Opinion
I
t’s highly likely that the folks
reading this are younger
rather than older. You’re
probably reading this on your
computer or phone. Maybe you’re
laying in bed, e-commuting to class
or, most likely of all, sitting on the
toilet. Whatever you’re doing while
reading, I’m positive this next part
will spark some curiosity, cause
you to miss a step or — hopefully,
because that’d be funny — produce
a combo of the two. Contrary to
the invincibility complex of young
adulthood’s hype, you, reader, are
not too young to have heart disease.
Before you object, I challenge you
to take a deep breath and keep
reading. It could save your life.
I’m
propagandist-level
enthusiastic
about
preventive
medicine and early intervention
because there’s something about
being in control of one’s health that
feels naturally good. I’m the kind
of guy who signs up to get the flu
vaccine the first day it’s available
at CVS Pharmacy. Who practices
intermittent fasting most days of
the week. Who’s always on the
lookout for new evidence-backed
senotherapeutics.
Who,
after
noticing the slightest androgenic
alopecia this year, started taking
Propecia
(it’s
working!).
I’ve
been a runner since 2018, and my
waistline (and arms) pleasantly
bear witness. I haven’t eaten red
meat or pork for half a decade, and
I’m not really a natural fan of birds
and fish, either.
I don’t write any of this to build
myself up. I work really hard to
be well now because I want to be
present for others later. I want to be
around to meet my great (at least)-
grandkids, see life-saving rather
than
life-extending
treatments
arrive
for
humankind’s
most
offensive cancers and celebrate a
majority non-white United States.
I have — just as you do and every
generation before ours did — a lot
of good to offer my fellow humans.
The opportunities for us to exceed
expectations and right our parents’
wrongs are literally limitless. The
way things are going now, though, I
just want enough time to finish my
education (not necessarily to have
to pay back the loans, though).
Which is why I’m writing this.
I received some blood work Aug.
24, and it looked nothing like it
should. Instead of an active, plant-
based, health-obsessed 25-year old
guy, my veins and arteries look like
a 60-year old’s who loves tobacco
as much as he hates exercises. I
went to see my doctor the next day.
Here’s what she told me:
Adult men’s total cholesterol
should be less than 200 milligrams
per deciliter.
My total cholesterol is nearly
32 percent higher than it should
be. My LDL (“bad”) cholesterol
should be less than 100 mg/dL.
I’m carrying 65 percent more than
that. My HDL (“good”) cholesterol
should be 60 mg/dL or higher. I
didn’t make the cut-off.
“If we don’t get this under
control now,” she said, “you’ve
got about a 50 percent probability
of living to 60 and roughly 40
percent of having a heart attack
before 50.” That translates into
a roughly 90-fold increased risk
for
developing
cardiovascular
disease in the next decade or so.
My stomach twisted into knots of
anxiety. I’m not much of a crier, but
I felt tears well up.
Why was my blood so unhealthy?
Well, apparently, it’s always been
that way. I was diagnosed with a
relatively common — if you call
one in 250 (0.4 percent) common
— atherogenic genetic disorder
called
heterozygous
familial
hypercholesterolemia
(FH).
I’ve had atherosclerotic plaques
building in my blood vessels since
I was born, and no amount of
exercise nor leafy greens would’ve
been enough to keep me safe. It
means my two sisters each have a
50 percent chance of having it, too.
It also means my kids will have a 50
percent chance of being born with
it, and that it’s likely behind the
very premature death of my uncle.
Just
15-20
percent
of
individuals with FH are diagnosed
and only 16 percent of those
individuals are on cholesterol-
lowering
pharmacotherapy.
This is despite medications,
known
as
statins,
being
extremely helpful for managing
FH. Usually, a diagnosis isn’t
made
until
a
catastrophic
(and
completely
preventable)
cardiovascular event has already
occurred, such as myocardial
infarction or stroke — an age-
unbiased event which can easily
be fatal. The reality that FH is
very underdiagnosed due to poor
awareness in the population
combined with the coronavirus’s
tendency to damage the human
cardiovascular
system
would
spell disaster for folks of all ages
with hidden FH — including
myself. If I had come down with
COVID-19, I would’ve stood
little chance. Seeing as COVID-
19 doesn’t seem to be going
anywhere, knowing what I know
now stings a little more.
