Novovax, the maker of the only protein-based COVID-19 vaccine available in the US announced that its shot is on track for full approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is an important development for the company. It has sent its stock soaring up to 21% on Wednesday morning for trading. It is said that this will also ease the fears of political interference that may have caused delay in the process.

Vaccine For Emergency Use Only

While the other mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have received full FDA approval for specific age groups, Novovax's vaccine still awaits the approval. It is only authorized for emergency use.

The emergency use authorization or the EUA allows vaccines to be distributed during public health emergencies. However, once the emergency ends, the FDA can remove them from the market unless full approval is granted.

Why Did The Delay Happen?

The FDA originally planned to approve Novovax's vaccine by April 1. However, as per the inside sources, the process was paused at the direction of Dr Sara Brenner, the FDA's acting commissioner. The delay has also raised concerns, especially after Dr Peter Marks, the FDA's longtime vaccine chief, reportedly left his post due to disagreements with the Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is a known vaccine skeptic.

What Makes Him A Vaccine Skeptic?

In the past, RFK Jr. has worked closely with many anti-vaccine activists who work for his nonprofit group Children's Health Defense. While in his recent speech, he said that he has "never been anti-vax and have never told the public to avoid vaccination", his track record shows otherwise.

In a podcast interview, he said, "There is no vaccine that is safe and effective" and told FOX News that he still believes in the now long-debunked idea that vaccines can cause autism. In another 2021 podcast, he urged people to "resist" CDC guidelines on getting their kids vaccinated. "I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, better not get them vaccinated," he said.

His non-profit also led an anti-vax campaign sticker and he appeared next on the screen to a sticker that read: "If you are not an anti-vaxxer you are not paying attention," reports AP.

What Does The Vaccine Need For Approval?

The FDA recently asked Novavax to outline a plan to collect additional clinical data from people who have received the vaccine. Novavax says it is “engaging with the FDA expeditiously” and hopes to secure full approval as soon as possible. Full FDA approval is considered the gold standard, as it reflects a higher level of scrutiny and confidence in a product’s safety and effectiveness.

How Is This Vaccine Different From Others?

The COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available in the US teach the immune system to recognize the virus' spike protein, which is its outer coating. the Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA vaccine deliver genetic instructions that help the body create a temporary version of spike protein that trigger an immune response. In contrast, the Novovax's shot contains lab-grown copies of the spike protein itself, which are then combined with a substance that boosts the immune response.

This traditional approach—called a protein-based vaccine—has been used for decades in vaccines for diseases like hepatitis B and shingles. For people who are hesitant about mRNA vaccines, Novavax offers an alternative that uses a well-established method.

CT scans have become one of the most widely used diagnostic tools in modern medicine. From detecting concealed tumors to revealing deadly internal bleeding in a matter of minutes, the technology has revolutionized emergency rooms and clinics throughout the United States. But with its undeniable advantages comes a secret price tag, according to new research, one that might appear years or even decades down the road.

According to an international team of researchers led by epidemiologist Rebecca Smith-Bindman at the University of California, San Francisco, CT scans performed in 2023 alone may account for an estimated 103,000 future cancer cases in the United States. If accurate, this would represent nearly 5 percent of all new cancer diagnoses nationally.

For patients, the personal risk is low. But in terms of population, sheer numbers of CT scans—over 90 million in one year—mean that even very small risks add up to large numbers. This paradox highlights an increasingly contentious issue: how do we weigh the life-saving abilities of CT scans against their capacity to induce long-term damage?

Since 2007, CT scans in the US have increased over 30 percent annually. Now, they are nearly standard in emergency and outpatient care. For most doctors, CT scans are the quickest and best method to get detailed images of the body, with much greater clarity than regular X-rays.

But scientists warn that none of these scans are medically indicated. Without merit, scans that are ordered as safeguards or motivated by patient requests are potentially exposing tens of millions of individuals to ionizing radiation. While one scan provides the dose equivalent to about three years of natural background radiation, multiple or high-dose scans can add to this burden over years.

The new study, out in JAMA Internal Medicine, indicates that if trends hold, CT-related cancer cases will match those of other significant risk factors, such as alcohol use.

How Could Radiation From CT Scan Cause Cancer?

One of the most daunting hurdles in this argument is the doubt about how much radiation at low doses actually affects cancer risk. For many years, scientists have understood that high doses of ionizing radiation—say, that taken by atomic bomb survivors or people exposed in nuclear power plant accidents can lead to cancer.

But whether the low-level radiation from CT scans has the same effect is unresolved. Most of the evidence rests on extrapolations from past tragedies. For instance, in studies of 25,000 survivors of the Hiroshima bombings, people who received a dose of radiation equivalent to three or more CT scans had a slight but detectable increase in lifetime risk of cancer.

