ReportWire

Tag: Vaccines

  • Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    [ad_1]

    Title 42, the United States pandemic rule that had been used to immediately deport hundreds of thousands of migrants who crossed the border illegally over the last three years, has expired. Those migrants will have the opportunity to apply for asylum. President Biden’s new rules to replace Title 42 are facing legal challenges. The US Homeland Security Department announced a rule to make it extremely difficult for anyone who travels through another country, like Mexico, to qualify for asylum. Border crossings have already risen sharply, as many migrants attempted to cross before the measure expired on Thursday night. Some have said they worry about tighter controls and uncertainty ahead. Immigration is once again a major focus of the media as we examine the humanitarian, political, and public health issues migrants must face. 

    Below are some of the latest headlines in the Immigration channel on Newswise.

    Expert Commentary

    Experts Available on Ending of Title 42

    George Washington University Experts on End of Title 42

    ‘No one wins when immigrants cannot readily access healthcare’

    URI professor discusses worsening child labor in the United States

    Biden ‘between a rock and a hard place’ on immigration

    University of Notre Dame Expert Available to Comment on House Bill Regarding Immigration Legislation, Border Safety and Security Act

    American University Experts Available to Discuss President Biden’s Visit to U.S.-Mexico Border

    Title 42 termination ‘overdue’, not ‘effective’ to manage migration

    Research and Features

    Study: Survey Methodology Should Be Calibrated to Account for Negative Attitudes About Immigrants and Asylum-Seekers

    A study analyses racial discrimination in job recruitment in Europe

    DACA has not had a negative impact on the U.S. job market

    ASBMB cautions against drastic immigration fee increases

    Study compares NGO communication around migration

    Collaboration, support structures needed to address ‘polycrisis’ in the Americas

    TTUHSC El Paso Faculty Teach Students While Caring for Migrants

    Immigrants Report Declining Alcohol Use during First Two Years after Arriving in U.S.

    How asylum seeker credibility is assessed by authorities

    Speeding up and simplifying immigration claims urgently needed to help with dire situation for migrants experiencing homelessness

    Training Individuals to Work in their Communities to Reduce Health Disparities

    ‘Regulation by reputation’: Rating program can help combat migrant abuse in the Gulf

    Migration of academics: Economic development does not necessarily lead to brain drain

    How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected immigration?

    Immigrants with Darker Skin Tones Perceive More Discrimination

     

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • 23 Pandemic Decisions That Actually Went Right

    23 Pandemic Decisions That Actually Went Right

    [ad_1]

    More than three years ago, the coronavirus pandemic officially became an emergency, and much of the world froze in place while politicians and public-health advisers tried to figure out what on Earth to do. Now the emergency is officially over—the World Health Organization declared so on Friday, and the Biden administration will do the same later this week.

    Along the way, almost 7 million people died, according to the WHO, and looking back at the decisions made as COVID spread is, for the most part, a demoralizing exercise. It was already possible to see, in January 2020, that America didn’t have enough masks; in February, that misinformation would proliferate; in March, that nursing homes would become death traps, that inequality would widen, that children’s education, patients’ care, and women’s careers would suffer. What would go wrong has been all too clear from the beginning.

    Not every lesson has to be a cautionary tale, however, and the end of the COVID-19 emergency may be, if nothing else, a chance to consider which pandemic policies, decisions, and ideas actually worked out for the best. Put another way: In the face of so much suffering, what went right?

    To find out, we called up more than a dozen people who have spent the past several years in the thick of pandemic decision making, and asked: When the next pandemic comes, which concrete action would you repeat in exactly the same way?

    What they told us is by no means a comprehensive playbook for handling a future public-health crisis. But they did lay out 23 specific tactics—and five big themes—that have kept the past few years from being even worse.


    Good information makes everything else possible.
    1. Start immediate briefings for the public. At the beginning of March 2020, within days of New York City detecting its first case of COVID-19, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio began giving daily or near-daily coronavirus press briefings, many of which included health experts along with elected officials. These briefings gave the public a consistent, reliable narrative to follow during the earliest, most uncertain days of the pandemic, and put science at the forefront of the discourse, Jay Varma, a professor of population health at Cornell University and a former adviser to de Blasio, told us.
    2. Let everyone see the information you have. In Medway, Massachusetts, for instance, the public-school system set up a data dashboard and released daily testing results.  This allowed the entire affected community to see the impact of COVID in schools, Armand Pires, the superintendent of Medway Public Schools, told us.
    3. Be clear that some data streams are better than others. During the first year of the pandemic, COVID-hospitalization rates were more consistent and reliable than, say, case counts and testing data, which varied with testing shortages and holidays, Erin Kissane, the managing editor of the COVID Tracking Project, told us.The project, which grew out of The Atlantic’s reporting on testing data, tracked COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. CTP made a point of explaining where the data came from, what their flaws and shortcomings were, and why they were messy, instead of worrying about how people might react to this kind of information.
    4. Act quickly on the data. At the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, testing made a difference, because the administration acted quickly after cases started rising faster than predicted when students returned in fall of 2020, Rebecca Lee Smith, a UIUC epidemiologist, told us. The university instituted a “stay at home” order, and cases went down—and remained down. Even after the order ended, students and staff continued to be tested every four days so that anyone with COVID could be identified and isolated quickly.  
    5. And use it to target the places that may need the most attention. In California, a social-vulnerability index helped pinpoint areas to focus vaccine campaigns on, Brad Pollock, UC Davis’s Rolkin Chair in Public-Health Sciences and the leader of Healthy Davis Together, told us. In this instance, that meant places with migrant farmworkers and unhoused people, but this kind of precision public health could also work for other populations.
    6. Engage with skeptics. Rather than ignore misinformation or pick a fight with the people promoting it, Nirav Shah, the former director of Maine’s CDC, decided to hear them out, going on a local call-in radio show with hosts known to be skeptical of vaccines.
    A pandemic requires thinking at scale.
    1. Do pooled testing as early as possible. Medway’s public-school district used this technique, which combines samples from multiple people into one tube and then tests them all at once, to help reopen elementary schools in early 2021, said Pires, the Medway superintendent. Pooled testing made it possible to test large groups of people relatively quickly and cheaply.
    2. Choose technology that scales up quickly. Pfizer chose to use mRNA-vaccine tech in part because traditional vaccines are scaled up in stainless-steel vats, Jim Cafone, Pfizer’s senior vice president for global supply chain, told us. If the goal is to vaccinate billions of patients, “there’s not enough stainless steel in the world to do what you need to do,” he said. By contrast, mRNA is manufactured using lipid nanoparticle pumps, many more of which can fit into much less physical space.
    3. Take advantage of existing resources. UC Davis repurposed genomic tools normally used for agriculture for COVID testing, and was able to perform 10,000 tests a day,  Pollock, the UC Davis professor, told us.
    4. Use the Defense Production Act. This Cold War–era law, which allows the U.S. to force companies to prioritize orders from the government, is widely used in the defense sector. During the pandemic, the federal government invoked the DPA to break logjams in vaccine manufacturing, Chad Bown, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who tracked the vaccine supply chain, told us. For example, suppliers of equipment used in pharmaceutical manufacturing were compelled to prioritize COVID-vaccine makers, and fill-and-finish facilities were compelled to bottle COVID vaccines first—ensuring that the vaccines the U.S. government had purchased would be delivered quickly.  
    Vaccines need to work for everyone.
    1. Recruit diverse populations for clinical trials. Late-stage studies on new drugs and vaccines have a long history of underrepresenting people from marginalized backgrounds, including people of color. That trend, as researchers have repeatedly pointed out, runs two risks: overlooking differences in effectiveness that might not appear until after a product has been administered en masse, and worsening the distrust built up after decades of medical racism and outright abuse. The COVID-vaccine trials didn’t do a perfect job of enrolling participants that fully represent the diversity of America, but they did better than many prior Phase 3 clinical trials despite having to rapidly enroll 30,000 to 40,000 adults, Grace Lee, the chair of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, told us. That meant the trials were able to provide promising evidence that the shots were safe and effective across populations—and, potentially, convince wider swaths of the public that the shots worked for people like them.
    2. Try out multiple vaccines. No one can say for sure which vaccines might work or what problems each might run into. So drug companies tested several candidates at once in Phase I trials, Annaliesa Anderson, the chief scientific officer for vaccine research and development at Pfizer, told us; similarly, Operation Warp Speed placed big bets on six different options, Bown, the Peterson Institute fellow, pointed out.
    3. Be ready to vet vaccine safety—fast. The rarest COVID-vaccine side effects weren’t picked up in clinical trials. But the United States’ multipronged vaccine-safety surveillance program was sensitive and speedy enough that within months of the shots’ debut, researchers found a clotting issue linked to Johnson & Johnson, and a myocarditis risk associated with Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA shots. They were also able to confidently weigh those risks against the immunizations’ many benefits. With these data in hand, the CDC and its advisory groups were able to throw their weight behind the new vaccines without reservations, said Lee, the ACIP chair.
    4. Make the rollout simple. When Maine was determining eligibility for the first round of COVID-19 vaccines, the state prioritized health-care workers and then green-lighted residents based solely on age—one of the most straightforward eligibility criteria in the country. Shah, the former head of Maine’s CDC, told us that he and other local officials credit the easy-to-follow system with Maine’s sky-high immunization rates, which have consistently ranked the state among the nation’s most vaccinated regions.
    5. Create vaccine pop-ups. For many older adults and people with limited mobility, getting vaccinated was largely a logistical challenge. Setting up temporary clinics where they lived—at senior centers or low-income housing, as in East Boston, for instance—helped ensure that transportation would not be an obstacle for them, said Josh Barocas, an infectious-diseases doctor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.
    6. Give out boosters while people still want them. When boosters were first broadly authorized and recommended in the fall of 2021, there was a mad rush to immunization lines. In Maine, Shah said, local officials discovered that pharmacies were so low on staff and supplies that they were canceling appointments or turning people away. In response, the state’s CDC set up a massive vaccination center in Augusta. Within days, they’d given out thousands of shots, including both boosters and the newly authorized pediatric shots.
    Also, spend money.
    1. Basic research spending matters. The COVID vaccines wouldn’t have been ready for the public nearly as quickly without a number of existing advances in immunology,  Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told us. Scientists had known for years that mRNA had immense potential as a delivery platform for vaccines, but before SARS-CoV-2 appeared, they hadn’t had quite the means or urgency to move the shots to market. And research into vaccines against other viruses, such as RSV and MERS, had already offered hints about the sorts of genetic modifications that might be needed to stabilize the coronavirus’s spike protein into a form that would marshal a strong, lasting immune response.
    2. Pour money into making vaccines before knowing they work. Manufacturing millions of doses of a vaccine candidate that might ultimately prove useless wouldn’t usually be a wise business decision. But Operation Warp Speed’s massive subsidies helped persuade manufacturers to begin making and stockpiling doses early on, Bown said. OWS also made additional investments to ensure that the U.S. had enough syringes and factories to bottle vaccines. So when the vaccines were given the green light, tens of millions of doses were almost immediately available.
    3. Invest in worker safety. The entertainment industry poured a massive amount of funds into getting COVID mitigations—testing, masking, ventilation, sick leave—off the ground so that it could resume work earlier than many other sectors. That showed what mitigation tools can accomplish if companies are willing to put funds toward them, Saskia Popescu, an infection-prevention expert in Arizona affiliated with George Mason University, told us.
    Lastly, consider the context.
    1. Rely on local relationships. To distribute vaccines to nursing homes, West Virginia initially eschewed the federal pharmacy program with CVS and Walgreens, Clay Marsh, West Virginia’s COVID czar, told us. Instead, the state partnered with local, family-run pharmacies that already provided these nursing homes with medication and flu vaccines. This approach might not have worked everywhere, but it worked for West Virginia.
    2. Don’t shy away from public-private partnerships. In Davis, California, a hotelier provided empty units for quarantine housing, Pollock said. In New York City, the robotics firm Opentrons helped NYU scale up testing capacity; the resulting partnership, called the Pandemic Response Lab, quickly slashed wait times for results, Varma, the former de Blasio adviser, said.
    3. Create spaces for vulnerable people to get help. People experiencing homelessness, individuals with substance-abuse disorders, and survivors of domestic violence require care tailored to their needs. In Boston, for example, a hospital recuperation unit built specifically for homeless people with COVID who were unable to self-isolate helped bring down hospitalizations in the community overall, Barocas said.
    4. Frame the pandemic response as a social movement. Involve not just public-health officials but also schools, religious groups, political leaders, and other sectors. For example, Matt Willis, the public-health officer for Marin County, California, told us, his county formed larger “community response teams” that agreed on and disseminated unified messages.