I’m by no means saying you
need to run out and wrangle
yourself
a
cardiologist
today,
tomorrow or even this month. For
many of us, youth is indeed on our
cardiovascular side. That said, the
coronavirus is a known cause of
premature stroke and clotting in
young, otherwise healthy people,
as well as arrhythmia, myocarditis,
cardiac ischemia and sudden
death. Fully one in three COVID-19
patients develop cardiomyopathy
and in many cases, the virus could
increase risks of heart failure. And
as we go further into this thing,
it’s younger people — like, our age
— whose case numbers are on the
rise. This should and does concern
you directly. The best bet with
your health is to know what you’re
up against earlier rather than later
(when catching up is a lot harder).
The COVID-19 pandemic may
be a once-in-a-century occurrence,
but it’s still within the realm
of applicability of physicians’
eternal recommendations to eat
healthfully,
exercise
regularly
and undergo yearly physical and
laboratory examinations. When
individuals know the goings-on
of their insides, they’re bound to
make better health decisions for
themselves and others by proxy.
Beyond simply reaping the benefits
from preventive medicine we all
know about — at least abstractly
— as young people, knowing our
individual numbers empowers us
with clearer, fuller choice-making
capacity for the present and the
future. If you truly want to express
bodily autonomy, consider learning
about the biological and chemical
systems that make you, well ... you.
Be proud of your body and take
care of it. It’s the only one you
have. Schedule a physical with
your doctor, especially if you have
a family history of early heart
disease, high cholesterol, diabetes
or obesity. One last statistic: from an
estimate based on the total number
of students at the University of
Michigan, roughly 192 current
Wolverines have FH. They are 192
friends, brothers, students, sisters,
sons, daughters, partners. I don’t
have to know you to take pride in
our shared missions as Wolverines,
and the world we have right now
can’t afford to lose a single one of
us. Know your numbers because
youth is no guarantee.
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
BRITTANY BOWMAN AND
EMILY CONSIDINE
Editorial Page Editors
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
JOSHUA E. TUCKER | OP-ED
Youth is no guarantee
Ray Ajemian
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Gabrijela Skoko
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, September 9, 2020
FROM THE DAILY
The University can do more to protect
its community
T
he University of Michigan’s reopening has been fraught with challenges
and has met much criticism from faculty, students and Ann Arbor
residents alike. Messaging from upper administration and University
President Mark Schlissel throughout the summer months leading up to reopening
has been remarkably inconsistent. From saying that the assertion that students
won’t follow safety protocol is “offensive” to analogizing student violations of
distancing guidelines to the HIV epidemic, Schlissel especially has come under
severe scrutiny, resulting in the consideration of a vote of no confidence by the
Faculty Senate. Reports of precautionary guidelines being unenforced during
undergraduate move-in and unlawful student gatherings have only compounded
on an increasing lack of faith in the University’s flawed reopening strategy.
We are calling on University
leadership to re-evaluate its current
plan for the fall 2020 semester.
Provisions
must
include
better
contact tracing and the use of
alternate testing methods, such
as weekly wastewater testing in
residence halls to monitor possible
outbreaks and saliva testing, which is
less invasive than the traditional nasal
swab and expedites results so contact
tracing and quarantining can be
administered rapidly. The University
must also follow the guidelines they
have already put into place, ensuring
that Student Life staff enforce mask
guidelines and no-guest policies
in dorms, as well as outlining the
protocol
for
repercussions
for
violations. To ensure the efficacy
of this enforcement, the University
must
provide
quality
personal
protective equipment to University
faculty, staff and Student Life
employees.
The innumerable flaws in the
current fall 2020 reopening plan,
along with its execution, have been
impacting the Ann Arbor and
University community unequally.