Converting that risk to current use of CT scans is debatable. Doses differ greatly based on the type of scan, the machine being used, the size of the patient, and the part of the body being scanned. A head scan, for example, exposes a patient to much less radiation than an abdominal or pelvic scan.

Why Its Difficult To Ignore The Life-saving Benefits of CT Scans?

Despite these concerns, doctors emphasize that CT scans remain invaluable. In some cases, they directly save lives.

A flagship national trial demonstrated that smokers and ex-smokers who had low-dose CT screening for lung cancer saw a 20 percent decline in lung cancer fatalities compared to patients who only had chest X-rays. In emergency rooms, CT scans have played an invaluable role in identifying strokes, aneurysms, and internal injuries that may otherwise have been undetected until too late.

While the results serve as a reminder of the need for caution regarding long-term exposure to radiation, this should not deter the use of CT imaging where clinically indicated," said Naomi Gibson, President of the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy. "In carefully selected instances, the therapeutic and diagnostic benefit of CT scans far outweighs the risks associated with radiation."

Who Is At Highest Risk?

Though adults dominate the number of CT recipients, scientists caution that children and youths might be bearing higher lifetime hazards. Their developing tissues are more vulnerable to radiation, and since they are likely to live longer, they have more years for cancers caused by radiation to emerge.

For instance, children who undergo CT scans during their infancy seem to have a greater likelihood of developing thyroid cancer at some point in the future. Women patients are particularly likely to experience additional vulnerability.

This doesn’t mean children should avoid CT imaging when necessary. In emergencies or when conditions demand precision, the benefits outweigh risks. But experts stress that pediatric CT use should be carefully weighed against alternative, radiation-free options such as MRI or ultrasound.

The new research is based on the UCSF International CT Dose Registry, which aggregates anonymous information from 143 hospitals and outpatient facilities throughout the United States. Analyzing scans performed between 2016 and 2022, researchers approximated that 93 million CT exams were conducted in 2023 on roughly 62 million patients.

From this data, they estimated the 103,000 future cancer cases attributable to CT-linked radiation. Nevertheless, authors also warn that these figures are estimates—not absolute projections. "To empirically quantify lifetime risk would require decades-long follow-up studies of very large populations," they said.

How To Use CT Scans Smartly?

Where does this leave doctors and patients, then? Experts are unanimous: CT scans can be continued, but with more discretion and precision.

Unused scans must be kept to a minimum, especially for children, pregnant women, and otherwise healthy patients who might have safer imaging options available. Physicians must also adjust scan protocols to reduce radiation doses without degrading image quality.

Public health experts contend that much of the onus too, rests with medical systems and insurers, who can institute protections, promote second opinions, and open access to lower-radiation or radiation-free technologies for diagnosis.

The truth is both sides are correct. CT scans literally save thousands of lives each year, but their explosive increase in usage raises some genuine concerns regarding future impacts. Patients, practitioners, and policymakers have an obligation to collaborate to make sure these strong tools are used carefully—safeguarding individuals in the short run without unintentionally jeopardizing them in the long run.

The United States has long been known as a uniquely challenging place to survive. But recent research paints a more alarming picture: Millennials and older Gen Z adults that is, people aged 25 to 44 are dying at rates far higher than their peers in other wealthy nations. And COVID-19, despite playing a significant part, only formed part of a much larger and more systemic issue that unfolded over decades.

Each year, approximately three million Americans pass away. Comparing U.S. mortality rates to other affluent nations uncovers a staggering fact: a quarter of those deaths might have been avoided if the U.S. mortality rate was comparable to that of its counterparts. For Millennials alone, the difference becomes staggering. Of Americans aged 25 to 44, a whopping 62 percent of deaths are "excess deaths," i.e., practically two out of every three deaths in this age group would not have happened if conditions were on par with other industrialized countries.

CDC data emphasizes that death rates in young adults, merging the 25–34 and 35–44 groups, vary between 148 and 237 deaths per 100,000 individuals each year. Of all Americans under age 65, nearly half of the deaths are excess deaths. This terrifying trend indicates an endemic, systemic issue in U.S. health, social, and economic systems.

Has COVID-19 Amplified The Pre-Existing Mortality Trends?

It would be naive to blame this crisis on COVID-19 alone, though the pandemic certainly exacerbated it. Nonelderly Americans suffered disproportionately high deaths relative to their peers in other rich countries. While COVID played a part in driving up the numbers, the American health disadvantage has been rising steadily for decades, decades before the pandemic, and continues to rise in the post-pandemic era.