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Gutman-Wei

    Source link

  • How the end of COVID-19 emergency order impacts health policy

    How the end of COVID-19 emergency order impacts health policy

    [ad_1]

    How the end of COVID-19 emergency order impacts health policy – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The national COVID-19 emergency order will end on May 11. CBS News’ Errol Barnett and Tony Dokoupil talk to reporter Alexander Tin about what will change and how people could be affected.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Study Uncovers Post-Vaccine Heart Inflammation Risks

    Study Uncovers Post-Vaccine Heart Inflammation Risks

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — New Haven, Conn. — When new COVID-19 vaccines were first administered two years ago, public health officials found an increase in cases of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, particularly among young males who had been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. It was unclear, however, what exactly was causing this reaction.

    In a new study, Yale scientists have identified the immune signature of these heart inflammation cases.

    These findings, published May 5 in the journal Science Immunology, rule out some of the theorized causes of the heart inflammation and suggest potential ways to further reduce the incidence of a still rare side effect of vaccination, the authors say.

    Myocarditis is a generally mild inflammation of heart tissue which can cause scarring but is usually resolved within days. The increased incidence of myocarditis during vaccination was seen primarily in males in their teens or early 20s, who had been vaccinated with mRNA vaccines, which are designed to elicit immune responses specifically to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among males aged 12 to 17, about 22 to 36 per 100,000 experienced myocarditis within 21 days after receiving a second vaccine dose. Among unvaccinated males in this age group, the incidence of myocarditis was 50.1 to 64.9 cases per 100,000 after infection with the COVID-19 virus.

    For the new study, the Yale research team conducted a detailed analysis of immune system responses in those rare cases of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals. The team was led by Carrie Lucas, associate professor of immunobiology, Akiko Iwasaki, Sterling Professor of Immunobiology, and Inci Yildirim, associate professor of pediatrics and epidemiology.

    They found that the heart inflammation was not caused by antibodies created by the vaccine, but rather by a more generalized response involving immune cells and inflammation.

    “The immune systems of these individuals get a little too revved up and over-produce cytokine and cellular responses,” Lucas said.

    Earlier research had suggested that increasing the time between vaccination shots from four to eight weeks may  reduce risk of developing myocarditis.

    Lucas noted that, according to CDC findings, the risk of myocarditis is significantly greater in unvaccinated individuals who contract the COVID-19 virus than in those who receive vaccines. She emphasized that vaccination offers the best protection from COVID-19-related disease.

    “I hope this new knowledge will enable further optimizing mRNA vaccines, which, in addition to offering clear health benefits during the pandemic, have a tremendous potential to save lives across numerous future applications,” said Anis Barmada, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, who is a co-first author of the paper with Jon Klein, also a Yale M.D./Ph.D. student.

    [ad_2]

    Yale University

    Source link

  • Finnish study shows those at risk were less likely to get vaccinated.

    Finnish study shows those at risk were less likely to get vaccinated.

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — A large-scale registry study in Finland has identified several factors associated with uptake of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination. In particular, persons with low or no labor income and persons with mental health or substance abuse issues were less likely to vaccinate.

    The study, carried out in collaboration between the University of Helsinki and the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare, tested the association of nearly 3000 health, demographic and socio-economic variables with the uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccination dose across the entire Finnish population. 

    This work, just published in the Nature Human Behavior, is the largest study to date on this topic. 

    The single most significant factors that associated with reduced likelihood of being vaccinated were lack of labor income in the year preceding the pandemic, mother tongue other than Finnish or Swedish and having unvaccinated close relatives, especially the mother. Among health-related variables, factors related to mental health and substance abuse problems associated with reduced vaccination.

    “Lack of labor income can be due to unemployment, sickness or retirement. Furthermore, among individuals with labor income, we saw that low-income earners where the least likely to vaccinate”, explains Tuomo Hartonen, Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, University of Helsinki.

    The study was based on the FinRegistry data. Researchers analysed population-wide national health and population register data from the pre-pandemic period and compared these with the vaccination status data. The analyses were limited to people aged 30-80 years.

    “A particular strength of our study is that it is based on registers covering the entire Finnish population. This way we can avoid all selection bias, which is a major challenge of survey studies”, Postdoctoral Researcher Bradley Jermy from FIMM says.

    The researchers stress that their results describe the association between the studied variables and vaccination uptake at the population level, but do not allow conclusions to be drawn about causal relationships. Furthermore, the generalizability of the findings outside Finland requires further studies. However, it is clear from the results that in Finland, vaccination uptake was lowest among those who are already in a vulnerable position.

    Researchers created a machine learning-based model to predict vaccination uptake

    In addition to studying single predictors, the research team constructed a machine learning-based model to predict vaccination uptake. This prediction model allowed the researchers to group individuals according to their likelihood of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

    Approximately 90% of the total study population received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination. In contrast, the group with the lowest probability of being vaccinated based on the model had a vaccination rate of less than 19%.

    “Our research has created a framework for using machine learning and statistical approaches to identify those groups that are at higher risk of not vaccinating”, says the corresponding author of the study, Associate Professor Andrea Ganna from FIMM.

     “These results and the predictive model could be used in the future, for example in designing vaccination campaigns”, says the Principal Investigator of the FinRegistry study, Research Professor Markus Perola from THL.

    “This study is a great example of the possibilities that the FinRegistry study creates for investigating highly topical issues in a short timeframe. The collaboration between THL’s genetic and registry researchers and FIMM scientists will help to understand the many pathways that lead to susceptibility to different diseases,” Perola continues.

    The study is part of the FinRegistry project, a joint research project between the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM) at the University of Helsinki.

    [ad_2]

    University of Helsinki

    Source link

  • Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute Hosting World Malaria Day Symposium on Tuesday, April 25

    Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute Hosting World Malaria Day Symposium on Tuesday, April 25

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — The Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health will host its annual World Malaria Day Symposium Tuesday, April 25, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. EDT. The theme is the blood stage of malaria, which is the most devastating phase of the disease. The event will take place in person in Baltimore with thirteen panelists. A remote option is available to journalists.

