Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Ask the Expert: Vaccine myths and scientific facts

Now that there are authorized and recommended COVID-19 vaccines, it is critical people receive accurate information. Peter Gulick, professor of medicine at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine and infectious disease expert, reviews some myths about the vaccine and counters these with scientific facts. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a rush, so their effectiveness and safety can’t be trusted. Fact: Studies found that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are both about 95% effective compared to the influenza vaccine, which ranges from being 50% to 60% effective each year. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is 85% effective at curbing serious or moderate illness. The most important statistic is that all three were 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death. As of March 9, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 93.7 million people have been vaccinated and all safety data collected from these doses show no red flags. There have been about 5 cases of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction, per 1 million but this is no different than allergic reactions from other vaccines. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly and here are a few: The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a messenger RNA technology that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic. China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly so scientists could start working on vaccines. The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were created using messenger RNA, or mRNA, which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made. Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the vaccinated study volunteers. Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred. They develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly also due to years of previous research on the SARS COV-1, a related virus. Myth: The messenger RNA technology used to make the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is brand new. Fact: The messenger RNA technology behind these two vaccines has been studied and in development for almost two decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials, making vaccine development faster. mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika and rabies. Myth: You only need one dose of J&J vaccine so it’s more effective. Fact: Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses a different strategy — a weakened cold virus that is reprogrammed to include the code for the spike protein. Once inside the body, the viral genes trigger a similar response against the virus. All three vaccines are considered overall effective and 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. Myth: Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness mean the same thing. Fact: Efficacy and effectiveness do not mean the same thing. “Efficacy” refers to the results for how well a drug or vaccine works based on testing while “effectiveness” refers to how well these products work in the real world, in a much larger group of people. Most people, however, use them interchangeably even though they have different scientific meanings. Myth: The vaccines aren’t effective against new strains of the virus. Fact: Currently, we know both the U.K. strain as well as the South African variant have increased transmissibility of 30% to 50% over the natural strain. As far as an increase in causing more serious disease, it is not known yet. We have over 600 U.K. variants in Michigan and one case of the South African variant, and I just heard of 47 cases of the U.K. variant in Grand Ledge. We (Michigan) are second in the nation in variants, but that's likely because we test for them more. The most important information is that the vaccines, in general, are 100% effective in prevention of hospitalization and death. So, it is felt they all offer some protection against variants to prevent serious disease. As far as the Johnson & Johnson, it was used with variants and has efficacy overall of 72% in U.S., 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa (where the main strain is the South African variant). All companies are looking at modifying (their products) (the mRNA) to cover variants and either give a booster or a multivalent vaccine to cover all variants. Myth: There are severe side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccine can have side effects, but the vast majority go away quickly and aren’t serious. The vaccine developers report that some people experience pain where they were injected; body aches; headaches or fever, lasting for a day or two. This is good and are signs that the vaccine is working to stimulate your immune system. If symptoms persist beyond two days, you should call your doctor. Myth: Getting the COVID-19 vaccine gives you COVID-19. Fact: The vaccine for COVID-19 cannot and will not give you COVID-19. The two authorized mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to reproduce a protein that is part of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which helps your body recognize and fight the virus, if it comes along. The COVID-19 vaccine does not contain the SARS-Co-2 virus, so you cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed using adenovirus vector technology and also will not give you COVID-19. It shows your immune system a weakened, common cold virus “disguised” as the coronavirus instead. Adenovirus vaccines have been around for about two decades, the same as mRNA vaccines. Johnson & Johnson developed a vaccine for Ebola using this technology. Myth: The vaccines are ineffective against the virus variants. Fact: More time is needed to study the vaccines’ effectiveness against the variants. Studies are now being conducted to determine if a booster dose is needed to protect against the variants or if modifications to the vaccines are needed. Myth: I already had COVID-19 and I have recovered, so I don't need to get the vaccine. Fact: There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after getting COVID-19 someone is protected from getting it again. This is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. The CDC recommends getting the COVID-19 vaccine, even if you’ve had COVID-19 previously. However, those that had COVID-19 should delay getting the vaccination until about 90 days from diagnosis. People should not get vaccinated if in quarantine after exposure or if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Myth: I won't need to wear a mask after I get the vaccine. Fact: It may take time for everyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccination to get one. Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, more research is needed, but early indications show that while the vaccine is effective in reducing transmission, it is possible for a vaccinated person to spread the virus. Until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important. Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccines will not alter any human genome and cannot make any changes to your DNA. The vaccines contain all the instructions necessary to teach your cells to make SARS-CoV-2's signature spike protein, release it out into the body, and your immune system gets a practice round at fighting off COVID-19. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine can affect women’s fertility Fact: There is currently no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta. In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that fertility problems are a side effect of any vaccine. People who are trying to become pregnant now or who plan to try in the future may receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them but it’s always prudent to consult with your doctor. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine was developed to control the general population either through microchip tracking or "nanotransducers" in our brains. Fact: There is no vaccine microchip, and the vaccine cannot track people or gather personal information into a database. Myth: The vaccines were developed and produced using fetal tissue. Fact: The vaccines do not contain fetal cells nor were fetal cells used in the production the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used human cell lines or also known as cell cultures to grow the harmless adenovirus but did not use fetal tissue. These same cell lines have been used for other vaccines including hepatitis, chickenpox and rabies and have been around for years. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Immigration history expert can provide insight on anti-Asian racism in the U.S.