A 2023 estimate found about 700,000 "missing Americans"—individuals who perished in 2023 but would have been alive had they been living in a different developed nation. This figure matches nearly to the exact number based on pre-pandemic projections, highlighting that America is more deadly by its very nature, particularly among young adults.

What Are The Systemic Factors Behind the Crisis?

Why are Millennials dying at such high rates? Experts cite a range of interrelated factors. Deindustrialization has left college-educated Americans economically exposed. Flimsy social safety nets—protecting unemployment, healthcare, and pensions—provide inadequate protection relative to other rich countries. Structural deficiencies in the U.S. health system, including underinsurance, high co-payments, and coverage gaps, compound these vulnerabilities.

In addition, lifestyle and public health issues, such as permissive gun laws, extended commuting, increasing rates of obesity and chronic disease, also contribute to mortality. For Millennials, these complicate the intersection with a variety of external stressors: job uncertainty, increasing living costs, and restricted access to quality healthcare.

The Opioid Epidemic and Mental Health Crisis

Opioid epidemic is one of the leading causes of Millennials' excess deaths. According to public health agencies, Millennial opioid overdose fatalities increased more than 500 percent between 1999 and 2017, while synthetic opioid death rates have risen by 6,000 percent. Overdose fatalities, in addition to increasing suicide, homicide, and accident rates, have added to the mortality crisis.

Pandemic stressors amplified these issues. Loss of employment, financial instability, and social isolation led to increased instances of substance use disorders and depression among young adults, compounding mortality patterns already on an upward trend.

Obesity and Chronic Disease

Obesity is another key factor. Millennials between 30 and 39 have the highest rate of obesity of any age group in the U.S., at 46.4 percent. This severely raises the risk of diabetes, heart disease, and various cancers. Although obesity is a problem across all age groups, it is most important during young adulthood, adding to mortality risks already increased by socio-economic and healthcare disparities.

Economic Disillusionment and Future Prospects

Millennials have also confronted distinct economic and social challenges. Joining adulthood amid the Great Recession, many found themselves unable to achieve financial security, homeownership, or advancement in their careers. The pandemic only added to these challenges, resulting in increased financial insecurity among young adults with restricted health-promoting resource access.

With social mobility on the decline and economic opportunity still in doubt, stress, worry, and unhealthy behaviors become amplified in a vicious cycle. Technological changes and AI-led changes in the workforce could further widen income inequality and access to care, making Millennials even more exposed.

Policy Implications and the Need for Intervention

The glaring disparity in mortality underscores the imperative for policy action. Social safety nets including Medicaid, public health initiatives, and access to affordable care need to be improved to avert more fatalities. Investing in mental health care, treatment of addiction, and preventive care among young adults is the key to halting this ominous trend.

As the Millennial and Gen Z populations approach half of the U.S. electorate, addressing their health and economic inequities is not only a moral imperative but also a political necessity. Policymakers must recognize that investing in the health and well-being of early adults is key to ensuring the country’s long-term social and economic stability.

Is An Entire Generation at Risk?

The American death crisis among Millennials and early Gen Z adults is multifaceted, multi-faceted, and seriously troubling. Between 1980 and 2023, there were nearly 14.7 million excess deaths in the United States, and early adults were disproportionately hit. From the opioid crisis to disease, economic insecurity, and systemic gaps in health care, the drivers of this crisis are complex and widespread.

Without immediate action, these trends will persist, putting Millennials and Gen Z Americans at greater risk of death than comparable peers worldwide. An intervention addressing the underlying causes access to healthcare, financial stability, public health programs, and mental health care is necessary to get young Americans not just to survive but to thrive in a nation that has long neglected to safeguard them.

When the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe, many people instinctively turned to the 2011 film Contagion. What once felt like science fiction suddenly looked disturbingly familiar. The film’s accuracy in depicting how viruses travel—through handshakes, doorknobs, and elevator buttons—was a chilling reminder of how quickly infections can move in a connected world.

One line from Kate Winslet’s character stood out, every pathogen carries a number, R0 (R-nought), that tells us how many people, on average, one infected person will pass the disease to. A value above one means a disease can spread. A value below one suggests it will fizzle out over time.

That deceptively simple number, however, hides enormous complexity. Different diseases spread in very different ways: through coughing, sneezing, contaminated food, or even insect bites. And while some infections burn through populations at lightning speed, others move more slowly but cause devastating damage. Understanding the contagion scale isn’t just academic—it shapes how we protect ourselves, our families, and our communities.

What Is R0 Number?