    Daniel Goldberg, MD, PhD, the David M. and Paula L. Kipnis Distinguished Professor at Washington University in St. Louis, will deliver the keynote. He specializes in the biology of malaria, focused on identifying drug targets. The symposium will also feature more than 40 research posters, from research on mosquito microbiomes to malaria therapeutics.

    The Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute has hosted the annual symposium since 2009. The event recognizes World Malaria Day, established in May 2007 by the World Health Organization to bring global attention to the efforts being made to end the devastating disease. Malaria is one of the deadliest diseases in the world, killing more than 619,000 people in 2021, mostly children under the age of five in sub-Saharan Africa. Many who survive suffer life-changing consequences, including blindness, and the economies of malaria-endemic countries suffer detrimental setbacks.

    Vaccines represent a significant advance in potential malaria prevention. WHO recommended widespread use of the first-ever malaria vaccine, RTS,S, in October 2021, and others are in development. Yet proven preventive measures, including indoor insecticide spraying and mosquito nets, are still needed to help curb transmission—even with vaccine uptake. Research continues to fuel innovations in the urgent search to find new ways to control and prevent malaria’s spread from mosquito to humans. 

    WHAT:
    Johns Hopkins World Malaria Day Symposium |Blood Stage Malaria: Staving Off the Firestorm”
    Details and program available here.

    WHEN:
    Tuesday, April 25, 2023, 8:30 a.m – 5:45 p.m. EDT


    WHERE
    :
    To attend via Zoom, register here.

    WHO:
    Thirteen leading scientists and researchers from leading global research institutions will present in person at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Presenters include investigators representing the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, University of Pennsylvania, and University of California San Francisco, among others. Director of the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, Peter Agre, MD, will make introductory remarks. Please see program download on the event page.

    EVENT HASHTAG: #WorldMalariaDay 

    SOCIAL MEDIA:

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jhmri/

    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/johns-hopkins-malaria-research-institute

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/JHMRImalaria

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jhmalaria/

    The Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute is supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

     # # #

    [ad_2]

    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

    Source link

  • As COVID Tracking Wanes, Are We Letting Our Guard Down Too Soon?

    As COVID Tracking Wanes, Are We Letting Our Guard Down Too Soon?

    [ad_1]

    April 11, 2023 – The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “Because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

    But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the CDC, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since last year

    Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project last month, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

    Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on Monday that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency  expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap. 

    Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public says it’s over, and about half disagree. 

    Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

    But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.

    Time to Move On?

    In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared to the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations due to COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

    It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. 

    “Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

    His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

    As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

    “We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

    If a worrisome new variant does surface, Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the U.S. is in a much better position now. 

    Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

    “This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

    COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

    “It’s not all or none — collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.

    Not Endemic Yet

    Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

    Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

    Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

    That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

    Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the U.S., as of April 10.   

    Ideally, Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

    • Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots
    • Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus
    • Travelers’ surveillance, now at seven U.S. airports, according to the CDC
    • Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people 

    With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

    Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

    “It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute“COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” she said, and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

    For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

    While Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

    Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved.  “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”

    Keeping Tabs

    While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The World Health Organization’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

    In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

    Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime this year.

    Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

    “Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.   

    The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Moderna is developing a Lyme disease vaccine in a first for the company

    Moderna is developing a Lyme disease vaccine in a first for the company

    [ad_1]

    Moderna Inc. said Tuesday it’s working to develop its first bacterial vaccine to protect against Lyme disease, the tick-borne illness that causes a range of painful symptoms, including fever, headaches, fatigue, joint pain and rash.

    The biotech
    MRNA,
    -2.75%
    ,
    whose first product to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was its mRNA-based COVID vaccine, said it has two candidates in development to address Lyme disease, named mRNA-1982 and mRNA-1975.

    It announced the news at its fourth Vaccine Day, where it offered a full update on its clinical pipeline, which includes vaccines to protect against flu and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, as well as HIV, Epstein-Barr virus and herpes simplex virus, among others.

    There are about 120,000 cases of Lyme disease in the U.S. and Europe every year, creating a “significant quality of life burden,” the company said in a statement. Rising temperatures are helping the disease spread more easily, and it is difficult to diagnose, because the symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases. It most seriously affects children below the age of 15 and older adults.

    “Older adults appear to have higher odds of unfavorable treatment response as compared with younger patients, and neurologic manifestations are more common at presentation for this older adult population,” said the statement.

    Tick and Lyme disease season is here, and scientists warn this year could be worse than ever. Dr. Goudarz Molaei joins Lunch Break’s Tanya Rivero to explain what triggered the rapid spread of the disease and how people can avoid being affected. Photo: Kent Wood/Science Source

    The mRNA-1982 candidate is designed to create antibodies for Borrelia burgdorferi, the pathogen that causes almost all Lyme disease in the U.S., while mRNA-1975 is designed to elicit antibodies specific to the four major Borrelia species that cause the disease in the U.S. and Europe.

    Other new candidates in Moderna’s pipeline include mRNA-1405 and mRNA-1403, which aim to address the enteric virus norovirus. Norovirus is highly contagious and is the leading cause of diarrheal disease globally, Moderna said. It’s associated with about 18% of all such illnesses worldwide and causes about 200,000 deaths every year.

    Overall, Moderna is expecting to launch six major vaccine products in the next few years, all of them with large addressable markets.

    The company expects the annual global endemic market for COVID boosters alone to be worth about $15 billion.

    It has dosed the first participant in a late-stage trial of its next-generation, refrigerator-stable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, mRNA-1283. The vaccine “has demonstrated encouraging results in multiple clinical studies,” the company said.

    See now: Moderna CEO defends price increase for COVID vaccine to Congress

    A separate trial of a flu vaccine called mRNA-1010 fared less well, however.

    That trial “did not accrue sufficient cases at the interim efficacy analysis to declare early success in the Phase 3 Northern Hemisphere efficacy trial and the independent DSMB recommended continuation of efficacy follow-up,” the company said.

    The company expects the market for respiratory-product sales to range from $8 billion to $15 billion by 2027 and for operating profit that year to range from $4 billion to $9 billion.

    The stock was down 4% Tuesday and has fallen 15% in the year to date, while the S&P 500
    SPX,
    +0.17%

    has gained 7%.

    See also: Moderna’s stock slides as earnings fall short of estimates amid steep decline in COVID-vaccine sales

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UM School of Medicine Researchers Chart Path Forward on Developing mRNA Vaccines for Infections Beyond COVID-19

    UM School of Medicine Researchers Chart Path Forward on Developing mRNA Vaccines for Infections Beyond COVID-19

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — BALTIMORE, April 6, 2023 – After helping to develop and test new mRNA technologies for COVID-19 vaccines, University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) researchers and scientists are turning their attention to utilizing this innovative technology to ward off other infectious diseases like malaria and influenza. Last month, UMSOM faculty in the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health (CVD) launched a new clinical trial to investigate the use of mRNA technologies to create a vaccine against malaria. CVD Director Kathleen M. Neuzil, MD, MPH, FIDSA also provided commentary in the nation’s leading medical journal on the feasibility of using mRNA to develop a universal influenza vaccine that could eliminate the need for seasonal shots.

    The huge success of mRNA vaccines to combat COVID-19 has opened up a new era in vaccine development, offering the potential for faster, more efficient, and more effective vaccine production. In an editorial commenting on a new study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Neuzil, who is also the Myron M. Levine, MD, Professor in Vaccinology at UMSOM, wrote, “the application of mRNA technology to influenza vaccines would permit the design of vaccines that incorporate mRNAs matched to multiple influenza strains, a rapid adaptive response to virus evolution, and the manufacture of combination vaccines that include influenza and noninfluenza proteins, which would facilitate delivery to populations.”

    Dr. Neuzil pointed to more than 20 studies underway or in the planning stages to test novel influenza vaccines utilizing this technology. She commented on a recent animal study published in Science, which tested an mRNA vaccine against all 20 known influenza virus subtypes. The study found that the single vaccine can provide protection against different strains of the influenza virus by simultaneously inducing antibodies against multiple antigens, which she said suggests that an mRNA vaccine against influenza is “feasible” but that “careful attention to safety evaluations will be critical.”During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Neuzil led the team that launched the first clinical trial in the U.S. to test the Pfizer and BioNTech mRNA vaccine against COVID-19.

    CVD researchers also recently launched a new clinical trial investigating an mRNA-based vaccine for malaria. This phase 1, first-in-human study will aim to determine whether the vaccine is safe and its potential for efficacy against one of the world’s most deadly parasitic illnesses.

    “Many scientists who study malaria have long been invested in developing vaccines to prevent malaria deaths and disease, and the COVID-19 pandemic advanced the mRNA vaccine platform that can readily be adapted for other illnesses,” said Matthew Laurens, MD, MPH, Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at UMSOM’s Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health (CVD) and Coordinating Investigator for the BioNTech mRNA malaria vaccine trial. “As this is the first study to test this novel mRNA-based vaccine in humans, we are hopeful we’ll see promising results that may be life changing for children who are at highest risk of death, severe disease, and inferior school performance due to malaria.” 

