Association of State COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates With Staff Vaccination Coverage and Staffing Shortages in US Nursing Homes

Brian E. McGarry, PT, PhD¹; Ashvin D. Gandhi, PhD²; Maggie Syme, PhD, MPH³; et alSarah D. Berry, MD, MPH^3,4; Elizabeth M. White, APRN, PhD⁵; David C. Grabowski, PhD⁶

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(7):e222363. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2363

COVID-19 Resource Center

 Original Investigation

July 29, 2022

Key Points

Question  Are state COVID-19 vaccine mandates for US nursing home employees associated with staff vaccination coverage and reported staff shortages?

Findings  This cohort study of nursing homes in 38 states found that states with a vaccine mandate experienced an increase in staff vaccination coverage compared with facilities in states with no mandate and no worsening of reported staffing shortages following the mandates.

Meaning  These findings suggest that given the waning vaccine-induced immunity and low booster dose coverage among nursing home staff in many parts of the US, state mandates for booster doses may be warranted to improve and sustain vaccination coverage in nursing homes.

Abstract

Importance  Several states implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for nursing home employees, which may have improved vaccine coverage but may have had the unintended consequence of staff departures.

Objective  To assess whether state vaccine mandates for US nursing home employees are associated with staff vaccination rates and reported staff shortages.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study performed event study analyses using National Healthcare Safety Network data from June 6, 2021, through November 14, 2021. Changes in weekly staff vaccination rates and reported staffing shortages were evaluated for nursing homes in states with mandates after the mandate announcement compared with changes in facilities in nonmandate states. An interaction between the mandates and county political leaning was considered. Data analysis was performed from February to March 2022.

Exposures  Weeks after announcement of a state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Weekly percentage of all health care staff at a nursing home who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, and a weekly indicator of whether a nursing home reported a staffing shortage.

Results  Among 38 study-eligible states, 26 had no COVID-19 vaccine mandate for nursing home employees, 4 had a mandate with a test-out option, and 8 had a mandate with no test-out option. Ten weeks or more after mandate announcement, nursing homes in states with a mandate and no test-out option experienced a 6.9 percentage point (pp) increase in staff vaccination coverage (95% CI, −0.1 to 13.9); nursing homes in mandate states with a test-out option experienced a 3.1 pp increase (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.7) compared with facilities in nonmandate states. No significant increases were detected in the frequency of reported staffing shortages after a mandate announcement in mandate states with or without test-out options. Increases in vaccination rates in states with mandates were larger in Republican-leaning counties (14.3 pp if no test-out option; 4.3 pp with option), and there was no evidence of increased staffing shortages.

Conclusions and Relevance  The findings of this cohort study suggest that state-level vaccine mandates were associated with increased staff vaccination coverage without increases in reported staffing shortages. Vaccination increases were largest when mandates had no test-out option and were also larger in Republican-leaning counties, which had lower mean baseline vaccination rates. These findings support the use of state mandates for booster doses for nursing home employees because they may improve vaccine coverage, even in areas with greater vaccine hesitancy.

Introduction

High COVID-19 vaccination coverage among direct care staff is critical to avoid and manage nursing home COVID-19 outbreaks and deaths,^1,2 yet many staff remained unvaccinated months after vaccines became available.³ COVID-19 vaccination for nursing home staff serves 3 purposes: (1) to protect residents who are particularly vulnerable to severe infection and may not mount sufficient vaccine-induced immunity,⁴ (2) to protect staff who themselves have experienced a high toll of infection and morbidity,^5,6 and (3) to control viral transmission to mitigate nursing home outbreaks.^1,7 New COVID-19 variants along with low staff vaccination rates in many US nursing homes despite extensive coordinated vaccination campaigns have led several states to implement mandates requiring nursing home employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.^8,9 These state policies were mostly introduced ahead of the federal mandate that was announced as a final rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on November 4, 2021.¹⁰

How state COVID-19 vaccine mandates affected nursing home workers is largely unknown. Specifically, it is not clear whether mandates necessarily increased staff vaccination rates, and there are several reasons for this lack of clarity. First, state mandates may include a number of potential exemptions that might allow many workers to remain unvaccinated. A number of states adopted mandates that had a test-out option for employees who wanted to remain unvaccinated for any reason, meaning that staff could choose to submit to additional COVID-19 testing in lieu of receiving the vaccine. Likewise, state policies may allow for medical or religious exemptions from the mandate. Finally, mandates may not have been strictly enforced, thereby allowing out-of-compliance staff to continue working.

