americans buying their own insurance on the ACA marketplaces may also face higher premiums. Increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Combined with Trump regulatory decisions, this may lead to more than 5 million Americans losing coverage – whether or not the GOP's tax-and-spending package is enacted. The effects of the bill would also be compounded by further changes by individual states. This could include the introduction of monthly premiums that people with Medicaid coverage would have to pay, in Indiana and other states. Some states may also reduce eligibility for certain groups or cover fewer services, as states seek to reduce their Medicaid costs. And some states, including Iowa and Utah, are already pursuing work requirements on their own whether or not they become mandatory across the nation. If fewer Americans have health insurance due to changes the Trump administration is making and the policies embedded in the pending tax-and-spending legislative package, the health of millions of people could get worse due to forgone care. And at the same time, their medical debts could grow larger. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Simon F. Haeder, Texas A&M University Read more: US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians There's no evidence work requirements for Medicaid recipients will boost employment, but they are a key piece of Republican spending bill Work requirements are better at blocking benefits for low-income people than they are at helping those folks find jobs Dr. Simon F. Haeder has previously received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated projects.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed
As part of the Trump administration's efforts aimed at stopping diversity, equity and inclusion, the government has been restricting how it monitors public health. Along with cuts to federally funded research, the administration has targeted public health efforts to gather information about sexual orientation and gender identity. In the early days of the second Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data and documents that included sexual orientation and gender identity from its webpages. For example, data codebooks for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were replaced with versions that deleted gender identity variables. The Trump administration also ordered the CDC to delete gender identity from the National Violent Death Reporting System, the world's largest database for informing prevention of homicide and suicide deaths. For many people, sexual orientation and gender identity may seem private and personal. So why is personal information necessary for public health? Decades of research have shown that health problems affect some groups more than others. As someone who has studied differences in health outcomes for over 15 years, I know that one of the largest health disparities for LGBTQ+ people is suicide risk. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, public health cannot do the work to sound the alarm on and address issues that affect not just specific communities, but society as a whole. Health is determined by the interplay of several factors, including a person's genetics, environment and personal life. Of these types of health information, data on personal lives can be the most difficult to collect because researchers must rely on people to voluntarily share this information with them. But details about people's everyday lives are critical to understanding their health. Consider veteran status. Without information that identifies which Americans are military veterans, the U.S. would never have known that the rate of suicide deaths among veterans is several times higher than that of the general population. Identifying this problem encouraged efforts to reduce suicide among veterans and military service personnel. Studying the rates of different conditions occurring in different groups of people is a vital role of public health monitoring. First, rates can set off alarm bells. When people are counted, it becomes easier to pick up a problem that needs to be addressed. Second, rates can be a benchmark. Once the extent of a health problem is known, researchers can develop and test interventions. They can then determine if rates of that health problem decreased, stayed the same or increased after the intervention. My team reviewed available research on how sexual orientation and gender identity are related to differences in mortality. The results were grim. Of the 49 studies we analyzed, the vast majority documented greater rates of death from all causes for LGBTQ+ people compared with people who aren't LGBTQ+. Results were worse for suicide: Nearly all studies reported that suicide deaths were more frequent among LGBTQ+ people. A great deal of other research supports this finding. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, these issues are erased. Higher death rates among LGBTQ+ people affect everyone, not just people in the LGBTQ+ community. And when suicide is a major driver of these death rates, the costs increase. There are societal costs. Deaths from suicide result in lost productivity and medical services that cost the U.S. an estimated $484 billion per year. There are also human costs. Research suggests that for every suicide death, about 135 people are directly affected by the loss, experiencing grief, sadness and anger. President Donald Trump's targeting of research on sexual orientation and gender identity comes at a time when more Americans than ever – an estimated 24.4 million adults – identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That's more than the entire population of Florida. LGBTQ+ people live in every state in the country, where they work as teachers, executives, janitors, nurses, mechanics, artists and every other profession or role that help sustain American communities. LGBTQ+ people are someone's family members, and they are raising families of their own. LGBTQ+ people also pay taxes to the government, which are partly spent on monitoring the nation's health. Stopping data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity does not protect women, or anyone else, as the Trump administration claims. Rather, it serves to weaken American public health. I believe counting all Americans is the path to a stronger, healthier nation because public health can then do its duty of detecting when a community needs help. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: John R. Blosnich, University of Southern California Read more: Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans Trans youth are significantly more likely to attempt suicide when gender dysphoria is met with conversion therapy than with hormone treatment RFK Jr's shakeup of vaccine advisory committee raises worries about scientific integrity of health recommendations John R. Blosnich receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however all time and effort into writing this piece was done outside of his work with the VA. The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Blosnich and do not necessarily represent those of his institution, funders, or any affiliations.