    Study participants ages 18 to 55 will receive three total injections of a vaccine made by BioNTech SE, or a placebo, over six months. The study is expected to be completed in September 2024. Investigators will carefully track how well the participants tolerate the injection and monitor any reactions that might occur. Importantly, participant immune responses will be measured after vaccination.

    There were 247 million malaria cases and 619,000 deaths reported worldwide in 2021 alone, which is a 9 percent increase from 2019 before the pandemic. Public health experts contend new strategies are urgently needed to achieve the United Nation’s sustainable development goal of 90 percent reduction in malaria incidence and mortality by 2030. Scientists have tried for decades to develop a highly effective malaria vaccine without much success.

    The current study’s mRNA approach – and other recent research investigating monoclonal antibodies for malaria — represent a promising advances to reduce malaria morbidity and mortality.

    The first vaccine against malaria (RTS,S/AS01) was approved by the World Health Organization in October 2021, and it provides modest protection against malaria. Unfortunately, it is in short supply and thus additional vaccines are urgently needed.

    In 2022, UMSOM researchers published findings from a study that showed a three-dose regimen of a whole-parasite vaccine against malaria – called Plasmodium falciparum sporozoite (PfSPZ) vaccine – demonstrated safety and efficacy when tested in adults living in Burkina Faso, West Africa, an area highly endemic for malaria.

    “Instead of relying on inactivated microbes to trigger an immune response, mRNA vaccines use mRNA to teach our cells how to make a protein, or piece of a protein, that resembles a microbe’s protein,” said UMSOM Dean Mark Gladwin, MD, who is also Vice President for Medical Affairs, University of Maryland, Baltimore, and the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor at UMSOM. “This foreign protein triggers a human immune response against the microbe. The mRNA vaccine platform has several advantages in terms of stimulating a more robust immune response and enabling quick adaptation and scalability to new strains or variants that emerge during pandemics.”

    About the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health at the University of Maryland School of Medicine

    For over 40 years, researchers in the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health (CVD) have worked domestically and internationally to develop, test, and deploy vaccines to aid the world’s underserved populations. CVD is an academic enterprise engaged in the full range of infectious disease intervention from basic laboratory research through vaccine development, pre-clinical and clinical evaluation, large-scale pre-licensure field studies, and post-licensure assessments. CVD has created and tested vaccines against cholera, typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, non-typhoidal Salmonella disease, shigellosis (bacillary dysentery), Escherichia coli diarrhea, nosocomial pathogens, tularemia, influenza, coronaviruses, malaria, and other infectious diseases. CVD’s research covers the broader goal of improving global health by conducting innovative, leading research in Baltimore and around the world. Our researchers are developing new and improved ways to diagnose, prevent, treat, control, and eliminate diseases of global impact, including COVID-19. In addition, CVD’s work focuses on the ever-growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

    About the University of Maryland School of Medicine

    Now in its third century, the University of Maryland School of Medicine was chartered in 1807 as the first public medical school in the United States. It continues today as one of the fastest growing, top-tier biomedical research enterprises in the world — with 46 academic departments, centers, institutes, and programs, and a faculty of more than 3,000 physicians, scientists, and allied health professionals, including members of the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and a distinguished two-time winner of the Albert E. Lasker Award in Medical Research.  With an operating budget of more than $1.2 billion, the School of Medicine works closely in partnership with the University of Maryland Medical Center and Medical System to provide research-intensive, academic and clinically based care for nearly 2 million patients each year. The School of Medicine has nearly $600 million in extramural funding, with most of its academic departments highly ranked among all medical schools in the nation in research funding.  As one of the seven professional schools that make up the University of Maryland, Baltimore campus, the School of Medicine has a total population of nearly 9,000 faculty and staff, including 2,500 students, trainees, residents, and fellows. The combined School of Medicine and Medical System (“University of Maryland Medicine”) has an annual budget of over $6 billion and an economic impact of nearly $20 billion on the state and local community. The School of Medicine, which ranks as the 8th highest among public medical schools in research productivity (according to the Association of American Medical Colleges profile) is an innovator in translational medicine, with 606 active patents and 52 start-up companies.  In the latest U.S. News & World Report ranking of the Best Medical Schools, published in 2021, the UM School of Medicine is ranked #9 among the 92 public medical schools in the U.S., and in the top 15 percent (#27) of all 192 public and private U.S. medical schools.  The School of Medicine works locally, nationally, and globally, with research and treatment facilities in 36 countries around the world. Visit medschool.umaryland.edu

    [ad_2]

    University of Maryland School of Medicine

    Source link

  • Vaccination against chickenpox is estimated to significantly reduce varicella cases and deaths in both children and adults and would be cost-effective

    Vaccination against chickenpox is estimated to significantly reduce varicella cases and deaths in both children and adults and would be cost-effective

    [ad_1]

    Press-only preview: https://plos.io/42H3PPj

    Article URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0001743

    Article Title: Universal varicella vaccination in Denmark: Modeling public health impact, age-shift, and cost-effectiveness

    Image Caption: A) Total and B) breakthrough varicella incidence over time, by vaccination strategy. Panel A: Total varicella incidence, including natural and breakthrough cases, over 50 years after the start of universal childhood varicella vaccination. Panel B: Breakthrough varicella incidence over 50 years. In both panels, varicella incidence with strategies E and F were the same as for strategies C and D, respectively. Strategy A: V-MSD (12 months) + V-MSD (15 months); Strategy B: V-GSK (12 months) + V-GSK (15 months); Strategy C: V-MSD (15 months) + V-MSD (48 months); Strategy D: V-GSK (15 months) + V-GSK (48 months); Strategy E: V-MSD (15 months) + MMRV-MSD (48 months); Strategy F: V-GSK (15 months) + MMRV-GSK (48 months).

    Image Credit: Burgess et al., 2023, PLOS Global Public Health, CC-BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

    Image Link: https://plos.io/3FYjWxX

    Author Countries: Denmark, USA

    Funding: This study was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. The funder provided support in the form of salaries or consulting fees for CB, SS, TL, CSL, and MP, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

    Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interest: MP and SS are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and own stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. CB is a contractor with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and was compensated for her work. TL is an employee of MSD Denmark and owns stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. CSL was paid an honorarium for consultation on this study.

     


    About PLOS Global Public Health

    PLOS Global Public Health is a global forum for public health research that reaches across disciplines and regional boundaries to address some of the biggest health challenges and inequities facing our society today. For more information, visit https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth, and follow @PLOSGPH on Twitter.

     

    Media and Copyright Information

    For information about PLOS Global Public Health relevant to journalists, bloggers and press officers, including details of our press release process and embargo policy, visit https://plos.org/press-and-media/.

    PLOS Journals publish under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits free reuse of all materials published with the article, so long as the work is cited. 

     

    About the Public Library of Science
    PLOS is a nonprofit, Open Access publisher empowering researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication. We’ve been breaking boundaries since our founding in 2001. PLOS journals propelled the movement for OA alternatives to subscription journals. We established the first multi-disciplinary publication inclusive of all excellent research regardless of novelty or impact, and demonstrated the importance of open data availability. As Open Science advances, we continue to experiment to provide more opportunities, choice, and context for readers and researchers. For more information, visit http://www.plos.org.
     

    ­­Disclaimer

    This press release refers to upcoming articles in PLOS Global Public Health. The releases have been provided by the article authors and/or journal staff. Any opinions expressed in these are the personal views of the contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of PLOS. PLOS expressly disclaims any and all warranties and liability in connection with the information found in the release and article and your use of such information.

    [ad_2]

    PLOS

    Source link

  • Team uncovers new details of SARS-COV-2 structure

    Team uncovers new details of SARS-COV-2 structure

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Worcester, Mass. – March 30, 2023 – A new study led by Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) brings into sharper focus the structural details of the COVID-19 virus, revealing an elliptical shape that “breathes,” or changes shape, as it moves in the body. The discovery, which could lead to new antiviral therapies for the disease and quicker development of vaccines, is featured in the April edition of the peer-reviewed Cell Press structural biology journal Structure.

    “This is critical knowledge we need to fight future pandemics,” said Dmitry Korkin, Harold L. Jurist ’61 and Heather E. Jurist Dean’s Professor of Computer Science and lead researcher on the project. “Understanding the SARS-COV-2 virus envelope should allow us to model the actual process of the virus attaching to the cell and apply this knowledge to our understanding of the therapies at the molecular level. For instance, how can the viral activity be inhibited by antiviral drugs? How much antiviral blocking is needed to prevent virus-to-host interaction? We don’t know. But this is the best thing we can do right now—to be able to simulate actual processes.”

    Feeding genetic sequencing information and massive amounts of real-world data about the pandemic virus into a supercomputer in Texas, Korkin and his team, working in partnership with a group led by Siewert-Jan Marrink at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, produced a computational model of the virus’s envelope, or outer shell, in “near atomistic detail” that had until now been beyond the reach of even the most powerful microscopes and imaging techniques. 

    Essentially, the computer used structural bioinformatics and computational biophysics to create its own picture of what the SARS-COV-2 particle looks like. And that picture showed that the virus is more elliptical than spherical and can change its shape. Korkin said the work also led to a better understanding of the M proteins in particular: underappreciated and overlooked components of the virus’s envelope. 