Anti-Asian hate crimes are on the rise in America, and new data has revealed over the past year that the number of these incidents — which can include shunning, verbal harassment and physical attacks — is greater than previously reported. And a disproportionate number have been directed at Asian women, such as the recent Atlanta spa shootings and the assault on an elderly woman in San Francisco.  The research released by reporting forum Stop AAPI Hate on Tuesday revealed nearly 3,800 incidents were reported over the course of roughly a year during the pandemic. It’s a significantly higher number than last year's count of about 2,800 hate incidents nationwide over the span of five months. Women made up a far higher share of the reports, at 68 percent, compared to men, who made up 29 percent of respondents. The non-profit does not report incidents to police. The data, which includes incidents that occurred between March 19 of last year and Feb. 28 of this year, shows that roughly 503 incidents took place in 2021 alone. Verbal harassment and shunning were the most common types of discrimination, making up 68.1 percent and 20.5 percent of the reports respectively. The third most common category, physical assault, made up 11.1 percent of the total incidents. More than a third of incidents occurred at businesses, the primary site of discrimination, while a quarter took place in public streets. According to the data, Asian women report hate incidents 2.3 times more than men. A further examination of the submitted reports showed that in many cases, the verbal harassment that women received reflected the very intersection of racism and sexism. March 16 – NBC News If you’re a journalist covering this news story, then let us help. Dr. Krystyn Moon is  an expert in U.S. immigration history, popular culture, race and ethnic studies – and is available to speak with media regarding the recent study and the history of the anti-Asian racism and violence in the United States.  If you are looking to arrange an interview, simply click on her icon now to book a time today.

MEDIA RELEASE: CAA Insurance Company announces another round of meaningful relief for Ontario drivers

CAA Insurance continues to lead the way in providing Ontario auto policyholders with financial relief during the pandemic. CAA Insurance Company is renewing its commitment to customers by enhancing its industry-leading rate relief for Ontario auto policyholders to 15 per cent for a 12-month term. The announcement is one way that CAA Insurance is helping our customers with meaningful relief to help manage expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic. “We recognize that people are either driving less or driving differently, and we don’t expect this to change in the short-term,” says Matthew Turack, president of CAA Insurance Company. “We understand there are many people facing challenges brought on by the pandemic. We believe that insurance companies should step up, give back and help Ontarians manage expenses during the COVID-19 pandemic.” In 2020, CAA Insurance led the insurance industry by providing both rate reductions and financial relief benefits, and we are pleased to continue leading the industry in 2021. Over the past year, CAA Insurance’s initiatives include: In April 2020, CAA Insurance was the first and only insurance company to offer a 10 per cent rate reduction on both auto and home insurance policies for the duration of a 12-month policy term. In May 2020, we announced a $100 auto insurance relief benefit. In October 2020, we provided an additional $50 relief benefit for our active Ontario auto policies. The total amount of pandemic relief that CAA Insurance will give back to home and auto insurance customers during 2020 and 2021 is estimated to be over $130 million. Coupled with our pandemic relief, new customers who have made the switch to CAA Insurance see significant savings. By calling and speaking to one of our agents or brokers, motorists could find savings averaging over $700 per policy. Today’s announced rate relief applies automatically to all new customers effective April 15, 2021, and to existing customers whose auto policies renew on or after June 15, 2021. Customers whose auto policies renewed between January 1 and June 14, 2021, can apply for the incremental rate relief by completing an online form at https://www.caainsurancecompany.com/rate-reduction-policy-details