How state COVID-19 vaccine mandates affected the supply of nursing home workers is also unclear. Many nursing home leaders have expressed substantial concerns that requiring vaccination as a prerequisite for working in a nursing home may lead many direct care staff to leave the industry, potentially worsening the already severe worker shortages experienced by nursing homes throughout the pandemic.^11,12

Lastly, how the success of state COVID-19 vaccine mandates may be affected by the predominant political preferences of a given geographic location is also unknown. This factor can strongly influence perceptions of vaccines,¹³ and has been shown to correlate strongly with vaccine acceptance and uptake.^3,14,15 Consequently, mandates may have varying success in terms of achieving their intended policy goal (eg, increasing staff vaccination coverage without worsening staff shortages) in areas with differing political leanings.

A study in Mississippi evaluated how the nation’s first state-level COVID-19 vaccine mandate affected nursing home employees and staff vaccine coverage.¹⁶ The findings indicated that in the weeks after the June 15, 2021, enactment , the nursing home staff vaccination rates increased compared with comparator states without a mandate; however, the gains were modest and failed to raise levels to industry benchmarks. Notably, Mississippi’s policy provided a test-out option for employees.

The purpose of this cohort study was to examine the association of state COVID-19 vaccine mandates with staff vaccination coverage and staffing shortages at nursing homes. We examined these relationships among states with and without test-out options in their mandates and across counties with different political leanings.

READ ON

JAMA Health Forum – Health Policy, Health Care Reform, Health Affairs | JAMA Health Forum | JAMA Network

It doesn’t matter much which fiber you choose – just get more fiber!

The human gut evolved to thrive on fermentable fibers, not bacon cheeseburgers

Peer-Reviewed Publication

DUKE UNIVERSITY

 

IMAGE: THERE ARE LOTS OF CHOICES ON THE DRUG STORE SHELVES, BUT WHICH FIBER SUPPLEMENT IS THE RIGHT ONE FOR YOU? ALL OF THEM HELP, SAY DUKE RESEARCHERS. view more 

CREDIT: (DUKE UNIVERSITY PHOTO)

DURHAM, N.C. -- That huge array of dietary fiber supplements in the drugstore or grocery aisle can be overwhelming to a consumer. They make all sorts of health claims too, not being subject to FDA review and approval. So how do you know which supplement works and would be best for you?

A rigorous examination of the gut microbes of study participants who were fed three different kinds of supplements in different sequences concludes that people who had been eating the least amount of fiber before the study showed the greatest benefit from supplements, regardless of which ones they consumed.

“The people who responded the best had been eating the least fiber to start with,” said study leader Lawrence David, an associate professor of molecular genetics and microbiology at Duke University.

The benefit of dietary fiber isn’t just the easier pooping that advertisers tout. Fermentable fiber -- dietary carbohydrates that the human gut cannot process on its own but some bacteria can digest -- is also an essential source of nutrients that your gut microbes need to stay healthy.

“We’ve evolved to depend on nutrients that our microbiomes produce for us,” said Zack Holmes, former PhD student in the David lab and co-author on two new papers about fiber. “But with recent shifts in diet away from fiber-rich foods, we’ve stopped feeding our microbes what they need.”

When your gut bugs are happily munching on a high-fiber diet, they produce more of the short-chain fatty acids that protect you from diseases of the gut, colorectal cancers and even obesity. And in particular, they produce more of a fatty acid called butyrate, which is fuel for your intestinal cells themselves. Butyrate has been shown to improve the gut’s resistance to pathogens, lower inflammation and create happier, healthier cells lining the host’s intestines.

Given the variety of supplements available, David’s research team wanted to know whether it may be necessary to ‘personalize’ fiber supplements to different people, since different fermentable fibers have been shown to have different effects on short-chain fatty acid production from one individual to the next.

“We didn’t see a lot of difference between the fiber supplements we tested. Rather, they looked interchangeable,” David said during a tour of his sparkling new lab in the MSRB III building, which includes a special “science toilet” for collecting samples and an array of eight “artificial gut” fermenters for growing happy gut microbes outside a body.

“Regardless of which of the test supplements you pick, it seems your microbiome will thank you with more butyrate,” David said.