    The M proteins form entities called dimers with a copy of each other, and play a role in the particle’s shape-shifting by keeping the structure flexible overall while providing a triangular mesh-like structure on the interior that makes it remarkably resilient, Korkin said. In contrast, on the exterior, the proteins assemble into mysterious filament-like structures that have puzzled scientists who have seen Korkin’s results, and will require further study. 

    Korkin said the structural model developed by the researchers expands what was already known about the envelope architecture of the SARS-COV-2 virus and previous SARS- and MERS-related outbreaks. The computational protocol used to create the model could also be applied to more rapidly model future coronaviruses, he said. A clearer picture of the virus’ structure could reveal crucial vulnerabilities.

    “The envelope properties of SARS-COV-2 are likely to be similar to other coronaviruses,” he said. “Eventually, knowledge about the properties of coronavirus membrane proteins could lead to new therapies and vaccines for future viruses.”

    The new findings published in Structure were three years in the making and built upon Korkin’s work in the early days of the pandemic to provide the first 3D roadmap of the virus, based on genetic sequence information from the first isolated strain in China.

     

    About Worcester Polytechnic Institute

    WPI, a global leader in project-based learning, is a distinctive, top-tier technological university founded in 1865 on the principle that students learn most effectively by applying the theory learned in the classroom to the practice of solving real-world problems. Recognized by the National Academy of Engineering with the 2016 Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education, WPI’s pioneering project-based curriculum engages undergraduates in solving important scientific, technological, and societal problems throughout their education and at more than 50 project centers around the world.  WPI offers more than 70 bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs across 18 academic departments in science, engineering, technology, business, the social sciences, and the humanities and arts. Its faculty and students pursue groundbreaking research to meet ongoing challenges in health and biotechnology; robotics and the internet of things; advanced materials and manufacturing; cyber, data, and security systems; learning science; and more.  www.wpi.edu

    [ad_2]

    Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)

    Source link

  • Trump Is Racing DeSantis to the Bottom of the Anti-Vax Rabbit Hole

    Trump Is Racing DeSantis to the Bottom of the Anti-Vax Rabbit Hole

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump has spent most of the past week in a tizzy over his possible indictment, which he initially said he expected to come Tuesday. But when he has managed to take time off from his deranged broadsides against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his desperate efforts to stoke political violence, it has been to attack potential GOP rival Ron DeSantis—particularly over his handling of COVID-19. The Florida governor, of course, became a hero to the right for his stand against public health measures at the height of the pandemic—and has pinned his White House ambitions, in part, on winning over anti-vaxxers. However, in a series of idiotic jabs, Trump has sought to cast DeSantis as some kind of Anthony Fauci-like figure—that is, a “big Lockdown Governor” who championed what the former president is now implying to be a dangerous and untested COVID vaccine. 

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    The posts—which rebuked DeSantis for having “got the vaccine and the booster” and for rolling out a statewide testing operation—seem to complete Trump’s descent into anti-vax madness, and serve as yet another signpost of the GOP’s disturbing direction on public health. Indeed, Trump is just one of many Republicans to indulge in anti-vax sentiment in recent weeks: There was Josh Hawley, who implied Democrats were using the deep state to target “vaccine critics.” There was the Republican-led House subcommittee, which suggested in a letter to the Food and Drug Administration this month that the government may have improperly approved COVID vaccines to “provide cover for implementing and enforcing vaccine mandates across the country.” And then there was Rand Paul, a frequent antagonist of Fauci and other public health officials, who told the Hill on Thursday that he “wouldn’t vaccinate my children for COVID,” falsely claiming that the “risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease.” 

    “The risks of the disease,” Paul said, “are almost non-existent.”

    While the families of the million-plus Americans who have been killed by COVID since its onset three years ago might beg to differ with Paul’s assessment, the senator is right that the danger of the pandemic has decreased dramatically. But that’s because of the very vaccines he’s trying to undermine. Thanks to the shots, which were developed under the Trump administration, the crisis has receded, and for most Americans, “COVID no longer controls our lives,” as President Joe Biden said in his State of the Union address this year. The vaccine was the one success of the Trump administration’s otherwise disastrous handling of the pandemic. But instead of taking credit for fast-tracking its development, Trump has gone the other way, following the lead of the base, whose tendency toward conspiracism was nurtured by the former president and his allies. 

    The danger of this kind of thing has already been made clear: It doomed the country’s response to the initial wave of the pandemic, and seems to be contributing to the higher COVID death rates among Republicans. But the peril could escalate if anti-vax sentiment gets further baked into the official party platform, as my colleague Katherine Eban wrote earlier this week. “The worst-case scenario is if it becomes a litmus test in the [presidential] primary,” Saad B. Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health who has served on numerous US government vaccine advisory committees, told Eban. Unfortunately, that already seems to be happening, based on the one-upmanship between Trump and DeSantis as well as the reckless rhetoric from some GOP lawmakers. Not only could that exacerbate the partisan gap in COVID risks; it could further compromise the country’s public health overall. 

    [ad_2]

    Eric Lutz

    Source link

  • Eradicating Polio Will Require Changing the Current Public Health Strategy

    Eradicating Polio Will Require Changing the Current Public Health Strategy

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Baltimore, MD, March 6, 2023— The recent public health emergency declarations in New York and London due to polio infections and detection of the virus in these cities’ wastewater strongly indicate that polio is no longer close to being eradicated.

    Now, four members of the Global Virus Network (GVN) proposed changes in global polio eradication strategy to get the world back on track to one day eliminating polio’s threat. Authors of the recommendations included University of Maryland School of Medicine Institute of Human Virology’s Director and Co-Founder Robert C. Gallo, MD, The Homer & Martha Gudelsky Distinguished Professor in Medicine, and Co-Founder and Chair of the Scientific Leadership Board of GVN; two of the world’s most prominent poliovirus experts, Konstantin Chumakov, PhD, DSci, Adjunct Professor at the George Washington University and the University of Maryland, and Stanley Plotkin, MD, Scientific Advisor of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); and GVN’s President Christian Bréchot, MD, PhD, Professor of University of South Florida.

    They suggested that eradication is possible only through ensuring the highest possible vaccination coverage worldwide and maintaining it indefinitely. Vaccination policies must be tailored individually for different regions of the world and use both the polio vaccine made of inactivated virus (in combination with other vaccines), as well as improved novel oral polio vaccines that use live, weakened virus. The experts also urged reconvening a scientific group advising the World Health Organization on poliovirus eradication that can respond as needed and adapt policies in the face of newer data or public health emergencies. 

    The infectious disease experts published their views in a perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine on February 16, 2023.

    The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), which formed 34 years ago, aimed for a goal of polio eradication by 2000. This group developed the original polio eradication plan and formed a scientific advisory group, which was later disbanded before the projected goals were reached. According to the authors, this led to some decisions that were not based of solid science, including no longer immunizing against one of the three kinds of poliovirus while a weaker version of this poliovirus was still present in communities. The resulting resurgence of poliovirus circulation continues until this day, and the virus reappeared in the U.K., U.S., and other countries after decades when it thought to be eradicated.

    “The Initiative based their guidelines on the strategy that was used to eradicate smallpox. However, poliovirus is trickier in that for every person paralyzed by infection, hundreds have no symptoms at all, meaning the virus can silently circulate in communities without anyone knowing it,” said Dr. Gallo. “It was premature to assume that plans would run their course smoothly. These recent outbreaks confirm the need for an active scientific advisory group that can council, mobilize, and adjust the polio eradication plan in real-time as needed.”

    Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in global travel, which can allow infections to migrate from developing nations where they are more common to communities in industrialized nations where they can spread undetected becoming the greatest danger to the unvaccinated and people with weakened immune systems.

    With most people in the U.K. and the U.S. vaccinated against polio, how did this recent outbreak in two major international cities happen? As with other viruses once thought rare in more developed countries, such as measles or mumps, some communities chose not to vaccinate. Also, the nature of the polio vaccines in industrialized nations may have allowed asymptomatic infections to circulate undetected for a while now. 

    There are two main types of polio vaccines: the injectable version uses noninfectious virus particles to generate immunity (IPV) or the oral polio vaccine (OPV) that uses a live, weakened version of the virus.

    “The injectable ‘killed’ polio vaccine protects from paralysis, but unlike the live version it does not generate robust immunity in the intestinal tract needed to prevent virus circulation. This means that asymptomatic cases can circulate in vaccinated individuals. So then, why do we use not the live version instead?” said Dr. Chumakov. “The live, attenuated version can revert to virulence (a more an infectious version) and spread to people who are unvaccinated or who have compromised immune systems and occasionally cause paralytic disease. In fact, mutated versions of the oral polio vaccine are what are currently circulating in London and New York. It’s a Catch-22, but there may be a way out: recently a new version of the vaccine was developed that does not convert to virulent vaccine-derived poliovirus. In combination with the injectable polio vaccine, this novel oral polio vaccine can become an effective tool to safely create comprehensive immunity that can stop the spread of the disease.”

    The current polio eradication planned for phasing out the live, oral polio vaccines three years after the last wild or natural poliovirus case is documented, replacing it with the injectable polio vaccine. 

