From FiveThirtyEight.com (April 13, 2020):




Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent physical therapy had less pain and functional disability at 1 year than patients who received an intraarticular glucocorticoid injection.

Osteoarthritis of the knee is a leading cause of disability.1 Current management is typically limited to the treatment of symptoms until late stages of arthritis lead to knee replacement.2 Intraarticular glucocorticoid injections are commonly used as a primary treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee,3 but there are conflicting reports regarding the extent and duration of the relief of symptoms with this therapy.4-6 Complications from these injections occur infrequently but include joint infection,7 accelerated degradation of articular cartilage,8 and subchondral insufficiency fractures.9
The physical therapy intervention, which is described in the protocol,26 included instructions and images for exercises, joint mobilizations, and the clinical reasoning underlying the priorities, dosing, and progression of treatment. During a typical clinical session, the physical therapist would implement hands-on, manual techniques immediately before the patient performed reinforcing exercises to help the patient perform the movements with little or no pain. For example, if a patient could not fully extend or flex the knee, or those movements were painful, the physical therapist would use a hands-on, passive mobilizing technique to repeatedly move the knee to reduce stiffness while altering the mechanics of the technique to avoid pain. The patient would then perform repeated active knee movements in the same direction.
More than 6 million people worldwide have Parkinson disease. Even though it is classically associated with tremors, the disease has many manifestations and is very treatable for most patients.Michael S. Okun, MD, from the Department of Neurology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, discusses the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of Parkinson disease.
From web post by Michael B. Edmond (April 11, 2020):
Our goal should be to have a face shield for every person in the country. It should be worn anytime a person leaves their home, while in any public place, and even at work. From news reports, it appears that face shields are already being more commonly worn in other nations, particularly in some Asian countries.
The advantages of face shields are their durability allowing them to be worn an indefinite number of times, the ability to easily clean them after use, their comfort, and they prevent the wearer from touching their face. Importantly, they cover all the portals of entry for this virus–the eyes, the nose, and the mouth. Moreover, the supply chain is significantly more diversified than that of face masks, so availability is much greater.
Historically, the U.S. Centers for Disease control and Prevention has been the agency in charge of predicting, and containing outbreaks of disease. But as Covid 19 ravaged the country, the agency took a backseat to the White House.
Michelle Fay Cortez and John Tozzi discuss how the agency has handled the pandemic response, its early missteps, and how its role is likely to change in the future.
From a CityLab online article (April 10, 2020):
What might that mean for the bathrooms of the post-coronavirus world? Americans have already demonstrated a keen fixation with this household feature: In the last 50 years, the number of home bathrooms per person has doubled. One could easily see the lavatory-building boom accelerate further as future homeowners keep the needs of the self-quarantined in mind. And many have speculated that sales of bidet attachments will surge as toilet-paper shortages encourage Americans to embrace this more sustainable alternative.
Alter predicted that disease-avoidance would rise to the fore of bathroom design a few years ago, when he observed the traumatizing effects of the 2003 SARS outbreak on Toronto, which killed 44 people. But home design in general — and bathroom design in particular — has long been influenced by infectious disease.
The modern bathroom developed alongside outbreaks of tuberculosis, cholera and influenza; its standard fixtures, wallcoverings, floorings, and finishes were implemented, in part, to promote health and hygiene in the home at a time of widespread public health concerns.
From a The Architectural Review online article (April 9, 2020):
The sleep industry caters to a working consumer’s wish to sleep less, yet sleep more productively, and accommodates transnational industry which has joined the state as a custodian of biopolitics. Jonathan Crary’s 24/7 spells out in detail how the state and a capitalist economy are encroaching stupendously on the private sphere, in which sleep was one of the last vestiges of unfettered time.
About 15 years ago, someone calculated the financial loss US companies incurred through workers’ illicit practice of sleeping on the job. Indeed, the trope of the lazy sleeper is an old one, resignified at present in our more than callous attitude towards the homeless, whose sleeping bodies punctuate many a journey to and from work.
Even in this most passive stance – someone simply disregarding normative codes and regulations by giving in to a physical need – sleep seems suspiciously subversive. Less an act than a way of being, the sleeper, by sleeping when and where it is not condoned, challenges everyone else, who is doing/working/functioning/functionalised. Contrary to the tree falling in the forest, the sleeper in the workplace or in public space affects and thus ever so slightly transforms those around them.

From a The Guardian article (April 9, 2020):
A hundred days after a Chinese government website announced the discovery of a “pneumonia of unknown cause”, it has become clearer that the dynamics behind the virus’s rapid expansion across the globe has relied heavily on such “cluster effects”.
Each of the countries most heavily hit by the pandemic has reported similar stories of social, cultural or religious gatherings where large numbers spent numerous hours in close company – holding hands, kissing, sharing drinks from the same glass – which then turbo-charged the spread of the pandemic.
“Most infections didn’t take place in supermarkets or restaurants,” Streeck said of his preliminary findings. In Heinsberg, his team of coronavirus detectives could find scant evidence of the virus being transmitted via the surfaces of door handles, smart phones or other objects.
Presented by Sarah Dulaney, RN, CNS, a nurse at the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, and Helen Medsger, a family caregiver and LBD support group leader, as part of the Lewy Body Dementia Caregiver Webinar Series supported by the UCSF Memory and Aging Center and the Administration for Community Living.