Zooming along! Our Expert Research Reveals Shared E-Scooter Systems Can Generate Significant Positive Economic Spillover

New research examining the economic impact of micromobility on local economies found shared e-scooter systems created an estimated $13.8 million in additional sales across 370 food and beverage companies in four cities over six months in 2019, as compared to four similar cities over the same time period without e-scooter programs. The study compared consumer purchase patterns in four cities that allowed operation of shared e-scooter systems – Atlanta, Austin, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. – to similar cities that did not at the time – Boston, Houston, Phoenix, and Seattle. The study used extensive econometric methods to uncover purchasing that was caused by e-scooter rides, which would not have occurred otherwise. “The post-COVID economic recovery remains slow, but this research shows we shouldn’t ignore the positive impact of micromobility on small businesses,” said Dan McCarthy, senior author of the study and assistant professor of marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. “This is especially relevant for the food and beverage sector, a significant source of jobs, which is suffering sales declines larger than most other sectors of the economy.” The study uncovered e-scooter usage generated significant positive economic spillovers for the food and beverage industry purchasing in a similar way that consumers make impulse purchases at grocery stores – its effects are larger for businesses where the consumption happens more quickly, and businesses selling at lower prices. Across the cities studied with e-scooter programs, total sales in the food and beverage category increased by an estimated 0.6 percent on average, or approximately $921 in incremental spending per available e-scooter for the food and beverage companies over the six-month period studied in the analysis. “Since these companies represent approximately 15 percent of the overall food and beverage market in these cities, the actual impact could be much larger,” said McCarthy. “If, for instance, subsequent research confirmed a similar level of uptick across all food and beverage companies in these markets driven by micromobility, the overall full-year economic impact could be close to $200 million.” If you're interested in learning more - there's a full article published by Emory Business attached. And, if you're a journalist looking to cover this exciting and emerging topic - then let us help.  Dan McCarthy is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Emory University's Goizueta School of Business. His research specialty is the application of leading-edge statistical methodology to contemporary empirical marketing problems. Dan is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an intwrview today.

What’s it all mean as ‘Big-Tech’ pivots to privacy? Let our Experts help explain if you are covering

The business of the internet as we know it, is about to change. As companies in the past have thrived, boomed, and found serious cash and success harvesting your data – that model may soon be coming to an end. With companies like Google and Apple leading the way, odds are a serious transformation is about to come and the know that notice has been served, it is getting a lot of attention. The decision, coming from the world’s biggest digital advertising company, could help push the industry away from the use of such individualized tracking, which has come under increasing criticism from privacy advocates and faces scrutiny from regulators. Google’s heft means the change could reshape the digital ad business, where many companies rely on tracking individuals to target their ads, measure the ads’ effectiveness, and stop fraud. Google accounted for 52% of last year’s global digital ad spending of $292 billion, according to Jounce Media, a digital ad consultancy. About 40% of the money that flows from advertisers to publishers on the open internet—meaning digital advertising outside of closed systems such as Google Search, YouTube, or Facebook—goes through Google’s ad buying tools, according to Jounce. March 03 – The Wall Street Journal. But what will this mean for powerhouses like Facebook or the multitude of apps and carriers who rely on data, and the money that comes with it to succeed? What lies ahead will be interesting, and if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic – then let our experts help. Vilma Todri is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Previously, she worked for Google where she was developing integrated cross-platform advertising strategies for large business clients that partnered with Google and recently wrote a comprehensive paper on this very topic. Vilma is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Why online recommendations make it easier to hit “buy”