    “As history has recently shown us with COVID vaccines, just because we would like these vaccines to be available, it does not mean they will be. There may be a scramble and the richer countries will secure vaccines before the others,” said Dr. Plotkin. “Therefore, we at the GVN propose that the group institute a policy change not based solely on milestones, but rather whether there is an appropriate supply to compensate for the increased demand. Better yet, incorporate a strategy for ensuring there will be available injectable polio vaccines to support the world supply when the time comes.”

    Once the world converts entirely to injectable vaccines, the GEPI’s plan was to remove all polio vaccines ten years after this transition.

    “The biggest problem in the way of polio eradication is to do it safely through the combined use of inactivated and live oral vaccines. The former would prevent paralysis from both wild and vaccine-derived poliovirus, whereas the latter would eventually prevent circulation of both forms of poliovirus and paralysis,” said Dr. Bréchot. “The vaccine industry is capable of making both if they are given the order to do so.”

    About the Global Virus Network (GVN)

    The Global Virus Network (GVN) is essential and critical in the preparedness, defense, and first research response to emerging, exiting, and unidentified viruses that pose a clear and present threat to public health, working in close coordination with established national and international institutions. It is a coalition comprised of eminent human and animal virologists from 71 Centers of Excellence and 9 Affiliates in 40 countries worldwide, working collaboratively to train the next generation, advance knowledge about how to identify and diagnose pandemic viruses, mitigate and control how such viruses spread and make us sick, as well as develop drugs, vaccines, and treatments to combat them. No single institution in the world has expertise in all viral areas other than the GVN, which brings together the finest medical virologists to leverage their individual expertise and coalesce global teams of specialists on the scientific challenges, issues, and problems posed by pandemic viruses. The GVN is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. For more information, please visit https://gvn.org/. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobalVirusNews

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Global Virus Network

    Source link

  • Health policy experts call for confronting anti-vaccine activism with life-saving counter narratives

    Health policy experts call for confronting anti-vaccine activism with life-saving counter narratives

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Public and private sector health officials and public policymakers should team up immediately with community leaders to more effectively disseminate accurate narratives regarding the life-saving benefits of vaccines to counter widespread, harmful misinformation from anti-vaccine activists in the United States, according to a new Viewpoint piece in The Lancet, led by authors at Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH), University of California, Riverside (UCR), and The Stanford Internet Observatory Cyber Policy Center (SIO) at Stanford University.

    Published in the leading international medical journal on Friday, March 3, the Viewpoint provides valuable insight into the recent developments of US-based anti-vaccine activism and proposes strategies to confront this dangerous messaging.

    “Messages of health freedom gained traction during the pandemic, turning members of the public against public health messages and prevention-focused activities, including vaccination,” says second author Timothy Callaghan, associate professor of health law, policy & management at BUSPH, and who was one of three lead writers of the Viewpoint, along with lead author Richard Carpiano, public policy professor at UCR, and third author Renee DiResta, technical research manager at SIO.

    In the Viewpoint, the authors and 18 other leading public health experts describe a perfect storm that allowed anti-vaccine activism, once a fringe subculture, to become a well-organized form of right-wing identity with narratives that associate refusing vaccines with personal liberty. This narrative was consistently repeated and amplified by social media influencers, pro-Donald Trump political operatives, and right-wing blogs, podcasts, and other media as the COVID-19 pandemic spread worldwide.

    The authors underscore the need to consistently amplify accurate science and information through multiple communication channels, to avoid the spread of inaccurate or misleading information to people through limited sources. 

    “This is a matter of life and death,” says Carpiano. “People don’t always see it that way. We’ve forgotten how many people have died, have been sick, or continue to get sick from COVID-19 as well as many other vaccine-preventable diseases.” 

    The paper comes out at a time when more than 1.1 million people have died from COVID-19, and the worldwide toll is estimated at 6.8 million. The disease continues to spread as vaccines have been found to greatly reduce illnesses that require hospitalization or result in death.

    Anti-vaccination activism has existed as long as there have been vaccines. But the movement picked up steam in 1998 when British physician Andrew Wakefield published a now-discredited study that falsely claimed a link between childhood vaccines and autism.

    In more recent years, however, anti-vaccine messaging shifted in large part from health-effect concerns to conservative and libertarian political identity arguments of medical freedom and parental rights. This was prompted in part by legislative efforts in several states to eliminate personal belief exemptions from school vaccination requirements in response to falling child vaccination rates and vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. But these arguments were confined to childhood vaccines and were somewhat contained. 

    Since the COVID-19 pandemic affected the entire population, it brought on a vast expansion of not only anti-vaccine activism, but more broadly, anti-public health activism as people faced the inconveniences of mask-wearing, social distancing, closed restaurants and bars, and cancelations of concerts and other events that draw crowds.

    Celebrities, wellness influencers, partisan pundits, and certain scientists and clinicians, among others, joined the fray, often spreading false and misleading claims about vaccinations. The increasing number of voices found larger audiences, which meant more votes for right-wing candidates, and greater monetization of right-leaning social and media outlets.

    “As celebrities, influencers, and politicians started speaking out negatively about vaccination, growing segments of the American public were exposed to these messages, shifting troubling proportions of the US public who had previously vaccinated in other contexts against getting vaccinated for COVID-19,” Callaghan says.   

    The result was more people becoming ill.

    “Political leaders were sadly, particularly effective anti-vaccine messengers, and because of that, we now have clear disparities in COVID-19 vaccination rates across party lines” he says.

    Meanwhile, pro-vaccine messaging has been based on the statements of individual public health experts, such as former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci and director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Rochelle Walensky, who the authors say are outgunned.

    Callaghan, Carpiano, and DiResta were part of the Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA that The Lancet convened to examine issues surrounding COVID-19 vaccine acceptance uptake, acceptance, and hesitancy. The membership is composed of 21 national experts from public health, vaccine science, law, ethics, public policy, and the social and behavioral sciences.  

    The group recommends the development of networked communities that simultaneously share information with different audiences about the health and economic benefits of vaccines. This would preempt the well-funded messaging of the antivaccine movement.

    “Without concerted efforts to counter the anti-vaccine movement, the USA faces an ever-growing burden of morbidity and mortality from an increasingly under-vaccinated, vaccine hesitant society,” the authors conclude in the paper.

    **

    About Boston University School of Public Health

    Founded in 1976, Boston University School of Public Health is one of the top five ranked private schools of public health in the world. It offers master’s- and doctoral-level education in public health. The faculty in six departments conduct policy-changing public health research around the world, with the mission of improving the health of populations—especially the disadvantaged, underserved, and vulnerable—locally and globally.

    [ad_2]

    Boston University School of Public Health

    Source link

  • Could a naturally occurring amino acid lead us to a cure for COVID-19?

    Could a naturally occurring amino acid lead us to a cure for COVID-19?

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — After more than two years since its discovery, six million deaths, and half a billion reported cases, there is still no effective cure for COVID-19. Even though vaccines have lowered the impact of outbreaks, patients that contract the disease can only receive supportive care while they wait for their own body to clear the infection.

    A promising COVID-19 treatment strategy that has been gaining traction lately is targeting angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). This is a receptor found on the cell membrane that allows entry of the virus into the cell due to its high affinity for SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein. The idea is that reducing the levels of ACE2 on the membrane of cells could be a way to prevent the virus from entering them and replicating, thereby lowering its infectious capabilities.

    In a recent study published in PLOS ONE, a team of scientists including Associate Professor Shun-Ichiro Ogura from Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, analyzed the potential of a natural amino acid called 5-Aminolevulinic acid (ALA) to reduce the expression of ACE2. This research was performed in collaboration with SBI Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd.

    As the researchers explain in their paper, ALA had been identified in 2021 as a compound that seemed to reduce the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. However, the underlying mechanisms that led to this phenomenon remained unknown, until now.

    The team hypothesized that the results of the 2021 study could be explained by an effect of ALA on the expression of ACE2. To test their hypothesis, they prepared human cell cultures, administered ACE2 on some of them, and compared the levels of ACE2 in treated cells versus control cells. As expected, the amount of available ACE2 in treated cells was significantly lower than in control cells.

    But the story doesn’t end there. Upon uptake, cells transform ALA into a molecule called protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) and subsequently into heme—a precursor of hemoglobin and other useful proteins. This hinted that the expression of ACE2 could be linked to the production of either of these compounds. Thus, the team checked the levels of PpIX and heme in cells treated with ALA. “We observed significant increases in the concentration of intracellular PpIX, suggesting that ALA was uptaken into the cell and converted into PpIX,” remarks Ogura, “However, only a slight increase in heme concentration was observed, which might be due to the lack of an iron source to convert PpIX into heme.”

    After introducing an iron source in the form of sodium ferrous citrate, the intracellular levels of heme increased significantly and the expression of ACE2 became even lower. These results suggest ACE2 expression is kept in check by heme production, the latter of which can be boosted by the co-administration of ALA and an iron source.

    Overall, this study sheds light on how ALA and the heme production pathway could form the basis of a cure for COVID-19. “We believe ALA could be developed into a potential anti-viral agent for SARS-CoV-2, which may play an important role in the eradication of the disease in a global scale in the near future,” concludes Dr. Ogura.

    Let us hope further studies can help us put an end to COVID-19 soon!

