Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Reviews: "Effect of Park Use and Landscape Structure on COVID-19 Transmission Rates"

Reviewer: J Messina (University of Oxford) | 📗📗📗📗

Published onMar 10, 2022
Reviews: "Effect of Park Use and Landscape Structure on COVID-19 Transmission Rates"
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Associations between COVID-19 transmission rates, park use, and landscape structure
Description

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has had severe impacts on global public health. In England, social distancing measures and a nationwide lockdown were introduced to reduce the spread of the virus. Green space accessibility may have been particularly important during this lockdown, as it could have provided benefits for physical and mental wellbeing. However, the associations between public green space use and the rate of COVID-19 transmission are yet to be quantified, and as the size and accessibility of green spaces vary within England’s local authorities, the risks and benefits to the public of using green space may be context-dependent. To evaluate how green space affected COVID-19 transmission across 299 local authorities (small regions) in England, we calculated a daily case rate metric, based upon a seven-day moving average, for each day within the period June 1st - November 30th 2020 and assessed how baseline health and mobility variables influenced these rates. Next, looking at the residual case rates, we investigated how landscape structure (e.g. area and patchiness of green space) and park use influenced transmission. We first show that reducing mobility is associated with a decline in case rates, especially in areas with high population clustering. After accounting for known mechanisms behind transmission rates, we found that park use (showing a preference for park mobility) was associated with decreased residual case rates, especially when green space was low and contiguous (not patchy). Our results support that a reduction in overall mobility may be a good strategy for reducing case rates, endorsing the success of lockdown measures. However, if mobility is necessary, outdoor park use may be safer than other forms of mobility and associated activities (e.g. shopping or office-based working).

To read the original manuscript, click the link above.

Reviewer 1 (Janey M…) | 📗📗📗📗◻️

RR:C19 Strength of Evidence Scale Key

📕 ◻️◻️◻️◻️ = Misleading

📙📙 ◻️◻️◻️ = Not Informative

📒📒📒 ◻️◻️ = Potentially Informative

📗📗📗📗◻️ = Reliable

📘📘📘📘📘 = Strong

To read the reviews, click the links below. 


Comments
3
?
will james:

The study "Effect of Park Use and Landscape Structure on COVID-19 Transmission Rates" examines the correlation between park utilization and COVID-19 transmission. It analyzes the impact of landscape structure on infection rates, providing valuable insights for public health policies. The research methodology and data analysis are thorough, contributing to the scientific understanding of pandemic mitigation strategies. https://boosty.to/homegym/posts/c1ce4fac-da62-4480-910e-8f84e2b0b7ae

?
willd Robrt:

If you're looking for a stress-free moving experience, I highly recommend https://www.homemovesmadeeasy.com/. Their team of experts takes care of everything, from packing to unpacking, so you can focus on settling into your new home.

Vape Factory:

Unauthorized Breeze and Esco Bar Disposables: FDA Issues Warning Letters

In recent news, the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has taken a strong stance by issuing warning letters to the manufacturers of Breeze and Esco Bar disposable vapes. These letters order the companies to remove their products from the market, giving them a window of 15 business days to either dispute the allegations or respond accordingly.

The FDA's actions come on the heels of significant developments in the industry. Just last week, six Chinese exporters of Esco Bar products, including the manufacturer Innokin, found themselves added to the FDA's "red list." This list identifies shippers whose Esco Bar shipments can be detained at ports of entry without inspection. Furthermore, Elf Bar shipments were also included in the import alert, signifying the increased scrutiny on disposable vapes.

These recent enforcement actions are part of a broader wave of initiatives promised by CTP Director Brian King during his recent speeches and discussions. The FDA is facing mounting pressure from lawmakers, tobacco control groups, and even tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds to crack down on flavored disposable vapes that have gained immense popularity over the past couple of years.

Director King, in a press release, stated that the FDA will utilize all available tools within their regulatory toolbox to ensure that those involved in the production, distribution, or sale of illegal e-cigarette products are held accountable. Firms that receive warning letters have 15 days to respond, outlining how they plan to address the violation. Failure to adequately address the violation may result in various enforcement actions being taken against them.

The warning letters issued to Breeze Smoke, LLC and Shenzhen Innokin Technology Co., Ltd., rightly highlight that the products mentioned have not received authorization for sales in the United States from the FDA. However, it is worth noting that thousands of other products with premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) pending before the agency continue to remain on the market.

At present, all unauthorized products exist on the market due to the FDA's enforcement discretion. This includes both the aforementioned products and those produced by mass-market vape manufacturers like JUUL and Vuse Alto. Interestingly, the FDA seems to have chosen to enforce against the products that R.J. Reynolds has specifically targeted, while leaving untouched their own popular product, the Vuse Alto.

These recent FDA actions may indicate a shift in the agency's approach. It is possible that pending PMTAs will no longer be considered when deciding which companies to enforce against.

Regarding Esco Bar, it is believed that they submitted pending PMTAs during a brief window in 2022 when the FDA accepted applications for synthetic nicotine-based vape products. Unlike the first round of PMTA submissions, where the FDA published a list of the submitted products, no public list of PMTAs submitted for "non-tobacco nicotine" (NTN) products has been issued.

On the other hand, Breeze Smoke faced marketing denial orders (MDOs) for several products in 2021. In response, the company swiftly filed a petition for review in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite being denied a stay pending appeal, Breeze Smoke sought a stay from the Supreme Court while awaiting a full review by the circuit court. However, the Supreme Court declined to grant a stay, leading Breeze Smoke to voluntarily withdraw its petition for review just two weeks before the scheduled oral arguments.

It's important to note that the Breeze products mentioned in the FDA's warning letter were not among the MDOs that Breeze Smoke previously contested in court. As for the current status of the products sold by Breeze Smoke, whether they have pending PMTAs with the FDA remains unknown.

Conclusion

The FDA's warning letters to the vape manufacturers of Breeze and Esco Bar disposables mark a significant step towards stricter regulation of the flavored disposable vape industry. With mounting pressure from various stakeholders, the FDA is taking action to ensure accountability and address the unauthorized sale of e-cigarette products. While the enforcement actions may signal a shift in the agency's approach, the impact on the market and pending PMTAs is yet to be fully determined.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

Q: Why did the FDA issue warning letters to the manufacturers of Breeze and Esco Bar disposables?
A: The FDA took action to address the unauthorized sale of e-cigarette products and hold the manufacturers accountable.

Q: What is the deadline given to the companies to respond to the FDA's warning letters?
A: The companies have 15 business days to dispute the allegations or respond to the warning letters.

Q: Are there other products on the market without FDA authorization?
A: Yes, there are thousands of products with pending premarket tobacco applications (PMTAs) before the agency.

Q: Will pending PMTAs be considered in future enforcement actions?
A: The recent FDA actions suggest that pending PMTAs may no longer be a determining factor in deciding which companies to enforce against.

Q: What is the status of Breeze Smoke's previous marketing denial orders (MDOs) in court?
A: The products referenced in the FDA's warning letter were not among the MDOs challenged by Breeze Smoke in court.