When it is time to buy something online, perhaps a coffee maker, you might head to Amazon and browse items for sale. One particular model might spark interest. The product page may contain recommendations for other goods: complementary products such as coffee filters; or recommendations for different, competitor coffee maker brands offering unique features and prices. E-commerce websites commonly use product recommendations — called co-purchase and co-view recommendations — to keep users locked into the sales funnel and increase customer retention. But what impact do these types of recommendations actually have on consumers? How do they influence one’s willingness to pay for the original product searched? In fact, the level of influence depends on how close a consumer is to making that purchase, says Jesse Bockstedt, associate professor of information systems & operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. In addition, what type of recommendation the consumer sees plays a role in purchasing as well. To shed empirical light on this, Bockstedt teamed with Mingyue Zhang from the Shanghai International Studies University. “We were curious. We knew that recommendation systems are integral to how consumers discover products online – a good 35 percent of Amazon sales can be attributed to recommendations, for instance,” Bockstedt says. “But we knew a lot less about how recommendations change consumer behavior in relation to a focal product.” Specifically, the researchers were interested in looking at the effect of complementary versus substitutable products, and what impact the price of these types of products had on consumer behavior. They also wanted to know whether these effects were more or less amplified depending on whether consumers were at the exploratory phase in the buying process or ready to go ahead and make the purchase. To unpack the dynamics at play, Bockstedt and Zhang ran two experiments that simulated the online purchasing experience. The researchers had volunteers go through the process of evaluating different products and then report back on how much they were willing to pay for each. “We asked volunteers to look at a product page for a computer mouse, and we randomly assigned different recommendations to that page – some that were for other mice, and others that were for goods and products that would complement the original mouse. Going through the experiment, we also manipulated the price that volunteers saw on different pages, both for the recommended substitute and complementary products,” he says. “Finally, we looked at the effect of timing and the sales funnel. In one case we had volunteers look for a highly specific mouse and recommended a particular product page to them. To simulate the more exploratory phase, we gave them many pages and asked them to click on the one they found most interesting.” In total, Bockstedt and Zhang put 200+ volunteers through the replica virtual purchasing experience and recorded their willingness to pay the advertised price for the focal product on scale of 0 to 100, depending on what they had seen and the point in the sales funnel they had seen the recommendations. If you are looking to learn more about this research and the results, Emory has a full article published for reading and review. If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic or if you are simply interested in learning more, then let us help. Jesse Bockstedt, associate professor of information systems and operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. He is available to speak with media, simply click on his icon now – to book an interview today.

What does Meghan Markle's explosive interview say about how the Royal Family and British press treats women of color?

It was hyped, promoted and delivered a ratings bonanza for CBS. Oprah Winfrey’s exclusive, no-holds barred interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, left many aghast by her revelations of mistreatment, constant abuse in the media and even Meghan's experience of racism when it came to the status, security and skin color of her then unborn son. Even the day after, Oprah, praised for her masterful interviewing skills, is still revealing excerpts that shine a brighter light on the situation. The Duchess of Sussex claimed the press team that would defend the royal family "when they know something's not true" failed to come to their defense. Winfrey asked Prince Harry if he hoped his family would ever acknowledge that the differences in treatment were over race. "It would make a huge difference," he said. "Like I said, there's a lot of people that have seen it for what it was… like it's talked about across the world." The people who do not want to see it, Harry claimed, "choose not to see it." March 08 – CBS News The interview has the public discussing racism and misogyny and how these are playing out in the Royal Family dynamics and the British press. And if you are a journalist looking to explore this issue, then let our experts help. Dr. Adria Goldman’s research explores the intersectionality of race, gender, culture and its connection to communication and media. She enjoys examining media’s impact on perceptions, construction of identity, social relationships and belief systems. Dr. Goldman is available to speak with media regarding Oprah Winfrey's interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry and what it means when it comes to race, royalty and what impact it may have on the couple and the Royal Family moving forward. If you are looking to arrange an interview, simply click on her icon now to book a time today.

