Pedestrian Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID pandemic provides a natural experiment examining how a 50-60% reduction in pedestrian activity might lead to a reduction in pedestrian deaths. We assessed whether the reduction in pedestrian deaths was proportional to a one-to-one matching presumed in statistics correlating mobility with fatality. The primary analysis examined New York (largest city in US), and the validation analysis examined Toronto (largest city in Canada). We identified pedestrian activity in each location from the Apple Mobility database, normalized to the baseline in January 2020. We calculated monthly pedestrian deaths from the Vision Zero database in each city with baseline data from 3 prior years. We found a large initial reduction in pedestrian deaths during the lockdown in New York that was transient and not statistically significant during the summer and autumn despite sustained reductions in pedestrian activity. Similarly, we found a large initial reduction in pedestrian deaths during the lockdown in Toronto that was transient and not sustained. Together, these data suggest the substantial reductions in pedestrian activity during the COVID pandemic have no simple correlation with pedestrian fatality counts in the same locations. An awareness of this finding emphasizes the role of unmeasured modifiable individual factors beyond pedestrian infrastructure or other structural contributors.

The Fallacy of a Single Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic reasoning requires clinicians to think through complex uncertainties. We tested the possibility of a bias toward an available single diagnosis in uncertain cases. DESIGN: We developed 5 different surveys providing a succinct description of a hypothetical individual patient scenaric. Each scenario was formulated in 2 versions randomized to participants, with the versions differing only in whether an alternative diagnosis was present or absent. The 5 scenarios were designed as separate tests of robustness using diverse cases, including a cautious scenario, a risky scenario, a sophisticated scenario, a validation scenario, and a comparative scenario (each survey containing only 1 version of 1 scenario). Participants included community members (n = 1104) and health care professionals (n = 200) who judged the chances of COVID infection in an individual patient. RESULTS: The first scenario described a cautious patient and found a 47% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID when a flu diagnosis was present compared with absent (odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.94, P = 0.003). The second scenario described a less cautious patient and found a 70% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID in the presence of a flu diagnosis (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.70, P < 0.001). The third was a more sophisticated scenario presented to medical professionals and found a 73% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID in the presence of a mononucleosis diagnosis (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.75, P < 0.001). Two further scenarios-avoiding mention of population norms-replicated the results. LIMITATIONS: Brief hypothetical scenarios may overestimate the extent of bias in more complicated medical situations. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that an available simple diagnosis can lead individuals toward premature closure and a failure to fully consider additional severe diseases. HIGHLIGHTS: Occum's razor has been debated for centuries yet rarely subjected to experimental testing for evidence-based medicine.This article offers direct evidence that people favor an available simple diagnosis, thereby neglecting to consider additional serious diseases.The bias can lead individuals to mistakenly lower their judged likelihood of COVID or another disease when an alternate diagnosis is present.This misconception over the laws of probability appears in judgments by community members and by health care workers.The pitfall in reasoning extends to high-risk cases and is not easily attributed to information, incentives, or random chance.

COVID Vaccine Hesitancy and Risk of a Traffic Crash.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID) vaccine hesitancy is a reflection of psychology that might also contribute to traffic safety. We tested whether COVID vaccination was associated with the risks of a traffic crash. METHODS: We conducted a population-based longitudinal cohort analysis of adults and determined COVID vaccination status through linkages to individual electronic medical records. Traffic crashes requiring emergency medical care were subsequently identified by multicenter outcome ascertainment of all hospitals in the region over a 1-month follow-up interval (178 separate centers). RESULTS: A total of 11,270,763 individuals were included, of whom 16% had not received a COVID vaccine and 84% had received a COVID vaccine. The cohort accounted for 6682 traffic crashes during follow-up. Unvaccinated individuals accounted for 1682 traffic crashes (25%), equal to a 72% increased relative risk compared with those vaccinated (95% confidence interval, 63-82; P < 0.001). The increased traffic risks among unvaccinated individuals extended to diverse subgroups, was similar to the relative risk associated with sleep apnea, and was equal to a 48% increase after adjustment for age, sex, home location, socioeconomic status, and medical diagnoses (95% confidence interval, 40-57; P < 0.001). The increased risks extended across the spectrum of crash severity, appeared similar for Pfizer, Moderna, or other vaccines, and were validated in supplementary analyses of crossover cases, propensity scores, and additional controls. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID vaccination.