The average American adult only consumes 20 to 40 percent of the daily recommended amount of fiber, which is believed to be a root cause behind a lot of our common health maladies, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, digestive disorders and colon cancer. Instead of having to go totally vegetarian or consume pounds of kale daily, convenient fiber supplements have been created that can increase the production of short-chain fatty acids.

The Duke experiments tested three main kinds of fermentable fiber supplements: inulin, dextrin (Benefiber), and galactooligosaccharides (GOS) marketed as Bimuno. The 28 participants were separated into groups and given each of the three supplements for one week in different orders, with a week off between supplements to allow participants’ guts to return to a baseline state. 

Participants who had been consuming the most fiber beforehand showed the least change in their microbiomes, and the type of supplement really didn’t matter, probably because they were already hosting a more optimal population of gut bugs, David said.

Conversely, participants who had been consuming the least fiber saw the greatest increase in butyrate with the supplements, regardless of which one was being consumed.

In a second study the David lab performed with support from the U.S. Office of Naval Research, they found that gut microbes responded to a new addition of fiber within a day, dramatically altering the populations of bugs present in the gut and changing which of their genes they were using to digest food.

Using their artificial gut fermenters, the researchers found the gut microbes were primed by the first dose to consume fiber, and digested it quickly on the second dose.

"These findings are encouraging,” said graduate student Jeffrey Letourneau, lead author of the second study. “If you’re a low fiber consumer, it’s probably not worth it to stress so much about which kind of fiber to add. It’s just important that you find something that works for you in a sustainable way.”

“It doesn’t need to be a supplement either,” Holmes added. “It can just be a fiber-rich food. Folks who were already eating a lot of fiber, which comes from plants like beans, leafy greens, and citrus, already had very healthy microbiomes.”

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01-DK116187, R01DK116187-01); Office of Naval Research (N00014-18-1-2616); NASA Translational Research Institute (NNX16AO69A); and the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.

CITATIONS: “Microbiota Responses to Different Prebiotics Are Conserved Within Individuals and Associated with Habitual Fiber Intake,” Zachary Holmes, Max Villa, Heather Durand, Sharon Jiang, Eric Dallow, Brianna Petrone, Justin Silverman, Pao-Hwa Lin, Lawrence David. Microbiome, July 29, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/s40168-022-01307-x

“Ecological Memory of Prior Nutrient Exposure in the Human Gut Microbiome,” Jeffrey Letourneau, Zachary Holmes, Eric Dallow, Heather Durand, Sharon Jiang, Verónica Carrion, Savita Gupta, Adam Mincey, Michael Muehlbauer, James Bain, Lawrence David. ISME Journal, July 23, 2022. DOI: 10.1038/s41396-022-01292-x

---

JOURNAL

Microbiome

DOI

10.1186/s40168-022-01307-x 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Microbiota Responses to Different Prebiotics Are Conserved Within Individuals and Associated with Habitual Fiber Intake

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

29-Jul-2022

Plant-based meat ‘healthier and more sustainable than animal products’ - new study

University of Bath Press Release

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF BATH

Plant-based dietary alternatives to animal products are better for the environment and for human health when compared with the animal products they are designed to replace, say the authors of a new study.

A new paper published in Future Foods argues that because these foods are ‘specifically formulated to replicate the taste, texture, and overall eating experience of animal products’, they are a much more effective way of reducing demand for meat and dairy than simply encouraging people to cook vegetarian whole foods.

The study, conducted by psychologists at the University of Bath, concludes that plant-based meat and dairy alternatives ‘offer a healthier and more environmentally sustainable solution which takes into account consumer preferences and behaviour.’

The review examined 43 studies into the health and environmental impacts of plant-based foods, as well as consumer attitudes. One study found that almost 90% of consumers who ate plant-based meat and dairy were in fact meat-eaters or flexitarians; another found that plant-based products with a similar taste, texture, and price to processed meat had the best chance of replacing meat.

The paper also found that these plant-based products caused lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than the animal products they were replacing. One paper found replacing 5% of German beef consumption with pea protein could reduce CO2 emissions by up to eight million tonnes a year. Another found that compared to beef burgers, plant-based burgers were associated with up to 98% less greenhouse gas emissions.

The report authors suggest that plant-based products generally require much less agricultural land, need less water and cause less pollution than animal products.