    [ad_2]

    Tokyo Institute of Technology

    Source link

  • Flu vaccination rate holds steady but misinformation about flu and Covid-19 persists

    Flu vaccination rate holds steady but misinformation about flu and Covid-19 persists

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — PHILADELPHIA – Although the public had been alerted that this winter could be a potentially bad flu season, barely half of Americans said in January that they had received a flu shot, a vaccination level unchanged in a representative national panel from the comparable period last year, according to a new Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

    The panel survey, fielded with over 1,600 U.S. adults, finds that many have a base of knowledge about the flu but there is a reservoir of uncertainty about other consequential information about the flu, Covid-19, and vaccination. Among the findings of the ASK survey, which also inquired more broadly about attitudes toward vaccine mandates and the continuing “return to normal”:

    • Nearly half of Americans (49%) do not know it is safe to get a flu shot during pregnancy.
    • Over half of Americans (53%) say the Army should be able to require Covid-19 vaccination for soldiers who do not have a medical or religious exemption – and a plurality (45%) say public schools should be able to require Covid-19 vaccination of all children who do not have a medical or religious exemption.
    • Only 10% of those who had heard of NFL player Damar Hamlin’s on-field collapse think that vaccination was connected to his cardiac arrest – but many more are not sure whether the rate of heart-related deaths has increased among young athletes over the past three years.
    • More than half of Americans (52%) now say their lives have returned to a pre-pandemic normal, up significantly from 47% in October 2022.

    “Although the CDC indicated that seasonal flu activity is now low nationally, the fact that the level of reported flu vaccination in our panel was roughly the same in January of this year as a year before is concerning,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. “Because this has been a more severe flu season than the one a year ago, we expected an increase in the reported vaccination rate.”

    The nationally representative panel of 1,657 U.S. adults surveyed by SSRS for the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania from January 10-16, 2023, was the tenth wave of an Annenberg Science Knowledge survey whose respondents were first empaneled in April 2021. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. See the Appendix and Methodology for question wording and additional information.

    What the public knows: The flu and flu shot

    The latest wave of the ASK survey finds that many people know the basics about the flu:

    • Handwashing: 93% of respondents know that washing your hands helps you avoid getting sick from or spreading the seasonal flu.
    • Getting the flu again: 83% know it’s possible to get the flu more than once in a flu season.
    • Vaccine effectiveness: 77% know that the effectiveness of the seasonal flu shot in the United States can vary from year to year.
      • However, 19% of respondents also think, incorrectly, that the effectiveness of the measles vaccine can vary from year to year and 40% are not sure.
      • Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed (73%) think the seasonal flu shot is effective at reducing the risk of getting the flu this year.
    • Mask-wearing: 77% know that wearing a high-quality, well-fitting mask helps limit the spread of flu.
    • Contagion: 76% know it’s possible to spread the seasonal flu to others even if you have no symptoms.
      • 14% of our respondents say they have had the flu this season. Of this group, 8% had no symptoms; 29% had mild symptoms; 43% had moderate symptoms; and 19% had severe symptoms.

    A majority of the public knows that the following claims are false:

    • Flu vaccine and Covid-19: Three-quarters (77%) know it’s false to say that the seasonal flu shot increases your risk of getting Covid-19 – though 6% incorrectly think this is true and 17% are not sure whether it is true or false. (See APPC’s project FactCheck.org to learn more about the false claim linking the flu shot and Covid-19.)
    • Better late than never: 71% know it’s false to say that if you haven’t gotten your flu shot by November, there’s no value in getting it – though 11% incorrectly think this is true and 18% are not sure. (The CDC recommends vaccination even after November because significant flu activity can continue into May.)
    • Cold weather: Nearly two-thirds (65%) know it’s false to say that cold weather causes the flu – but a third either incorrectly think this is true (22%) or are not sure (13%).
    • The flu can be treated: 64% of respondents know it’s false to say there is no treatment for the flu – but 23% incorrectly think this is true and 13% are not sure if it is true.

    Areas of uncertainty

    But there are important claims about the flu that substantial parts of the public are confused about:

    • Pregnancy: Almost half (49%) do not know that it is safe to get a flu shot during pregnancy, including the 10% who think it is not safe and 39% who are unsure. Just 51% know it is safe.
    • Get flu from the shot? 46% do not know you cannot get the flu from the flu shot, including 29% who think you can get the flu from the shot and 16% who are not sure.
    • Antibiotics and the flu: 45% do not know that the flu cannot be treated with antibiotics, including 25% who think it can be treated with antibiotics and 20% who are unsure.
    • Antibiotics and viruses: 40% do not know that antibiotics do not work on viruses such as those that cause colds, the flu, and Covid-19 – including 20% who think it is false to say antibiotics don’t work on viruses, and 20% who are unsure.

    Attitudes toward flu vaccination

    • Tamiflu: Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed (65%) disagree with the statement that there’s no need for a flu shot because they can always use Tamiflu to treat flu symptoms.
    • Breakthrough infections: 58% disagree with the statement that breakthrough seasonal flu infections are evidence that flu shots don’t work – though 15% agree and 26% neither agree nor disagree.
    • Danger to children: 57% disagree with the statement that children do not need the seasonal flu shot because they are at a low risk of death from the flu – though 18% agree and 25% neither agree nor disagree.
    • Flu shots for all: Just 41% agree that every person older than six months should get a flu shot every year – 33% disagree and 26% neither agree nor disagree. The CDC recommends a flu shot every season for nearly everyone six months and older.

    How many have had a flu shot and why

    The ASK survey in January 2023 finds that 49% of respondents say they have had a seasonal flu shot, statistically unchanged from 47% in our January 2022 survey and 50% in April 2021. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly 46% of U.S. adults 18 and older had a flu shot as of December 31, 2022.

    The CDC actively promoted flu vaccination amid concerns that the 2022-23 season would be severe.

    When the 49% of survey respondents who said they got the flu vaccine were asked in January why they got the shot (multiple responses were permitted):

    • 69% said I get it every year (down from 78% in January 2022)
    • 64% said to protect myself against catching the flu (up from 44% in January 2022)
    • 8% said to protect myself against Covid-19 (unchanged from 9% in January 2022)
    • 25% said because it is recommended by the CDC (this response was not previously offered)

    Concerns: The flu, Covid-19, RSV, polio, myocarditis

    Worries about family members contracting flu, Covid, or RSV: About a third of those surveyed say they are somewhat or very worried about family members contracting Covid-19 (36%), the seasonal flu (35%), or RSV, respiratory syncytial virus (33%). Only 11% say they are somewhat/very worried about a family member contracting polio, which reemerged as a public health threat in July 2022 after a case was reported in New York State. (FactCheck.org has more about poliovirus being found in New York City sewage.)

    Myocarditis: Rare cases of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, have been reported among those who have had mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, particularly young males following a second vaccine dose. (FactCheck.org has more on the Covid-19 vaccine and myocarditis.) The connection between myocarditis and the vaccine has drawn attention on social media and in news media.

    The survey found that over a third of respondents (37%) think that Covid-19 poses a higher risk for myocarditis than the vaccine against Covid-19. But 17% think that is false and nearly half of those surveyed (47%) are not sure which poses a higher risk.

    Damar Hamlin and young athletes dying of heart problems

    Much of the public rejects the notion that Damar Hamlin’s collapse during an NFL game had anything to do with the vaccine against Covid-19. But the survey finds that many people are uncertain about the broader unsupported claim that more young athletes are dying of heart problems these days.

    Hamlin, a safety on the Buffalo Bills, suffered a cardiac arrest during the Jan. 2, 2023, game against the Cincinnati Bengals, triggering a spate of unfounded, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on social media about the cause. The overwhelming majority of those in our survey (87%) said they had heard, read, or seen reports of his collapse.

    But those respondents overwhelmingly reject the idea that a Covid-19 vaccine caused Hamlin’s injury. Only 10% of those who had heard of the incident attribute it to factors connected with the vaccine. Nearly half (49%) say that based on what they had heard of it, Hamlin’s cardiac arrest was most likely caused by being hit hard in the chest; 17% say an underlying heart condition; and 21% say they are not sure. (FactCheck.org writes about what was known about Hamlin’s injury.)

    While social media posts with millions of views quickly associated Hamlin’s collapse with vaccination, mainstream media sources noted the lack of evidence for such claims or dismissed them as misinformation. See, for example, stories such as The inevitable, grotesque effort to blame vaccines for Damar Hamlin’s collapse (Washington Post, Jan. 3) and Hamlin’s collapse spurs new wave of vaccine misinformation (Associated Press, Jan. 5).

    However, 26% of those surveyed say they think that the number of young athletes dying of heart problems increased over the past three years, and nearly half (49%) are not sure whether the number has increased or decreased. Only 23% say that the numbers of deaths have remained virtually unchanged. (See FactCheck.org’s article No Surge in Athlete Deaths, Contrary to Widespread Anti-Vaccine Claims on why this claim is unfounded.)

    Covid-19 and MMR vaccine mandates

    Schools and military: The ASK survey finds stronger support for a Covid-19 vaccine mandate in the military than in public schools, with over half supporting a military mandate:

    • 53% of those surveyed strongly or somewhat agree that the U.S. Army should be able to require Covid-19 vaccination of all soldiers who do not have a medical or religious exemption and 30% strongly or somewhat disagree (asked of a survey half-sample).
    • 45% strongly or somewhat agree that public schools should be able to require Covid-19 vaccination of all children who do not have a medical or religious exemption and 38% strongly or somewhat disagree (asked of a half-sample).