R0 is not a fixed property of a pathogen—it reflects biology, behavior, and environment. Think of it as the interaction between how contagious the germ is, how people interact, and what protections are in place.

For example, a crowded subway system in winter gives respiratory viruses a much higher chance of spreading than the same virus in a rural outdoor community. Vaccination rates, cultural norms around close contact, and even building ventilation play a role.

Fastest-Spreading Highly Contagious Diseases

Still, the R0 scale gives us a useful way to rank which diseases have the highest potential to spread—and which, while less contagious, still carry grave risks.

Measles

No disease outpaces measles when it comes to raw transmissibility. With an R0 between 12 and 18, it sits at the very top of the contagion scale. To put that in perspective: one person with measles could, after just two rounds of transmission, set off a chain reaction infecting more than 300 people.

Part of measles’ power lies in how it spreads. The virus is airborne, carried in microscopic droplets that linger in the air for hours. You don’t even need to meet the infected person—walking into a room they left behind is enough for an unvaccinated individual to catch it. Worse, people with measles are infectious before they show symptoms, meaning isolation often comes too late.

Despite being preventable, measles has resurged in recent years, even in wealthy nations. Falling vaccination rates—driven by pandemic disruptions, conflict, and persistent vaccine misinformation—have left gaps in herd immunity. Beyond its immediate fever and rash, measles can cause pneumonia, seizures, blindness, and in rare cases, death.

Measles may lead the pack, but it isn’t alone in its ability to spread rapidly.

Pertussis (Whooping Cough)

With an R0 of 12 to 17, pertussis primarily affects children but can be transmitted by adults with milder symptoms. Severe coughing fits can lead to broken ribs, pneumonia, or even death in infants.

Chickenpox (Varicella)

Often dismissed as a childhood rite of passage, chickenpox has an R0 of 10 to 12. Though usually mild, it can cause serious complications such as encephalitis or bacterial infections, especially in adults.

COVID-19

Depending on the variant, COVID’s R0 has ranged from 2.5 in early strains to as high as 12 in Omicron subvariants. Its spread underscored how a “moderately contagious” pathogen can cripple global systems when paired with global travel and asymptomatic transmission.

While these diseases differ in severity, their shared trait is efficiency of spread. Each one demonstrates how quickly a community can be destabilized when vaccination or preventive strategies falter.

Not all deadly diseases spread like wildfire. Some move more slowly but pose equally serious threats.

Tuberculosis (TB)

Tuberculosis (TB), caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, has an R0 ranging from less than one to four. That lower figure reflects the fact that TB usually requires long, close exposure—often in households, shelters, or prisons. But the slower spread belies the challenge: TB is extremely difficult to treat, requiring at least six months of multi-drug therapy. Cases of drug-resistant TB are rising, threatening to undo decades of progress.

Ebola

Ebola, another disease with frightening lethality, has an R0 of just 1.5 to 2.5. It spreads only through direct contact with bodily fluids, which helps explain why outbreaks, while devastating, tend to remain geographically contained. Still, Ebola kills up to 90% of those it infects, making containment absolutely vital.

Diseases such as MERS, avian flu, and leprosy have R0 values below one, meaning they are unlikely to cause sustained outbreaks under current conditions. Yet their low spread does not equal low risk—when these pathogens do infect, they can cause severe complications or death.

How Diseases Spread?

Understanding modes of transmission is as important as R0 values. Respiratory droplets and aerosols drive infections like flu, COVID, and measles. Blood-borne and vector-borne diseases (HIV, malaria, Zika) move through different pathways—sexual contact, shared needles, or insect bites. Food- and water-borne illnesses such as cholera or hepatitis A highlight how sanitation and clean water infrastructure remain frontline defenses.

Every route of transmission offers a point of intervention. Handwashing, clean water, mosquito control, safe sex practices, and above all, vaccination programs are proven to reduce spread.

How To Build Herd Immunity?

No discussion of infectious spread is complete without herd immunity. When enough people in a population are immune either through vaccination or prior infection, the chain of transmission is broken. This protects not only the individual but also those who cannot be vaccinated, including infants, pregnant women, and people with compromised immune systems.

The resurgence of measles and pertussis is not due to new strains or failures of medicine it’s due to falling herd immunity. The collective shield works only if most people contribute.

The contagion scale reminds us that “contagious” is not the same as “dangerous.” A disease can spread quickly and cause little long-term harm, or spread slowly but devastate those it touches. Both demand vigilance.

What COVID-19 demonstrated, and what measles continues to prove, is that human behavior—whether it’s embracing vaccination, staying home when sick, or even improving ventilation in schools and workplaces—shapes the trajectory of outbreaks as much as the biology of the pathogen itself.