Studies focusing on the healthiness of plant-based products also found they tend to have better nutritional profiles compared to animal products, with one paper finding that 40% of conventional meat products were classified as ‘less healthy’ compared to just 14% of plant-based alternatives based on the UK’s Nutrient Profiling Model.

Others found plant-based meat and dairy were good for weight loss and building muscle mass, and could be used to help people with specific health conditions. Food producers may be able to add ingredients such as edible fungi, microalgae or spirulina to plant-based foods, boosting properties such as amino acids, vitamins B and E and antioxidants. Future innovations in processing and ingredients are likely to lead to further nutritional improvements.

Report author, Dr Chris Bryant from the University of Bath, said: “Increasingly we’re seeing how plant-based products are able to shift demand away from animal products by appealing to three essential elements consumers want: taste, price and convenience.

“This review demonstrates overwhelming evidence that, as well as being far more sustainable compared to animal products in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use and land use, plant-based animal product alternatives also have a wide range of health benefits.

“Despite the incredible advances that plant-based producers have made over recent years, there is still huge potential to improve their taste, texture and how they cook. There’s also enormous potential to innovate with ingredients and processes to improve their nutritional properties – for example by boosting vitamin content.”

The authors stress that, whilst there are health benefits of these products compared to meat, multiple personal factors will impact on health including overall calorie consumption and exercise/activity levels. People wishing to transition towards more plant-based products and vegetarian / vegan diets can find more information via the NHS: The vegetarian diet - NHS (www.nhs.uk) + The vegan diet - NHS (www.nhs.uk)

Dr Bryant suggests that more research will now be needed to make these improvements a reality, ensuring manufacturers can make products that taste better, are healthier and provide consumers with sustainable options that are more likely to reduce demand for meat.

---

JOURNAL

Future Foods

DOI

10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174 

ARTICLE TITLE

Plant-Based Animal Product Alternatives Are Healthier and More Environmentally Sustainable than Animal Products

COI STATEMENT

Although there is no specific conflict of interest or funding related to this project, the author is an independent research consultant and works with alternative protein companies.

Pathogenic microbes in drying soils could present public health threat

107th Annual Meeting: “A Change is Gonna Come”

Meeting Announcement

ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

 

IMAGE: LANDSCAPE OF THE CHIHUAHUAN DESERT WITHIN THE JORNADA EXPERIMENTAL RANGE WHERE CREOSOTE BUSH DOMINATES. view more 

CREDIT: PHOTO BY ADRIANA ROMERO-OLIVARES.

Soil-borne pathogens are resilient to stressful conditions, and may be more likely than non-pathogenic microbes to survive the prolonged dry spells that are projected to persist regionally across many parts of the globe.

Research on soil fungal communities in the southwestern United States suggests that the proliferation of spore-producing fungi in increasingly dry soils could represent a future threat to public health. Pathogenic fungi release spores that spread easily through airborne dispersal, and these species may be able to endure dust storms and droughts that non-pathogenic species are unable to tolerate.

Adriana Romero-Olivares, an assistant professor at New Mexico State University, will present her research on the complex relationships between global change, soil fungi and potential public health threats during a symposium at the Ecological Society of America’s 2022 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Quebec.

Romero-Olivares and a team from ETH Zürich, the U.S. Geological Survey and New Mexico State University extracted fungal DNA from vegetated and bare soils, comparing the effects of local conditions on microbial communities.

Their work is being used to inform policy makers on the public health threat potential that climate change has on soil fungal communities in the U.S. Southwest.

“It’s not only about the fungi that we know are pathogenic, but also about the fungi that have the potential to become pathogenic. We have no idea if global climate change may trigger pathogenicity and we really need to start looking into that to prevent future pandemics,” said Romero-Olivares.