Personality matters: the tie between language and how well your video content performs

Why does one piece of online video content perform better than another? Does it come down to its relevance, production values, and posting and sharing strategies? Or are other dynamics at play? There are plenty of theories about what, when and how to post if you want to drive the performance of your video. But new research by Goizueta’s Rajiv Garg, associate professor of information systems and operations management, sheds empirical and highly nuanced new light on the type of language to inject in a content if you really want to accelerate consumption. And it turns out that a lot of it depends on personality. Together with Haris Krijestorac of HEC Paris and McCombs’ Maytal Saar-Tsechansky, Garg has run a large-scale study, analyzing the words spoken and used in speech-heavy videos posted to YouTube, and then organizing those words by personality – how they “score” in terms of the so-called Big Five personality traits. “The Big Five is a system or taxonomy that has been used by psychologists and others since the 1980s to organize different types of personality traits. These traits are extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism,” says Garg. “In previous research into video content performance, we’ve looked into mechanisms such as posting and re-posting on different channels and how they impact the virality of one video over another. But we were intrigued by the role of language and how different words map to these personality traits, which in turn might have an impact on user emotion or response.” Emory has this entire comprehensive article that includes more details on the Big Five and it is available for reading here: If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic – then let our experts help with your story. Rajiv Garg from Emory’s Goizueta Business School is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Time to talk tough about taxes - Can Canadians expect to see taxes take-off to remedy the costs of COVID relief?

A federal budget is coming soon – and as Canada is still stuck in the grips of COVID-19 and the thin ice its economy is still walking on, it is expected sooner or later, the tab will have to be paid and that bill will be satisfied with taxes. Recently, Don Scott, Director of Tax Services at Welch wrote an insightful piece where he lends his many years of wisdom, experience and perspective to share what he thinks will be how Canada’s federal government digs itself out of what has been more than a year of bills and bailouts. In his piece, he looks at whether or not the government will raise such revenue streams as: corporate and business tax rates personal income taxes capital gains principle residence redemptions and even the GST It’s required reading for anyone interested in the finances of the federal government – and if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic, then let us help. Don Scott is the Director of Tax Services at Welch and is a nationally recognized expert for his extensive knowledge in the area of Personal and Corporate Tax Planning. Don is available to speak with media regarding the upcoming budget, to arrange an interview today – simply click on his icon now.

MEDIA RELEASE: Reforming the towing industry: CAA supports today’s provincial announcement

Provincial oversight of the towing industry would enhance protection for all Ontarians CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO) supports today’s government announcement for provincial oversight, reform and licensing of the towing industry. “Today’s announcement is an important step towards addressing the needs and challenges experienced by both consumers and the tow industry. Ontario’s motorists need to know that their tow operators are provincially licensed and qualified to perform towing services safely,” says Teresa Di Felice, assistant vice-president of government and community relations for CAA SCO. The government’s comments highlight the need for better education for the motoring public, including an introduction of a consumer bill of rights. In 2018 CAA created the Towing Bill of Rights, a glove box reference card, to help avoid any confusion when it comes to the rights of motorists when they need towing services. A CAA SCO study commissioned in 2020 revealed that only 1 out of 5 Ontario drivers feel “very protected” under the current system. The survey also identified that more than 90 per cent of Ontarians agree with tow truck licensing, certification and provincial regulation. “For over a decade CAA has been advocating for towing industry reforms and has been working towards greater consumer protection. We are pleased to see the province moving in the right direction. Consumers should have the confidence that they will be protected, regardless of where in the province they are and what kind of towing services they may require.” More information on CAA’s proposed framework for a provincial towing regulatory system can be found at www.moresafetows.ca and in our August 2020 Provincial Towing Oversight Town Hall Webinar.