We acknowledge that there are
those who rely on some U-M classes
being held in person, but the lack of
robust planning to allow for those
necessary classes to take place will
only serve to weaken the institution
even further in the long term. The
University has been overworking
Student Life staff without providing
adequate protection. Leadership has
acknowledged but pushed against
calls for widespread and alternative
testing. Last-minute announcements
and lack of adequate protections
overall have put students, especially
international students, students of
color and low-income students, at
risk since the partial closure of the
University in March.
The University has failed to come
up with a response sufficient for the
scope of the problem in some of the
most basic ways, particularly where
housing is concerned. Not only
are dorms operating at 70 percent
capacity right now despite the percent
of strictly online undergraduate
classes being 78 percent, but they’re
also operating in such a way that
they fall under the CDC’s “more risk”
category — as do all University spaces,
currently. Guidelines like staying six
feet apart and not sharing objects
are the minimum precautions an
institution can take right now. Many
comparable universities have done
far more to minimize the number
of bodies on campus. Less than 10
percent of University of Washington
undergraduate classes are in person,
compared to our 31 percent; Harvard
University and University of Chicago
dorms are at 40 percent capacity,
compared to our 70 (and everyone
gets their own room); Georgetown
University is housing 2,000 students,
dwarfed by our on-campus freshman
count alone; Brown, Princeton,
Columbia, Stanford and Yale are
all alternating based on year which
students can be on-campus, rather
than welcoming everyone back at
once.
While some college students
rely on an open campus for food,
housing and basic amenities like a
stable internet connection, Michigan
students are exceedingly unlikely
to be in this situation based on their
financial demographics. Add to this
the fact that the few basic regulations
the University has offered are, more
often than not, going unenforced,
and it becomes clear that the blame
cannot fall squarely on the shoulders
of students. Yes, we are already on
campus, but that doesn’t mean it’s
too late for the University to make
changes and move people out when
there’s no need for them to be there
— that’s precisely what happened
last March. We are calling upon
the University to respond to the
pandemic with the gravity it deserves
and do as much as possible to protect
its staff and students, rather than as
little as possible.
As a university with such an
immense pool of resources, there is no
reason we cannot adapt to our current
circumstances, if not lead the way for
colleges across the U.S. Michigan
is ranked among the best colleges
for medical research in the country
and even the most innovative in
general. COVID-19 related research
is being conducted in a multitude of
University programs, as it ought to be,
but we’re still behind when it comes
to implementing our knowledge
into our plan of action. At present,
required testing is limited to those
who are already exhibiting symptoms
or who have had close contact with
someone else who has tested positive.
The University recently announced
a new opt-in surveillance testing
program that aims to test 3,000
individuals by the end of September.
This program is a step in the right
direction, but its effectiveness for a
campus community of over 40,000
remains to be seen.
It can be true that asymptomatic
testing is less important than other
measures, as this guide is quick to
state, while also being true that if
we have the means, we should do so
anyway — and with one of the largest
endowments in the U.S., it is hard
to argue we don’t have the means.
The current contact tracing method
similarly falls short, limited to a phone
call about proper quarantine to those
close to individuals who test positive;
much more effective is “retrospective”
contact tracing, in which tracers look
for the sources of their cases, not just
possible resulting cases. At the very
least, the University should also be
testing proactively rather than relying
solely on individuals to voluntarily
test themselves. Rochester Institute
of Technology’s testing of residence
hall wastewater and similar forms of
pool testing are simple but effective
at monitoring large populations like
our student body, and we believe the
University should take advantage of
them.
We’ve been told over and over
again that it is an unprecedented time
and that no one is to blame except the
virus. However, the University had
the time to plan for this fall and the
resources to do far more than that
plan entails. We cannot expect such
a large, interwoven population of
people to make it through a pandemic
on bare minimum precautions. If the
University insists on having an open
campus and in-person classes, it must
act to make sure this system is as safe
as possible for everyone.
Design courtesy of Samuel Turner
Joshua E. Tucker (he/him/his) is
a second-year graduate student in
Environmental Health Sciences at the
School of Public Health. He can be
reached at tuckjosh@umich.edu.
JENNA SCHEEN | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT JSCHEEN@UMICH.EDU
Design courtesy of Ahmad Kady