Her presentation, on Thursday, August 18, at 2:30 PM EDT, is part of a session on Broadening perspectives to increase impact of applied ecology research in an era of rapid global socioenvironmental change. This session includes additional talks on:

• The interdependence of biological and cultural diversity – Erika Zavaleta, UC Santa Cruz
• Growing communities: socioecological constructions of community in urban gardens – Theresa Ong, Dartmouth College
• Promoting urban water management practices that enhance conservation and community health – Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, Spelman College

---

 

SYMP 19-4 – Microbial responses to climate change and potential impacts to public health

• Thursday, August 18, 2:30 PM EDT
• 520F, Palais des congrès de Montréal
• Adriana Romero-Olivares (New Mexico State University), Mark A. Anthony (ETH Zürich), Jovani Catalan-Dibene (New Mexico State University), Scott Ferrenberg (New Mexico State University), Andrea Lopez (New Mexico State University), Brooke B. Osborne (U.S. Geological Survey) and Sasha C. Reed (U.S. Geological Survey)
• Presentation abstract
• Contact: alro@nmsu.edu

 

2022 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Quebec
August 14-19, 2022

Ecologists from around the world will converge on Montreal, Quebec, this August for the 107th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America. Thousands of attendees are expected to gather for scientific presentations on breaking research and new ecological concepts at the Palais des congrès de Montréal on August 14th through 19th, 2022.

ESA invites press and institutional public information officers to attend for free. To apply, please contact ESA Public Information Manager Heidi Swanson at heidi@esa.org.

• Annual Meeting website
• Media information
• Press registration
• Program

 

###

The Ecological Society of America, founded in 1915, is the world’s largest community of professional ecologists and a trusted source of ecological knowledge, committed to advancing the understanding of life on Earth. The 9,000 member Society publishes five journals and a membership bulletin and broadly shares ecological information through policy, media outreach, and education initiatives. The Society’s Annual Meeting attracts 4,000 attendees and features the most recent advances in ecological science. Visit the ESA website at https://www.esa.org.

Follow ESA on social media:
Twitter – @esa_org
Instagram – @ecologicalsociety
Facebook – @esa.org

 

Taking your time makes a difference – Brain development differs between Neanderthals and modern humans

Dresden and Leipzig researchers find that stem cells in the developing brain of modern humans take longer to divide and make fewer errors when distributing their chromosomes to their daughter cells, compared to those of Neanderthals

Peer-Reviewed Publication

MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE OF MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY AND GENETICS (MPI-CBG)

 

IMAGE: LEFT SIDE: MICROSCOPY IMAGE OF THE CHROMOSOMES (IN CYAN) OF A MODERN HUMAN NEURAL STEM CELL OF THE NEOCORTEX DURING CELL DIVISION. RIGHT SIDE: SAME TYPE OF IMAGE, BUT OF A CELL WHERE THREE AMINO ACIDS IN THE TWO PROTEINS KIF18A AND KNL1, INVOLVED IN CHROMOSOME SEPARATION, HAVE BEEN CHANGED FROM THE MODERN HUMAN TO THE NEANDERTHAL VARIANTS. THESE “NEANDERTHALIZED” CELLS SHOW TWICE AS MANY CHROMOSOME SEPARATION ERRORS (RED ARROW). view more 

CREDIT: FELIPE MORA-BERMÚDEZ / MPI-CBG

After the ancestors of modern humans split from those of Neanderthals and Denisovans, their Asian relatives, about one hundred amino acids, the building blocks of proteins in cells and tissues, changed in modern humans and spread to almost all modern humans. The biological significance of these changes is largely unknown. However, six of those amino acid changes occurred in three proteins that play key roles in the distribution of chromosomes, the carriers of genetic information, to the two daughter cells during cell division.

The effects of the modern human variants on brain development

To investigate the significance of these six changes for neocortex development, the scientists first introduced the modern human variants in mice. Mice are identical to Neanderthals at those six amino acid positions, so these changes made them a model for the developing modern human brain. Felipe Mora-Bermúdez, the lead author of the study, describes the discovery: “We found that three modern human amino acids in two of the proteins cause a longer metaphase, a phase where chromosomes are prepared for cell division, and this results in fewer errors when the chromosomes are distributed to the daughter cells of the neural stem cells, just like in modern humans.” To check if the Neanderthal set of amino acids have the opposite effect, the researchers then introduced the ancestral amino acids in human brain organoids – miniature organ-like structures that can be grown from human stem cells in cell culture dishes in the lab and that mimic aspects of early human brain development. “In this case, metaphase became shorter and we found more chromosome distribution errors.” According to Mora-Bermúdez, this shows that those three modern human amino acid changes in the proteins known as KIF18a and KNL1 are responsible for the fewer chromosome distribution mistakes seen in modern humans as compared to Neanderthal models and chimpanzees. He adds that “having mistakes in the number of chromosomes is usually not a good idea for cells, as can be seen in disorders like trisomies and cancer.”