Cross-sectional survey of the Mental health and Addictions effects, Service impacts and Care needs of children, youth and families during the COVID-19 pandemic: the COVID-19 MASC study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous negative effect on the mental health and well-being of Canadians. These mental health challenges are especially acute among vulnerable Canadian populations. People living in Canada's most populous province, Ontario, have spent prolonged time in lockdown and under public health measures and there is a gap in our understanding of how this has impacted the mental health system. This protocol describes the Mental health and Addictions Service and Care Study that will use a repeated cross-sectional design to examine the effects, impacts, and needs of Ontario adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cross-sectional survey of Ontario adults 18 years or older, representative of the provincial population based on age, gender and location was conducted using Delvinia's AskingCanadians panel from January to March 2022. Study sample was 2500 in phases 1 and 2, and 5000 in phase 3. The Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test and Diagnostic Statistical Manual-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure-Adult were used to assess for substance and mental health concerns. Participants were asked about mental health and addiction service-seeking and/or accessing prior to and during the pandemic. Analyses to be conducted include: predictors of service access (ie, sociodemographics, mental illness and/or addiction, and social supports) before and during the pandemic, and χ2 tests and logistic regressions to analyse for significant associations between variables and within subgroups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Sunnybrook Research Ethics Board. Dissemination plans include scientific publications and conferences, and online products for stakeholders and the general public.

Telemedicine use and outcomes after transient ischemic attack and minor stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in telemedicine use. We compared care and outcomes in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke before and after the widespread adoption of telemedicine in Ontario, Canada, in 2020. METHODS: In a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data, we identified patients with TIA or ischemic stroke discharged from any emergency department in Ontario before the widespread use of telemedicine (Apr. 1, 2015, to Mar. 31, 2020) and after (Apr. 1, 2020, to Mar. 31, 2021). We measured care, including visits with a physician, investigations and medication renewal. We compared 90-day death before and after 2020 using Cox proportional hazards models, and we compared 90-day admission using cause-specific hazard models. RESULTS: We identified 47 601 patients (49.3% female; median age 73, interquartile range 62-82, yr) with TIA (n = 35 695, 75.0%) or ischemic stroke (n = 11 906, 25.0%). After 2020, 83.1% of patients had 1 or more telemedicine visit within 90 days of emergency department discharge, compared with 3.8% before. The overall access to outpatient visits within 90 days remained unchanged (92.9% before v. 94.0% after; risk difference 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3 to 3.5). Investigations and medication renewals were unchanged. Clinical outcomes were also similar before and after 2020; the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.04) for 90-day all-cause admission, 1.06 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.20) for stroke admission and 1.07 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) for death. INTERPRETATION: Care and short-term outcomes after TIA or minor stroke remained stable after the widespread implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that telemedicine is an effective method of health care delivery that can be complementary to in-person care for minor ischemic cerebrovascular events.

Long-term mortality of academy award winning actors and actresses.

BACKGROUND: Social status gradients are powerful health determinants for individuals living in poverty. We tested whether winning an Academy award (Oscar) for acting was associated with long-term survival. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort analysis of all actors and actresses nominated for an Academy award in a leading or a supporting role. For each, a control was identified based on age, sex, and co-staring in the same film. RESULTS: Overall, 2,111 individuals were analyzed with 1,122 total deaths occurring during a median follow-up of 68.8 years. Comparisons of winners to controls yielded a 4.8% relative difference average life-span (95% confidence interval: 1.6 to 7.9, p = 0.004), a 5.1 year absolute increase in life expectancy (95% confidence interval: 3.0 to 7.2, p < 0.001), and a 41% improvement in mortality hazard (95% confidence interval: 19 to 68, p < 0.001). The increased survival tended to be greater in recent years, for individuals winning at a younger age, and among those with multiple wins. The increased survival replicated in secondary analyses comparing winners to nominees and was not observed in analyses comparing nominees to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Academy award winning actors and actresses show a positive association between success and survival, suggesting the importance of behavioral, psychological, or other modifiable health factors unrelated to poverty.