“Our study implies that some aspects of modern human brain evolution and function may be independent of brain size since Neanderthals and modern humans have similar-sized brains. The findings also suggest that brain function in Neanderthals may have been more affected by chromosome errors than that of modern humans,” summarizes Wieland Huttner, who co-supervised the study. Svante Pääbo, who also co-supervised the study, adds that “future studies are needed to investigate whether the decreased error rate affects modern human traits related to brain function.”

-------

About the MPI-CBG

The Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics (MPI-CBG), located in Dresden, is one of more than 80 institutes of the Max Planck Society, an independent, non-profit organization in Germany. 550 curiosity-driven scientists from over 50 countries ask: How do cells form tissues? The basic research programs of the MPI-CBG span multiple scales of magnitude, from molecular assemblies to organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. The MPI-CBG invests extensively in Services and Facilities to allow research scientists shared access to sophisticated and expensive technologies. www.mpi-cbg.de

About the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI EVA)

The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig studies the origins and evolution of humans, by studying genes, cultures and cognitive abilities of people living today, of extinct human forms and of apes. www.eva.mpg.de

 

---

JOURNAL

Science Advances

DOI

10.1126/sciadv.abn7702 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Human tissue samples

ARTICLE TITLE

Longer metaphase and fewer chromosome segregation errors in modern human than Neanderthal brain development

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

29-Jul-2022

Communication makes hunting easier for chimpanzees

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH

 

IMAGE: HIGH UP IN THE CANOPY, A GROUP OF CHIMPANZEES HUNTS A SMALLER PRIMATE SPECIES: A RED COLOBUS MONKEY. view more 

CREDIT: KIBALE CHIMPANZEE PROJECT

Similar to humans, chimpanzees use communication to coordinate their cooperative behavior – such as during hunting. When chimpanzees produce a specific vocalization, known as the “hunting bark”, they recruit more group members to the hunt and capture their prey more effectively, researchers at the University of Zurich and Tufts University have now shown.

Chimpanzees don’t only forage for fruit, from time to time they also seek out opportunities to acquire protein-rich meat. To catch their agile monkey prey in the canopy, chimpanzees are better off having companions hunting alongside them. Scientists have found for the first time that communication is key to recruiting group members to join the hunt.

Hunting barks make the chase more effective

By studying more than 300 hunting events recorded over the last 25 years at the Kanyawara chimpanzee community in Uganda, researchers from the University of Zurich (UZH) and Tufts University in Boston have discovered that by making bark vocalizations, the wild apes catalyze group hunting, rendering this form of cooperative behavior more effective. “Chimps who produce hunting barks provide information to those nearby about their motivation to hunt, and this information may persuade reluctant individuals to join, boosting the overall chances of success,” says Joseph Mine, PhD student at the Department of Comparative Language Science of UZH, who led the study.

Hunting monkeys as a group in dense tropical rainforest where visibility is restricted can be challenging. Vocal communication allows more efficient group work. “Strikingly, following the production of hunting barks, we observed more hunters joining, greater speed in beginning the chase, and a shorter time to make the first capture,” says study co-last author Zarin Machanda from Tufts University, who heads up the Kanyawara Chimpanzee Project.

Although hunts are more effective following a bark, more research is needed to find out why the barks have this effect. “At the moment it is still unclear if these barks are given intentionally to coordinate the precise actions of the group, or whether these barks simply advertise an individual’s decision to hunt, which in turn, increases the likelihood of others joining them and with more hunters they are more effective,” adds UZH professor Simon Townsend, who helped lead the study.

Co-evolution of communication and cooperation

The evolutionary biologists considered a wide array of other factors that may affect the outcome of a hunt, including the presence of skilled hunters as well as potential distractions, but the occurrence of hunting barks retained a key role. “Communication plays a key role in coordinating complex acts of cooperation in humans, and this is the first indication that vocal communication might also facilitate group cooperation in our closest living relatives,” says Townsend.

It is widely accepted that communication and cooperation are tightly linked and co-evolved in humans. Over time, as one became more complex, so did the other, generating a feedback cycle which ultimately led to language and the uniquely complex forms of cooperation modern humans engage in.

With specific calls, the so-called "hunting bark", chimpanzees recruit further group members for the hunt.

CREDIT

Kibale Chimpanzee Project

Evolutionary roots at least 7 million years old

However, it was unknown how far back into humans’ evolutionary past this relationship between group cooperation and communication can be traced. Joseph Mine concludes: “Our results indicate that the relationship between vocal communication and group-level cooperation is ancient. This link seems to have been in place for at least 7 million years, since our last common ancestor with chimpanzees.”

---

JOURNAL

Science Advances

DOI

10.1126/sciadv.abo5553 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Vocal signals facilitate cooperative hunting in wild chimpanzees

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

29-Jul-2022

 On 13th anniversary of last minimum wage hike, Dems urged to raise ‘deplorable’ $7.25 floor

"They must immediately raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. Our country cannot afford to reach a 14th anniversary of $7.25."

By

 Jake Johnson

 -

July 25, 2022

SOURCECommon Dreams

Marking the 13-year anniversary of the last federal minimum wage increase in the U.S.—a meager boost from $5.15 to $7.25 in 2009—progressive campaigners on Sunday urged congressional Democrats to make another push to raise the national pay floor as inflation continues to diminish workers’ purchasing power.

“Today is a sad anniversary in the United States,” said Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, a group that advocates progressive economic policy. “For 13 years now, Congress has failed to act to raise the $7.25 hourly federal minimum wage. Lawmakers have turned their backs on America’s tens of millions of low-wage workers and revealed themselves to be beholden to the short-sighted interests of some of their ultra-rich donors.”

According to a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the real value of the federal minimum wage is currently at its lowest point in nearly seven decades amid record-high inflation, which spurred a decrease in real average hourly earnings between June 2021 and June 2022 as corporate profits soared.

“Last July marked the longest period without a minimum wage increase since Congress established the federal minimum wage in 1938,” EPI noted, “and continued inaction on the federal minimum wage over the past year has only further eroded the minimum wage’s value.”

In 2021, Senate Democrats stripped a proposed $15 federal minimum wage from their coronavirus relief package on the advice of the chamber’s parliamentarian, an unelected official tasked with offering non-binding opinions on whether legislation complies with Senate rules.

Eight Senate Democrats joined Republicans in voting down Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) last-ditch attempt to reinclude the provision, which was approved by the House.

Amid more than a decade of federal inaction, states and localities across the U.S. have raised their hourly wage floors in response to pressure from the grassroots Fight for $15 movement.

But $7.25 an hour remains the prevailing minimum wage in 20 states. The tipped subminimum wage is still $3 an hour or lower in 22 states.

Had the federal minimum wage risen at the same rate as Wall Street bonuses, it would now be $61.75 an hour instead of $7.25. If the minimum wage had kept pace with worker productivity since 1968, it would have been around $23 an hour last year.

“Regressive politicians across this country have kept our wages down for years,” Fight for $15 wrote in a Twitter post. “That’s why it’s important that we get at least $15/hour federal minimum wage. That way no one gets left behind.”

Morris of the Patriotic Millionaires said Sunday that “$7.25 was already inadequate back in 2009 when the minimum wage was last raised, but now it is downright deplorable.”

“Since 2009, workers have endured the Great Recession, a worldwide pandemic, historic inflation, and massive changes in the cost of living,” Pearl added. “And what have they gotten in return? A minimum wage that is worth 27% less than its 2009 value, one that now isn’t enough to afford even a single-bedroom apartment in 93% of the country.”

“In the face of rapidly rising costs for American families, Congress must act to raise wages for the tens of millions of workers who are struggling just to get by. They must immediately raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. Our country cannot afford to reach a 14th anniversary of $7.25.”

And if congressional Democrats can’t muster “the political will” to raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15 an hour—a move that would boost the incomes of more than 30 million people across the country—”then the president must act,” said Pearl.

“When President Biden came into office, he raised the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors to $15,” he pointed out. “Given the rising cost of living, he should now raise the minimum wage for federal contractors even higher, to no less than $20 an hour. This move will benefit hundreds of thousands of workers, prove to voters that Democrats care about working people, and provide a strong example to spur Congressional Democrats to action.”

“The president,” Pearl added, “is supposed to be the leader of our country—it’s time for Biden to lead on this critical issue.”

SEE Propelled to Victory by Dem Leaders,  Rep Cuellar (D-Texas)  Says $7.25 Too Much for Millions of Workers