    MMR vaccine: Asked their views on the childhood vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), 63% agree that healthy children should be required to get the MMR vaccine in order to attend public schools, while 22% say parents should be able to decide whether to vaccinate their children who attend public schools and 15% are not sure.

    Getting back to ‘normal’

    The return to normal: Asked when they expect to be able to return to “your normal, pre-Covid-19 life,” more than half of Americans (52%) say they already have – up from 47% in October 2022. More than 1 in 5 Americans (22%) continue to say “never,” which is statistically unchanged since July 2022.

    Mask-wearing: Six in 10 people (61%) say they never or rarely wear masks, statistically unchanged from the 60% who said this in October 2022. And 18% say they always or often wear a mask, also statistically unchanged from the 17% who said so in October.

    See the Appendix for question wording and data and the Methodology for additional information. Read about prior Annenberg Science Knowledge surveys.

    The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels. APPC is the home of FactCheck.org and its SciCheck program, whose Covid-19/Vaccination Project seeks to debunk misinformation about Covid-19 and vaccines, and increase exposure to accurate information.

    [ad_2]

    Annenberg Public Policy Center

    Source link

  • McMaster-led trial reduces COVID-19 hospitalization risk with single injection

    McMaster-led trial reduces COVID-19 hospitalization risk with single injection

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Hamilton, ON (Feb. 9, 2023) – A team led by McMaster University researchers Gilmar Reis and Edward Mills has discovered that a single injection of pegylated interferon lambda (lambda) can successfully treat COVID-19 in people early in the disease.

    They say that one dose of lambda injected under a patient’s skin was more effective than any currently available treatment for early COVID and avoids the potential problems of patient adherence to drug treatment regimens.

    The findings were published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Feb. 9.

    “This discovery allows us to enter a new era where you can have pan-virus interventions against a range of diseases,” said Mills, a professor of the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI).

    Reis, an associate professor of the HEI, said, “Pegylated interferon lambda is a safe drug, and it is a single treatment approach.”

    “Lambda is not virus-specific as it works on all the different COVID-19 variants, and it probably also has a role to play in combatting other respiratory viruses such as influenza. We are beginning a study now of lambda for influenza.”

    Researchers tested lambda’s effectiveness using a randomized placebo-controlled trial involving adults with COVID-19 from both Canada and Brazil, who freely volunteered for the study. A total of 931 people received lambda and 1,018 received a placebo. Eighty-three per cent of the trial participants were vaccinated. Researchers ran the lambda trial from June 2021 to March 2022.

    Lambda works by activating the immune system’s antiviral defences against COVID-19 viruses invading the airways. Among the mostly vaccinated trial participants, lambda significantly reduced the need for hospitalization or emergency room visits compared to the placebo.

    “This could save tens of thousands of lives,” said Mills.

    Reis said, “The ultimate aim would be using it in combination with Paxlovid, but that needs to be evaluated in a clinical trial setting.”

    The lambda research falls under the ongoing TOGETHER trial, which Reis and Mills have led since June 2020. The ongoing platform study has evaluated multiple potential COVID-19 treatments during the pandemic. Potential treatments are always evaluated against a placebo.

    The TOGETHER platform has to date evaluated 14 different potential treatments, including lambda, since it was first launched in June 2020.

    External funding for the study was provided by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. The lambda used in the trial was provided for free by Eiger BioPharmaceuticals.

    The McMaster researchers involved with the trial were Gilmar Reis, Edward Mills, Paula McKay, Sheila Sprague, Lehana Thabane and Gordon Guyatt.

    The study was done in partnership with Jordan Feld at University Health Network (UHN) and Professor Jeffrey Glenn at Stanford University. 

     

    -30-

     

    Editors:  

    A photo of Peginterferon Lambda can be found here: https://macdrive.mcmaster.ca/d/36d0184ee87a4513baf3/

    Credit: UHN

     

    [ad_2]

    McMaster University

    Source link

  • The Age of Vaccine Pessimism

    The Age of Vaccine Pessimism

    [ad_1]

    The world has just seen the largest vaccination campaign in history. At least 13 billion COVID shots have been administered—more injections, by a sweeping margin, than there are human beings on the Earth. In the U.S. alone, millions of lives have been saved by a rollout of extraordinary scope. More than three-fifths of the population elected to receive the medicine even before it got its full approval from the FDA.

    Yet the legacy of this achievement appears to be in doubt. Just look at where the country is right now. In Florida, the governor—a likely Republican presidential candidate—openly pursues the politics of vaccine resistance and denial. In Ohio, kids are getting measles. In New York, polio is back. A football player nearly died on national TV, and fears about vaccines fanned across the internet. Vaccinologists, pediatricians, and public-health experts routinely warn that confidence is wavering for every kind of immunization, and worry that it may collapse in years to come.

    In other words, America is mired in a paradoxical and pessimistic moment. “We’ve just had a national vaccination campaign that has exceeded almost all previous efforts in a dramatic fashion,” says Noel Brewer, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina who has been studying decision making about vaccines for more than 20 years, “and people are talking about vaccination as if there’s something fundamentally wrong.”

    It’s more than talk. Americans are arguing, Americans are worrying, Americans are obsessing over vaccines; and that fixation has produced its own, pathological anxiety. To fret about the state of public trust is rational: When vaccine adherence wobbles, lives are put in peril; in the midst of a pandemic, the mortal risk is even greater. More than 60 million Americans haven’t gotten a single COVID shot, and a few thousand deaths are attributed to the disease every week. But the scale of this concern—the measure of our instability—may be distorted by the heights to which we’ve climbed. Evidence that the nation has arrived at the brink of collapse does not hold up to scrutiny. No one knows where vaccination rates are really heading, and the coming crash is more an idea—a projection, even—than a certainty. The future of vaccination in America may be no worse than its recent past. In the end, it might be better.

    The first alarms about a widespread vaccination crisis—the first suggestions that a leeriness of COVID shots had “spread its tentacles into other diseases”—were raised by clinicians. Megha Shah, a pediatrician with the Los Angeles public-health department, told me that she began to worry in the spring of 2021, while volunteering at a medical center. Two years earlier, she recalled, working there had been uneventful. She’d meet with parents—mostly from low-income Latino families—to discuss the standard vaccination schedule: Okay, here’s what we’re recommending for your child. This protects against this; that protects against that. The parents would ask a couple of questions, and she’d answer them. The child would be immunized, almost every time.

    But in the middle of the COVID-vaccine rollout, she found that those conversations were playing out differently. “Oh, I’m just not sure,” she said some parents told her. Or, “I need to talk this over with my partner.” She saw families refuse, flat-out, to give their infants routine shots. “It just was very, very surprising,” Shah said. “I mean, questions are good. We want parents to be engaged and informed decision makers.” But it seemed to her—and her colleagues too—that healthy “engagement” had gone sour.

    Last year, she and her colleagues took a closer look. For a study published in Pediatrics, they drew on national survey data collected from April 2020 through early 2022, of parents’ attitudes toward standard childhood vaccines. In some respects, the results looked good: Parents endorsed the importance and effectiveness of these vaccines at a high and stable rate throughout the pandemic—in the vicinity of 91 percent. But over the same period, concerns about potential harms marched upward. In April 2020, about 25 percent of those surveyed agreed that vaccines “have many known harmful side effects” and “may lead to illness or death”; by the end of the year, that number had increased to 30 percent, and then to nearly 35 percent the following June. “Parents still seemed very confident overall in the benefits of vaccinations,” Shah told me, “but there was a huge jump over the course of the pandemic about the safety.”

    Those results jibed with a theory that has now been invoked so many times, it reads as common knowledge: “Perhaps this was a spillover effect,” Shah said, “from all of the vaccine misinformation that was circling during the pandemic.” That effect—the spreading tentacles of doubt—can be seen around the world, says Heidi Larson, a professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine who has studied attitudes toward vaccination across Europe since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. “The public-health community was assuming that COVID would be a great boon to public confidence in vaccines, but it hasn’t worked out that way. The trend has been actually a negative knock-on effect,” Larson told me. In a troubling alignment, even anti-vaccine activists now endorse the notion of hesitancy spillover, calling it a “wonderful silver lining” to the pandemic.

    But hold on a minute. Here in the U.S., it’s certainly true that vaccine worries have been broadcast and rebroadcast, at ever greater volumes, through a clamorous network of influencers and politicians. This campaign of hesitancy is growing more open and insistent by the day, and the consequences can be atrocious: Americans with false beliefs about vaccines are falling sick and dying stubborn and alone. But even as these anecdotes accrue, misinformation’s greater sway—the extent to which it shapes Americans’ behavior toward vaccines for COVID, measles, or the flu—remains murky, if not altogether undetectable. The best numbers to go on in this country, drawn from polls of people’s attitudes about vaccines and official vaccination surveys from the CDC, don’t hint at any comprehensive change. When concerning blips and mini-trends arise—shifts in parents’ attitudes, as seen in Shah’s research, or drops in local rates of children getting immunized—they’re set against a landscape with a flat horizon.

    It’s not a pretty view, for that: The U.S. lags five points behind the average wealthy country in its rate of people fully vaccinated against COVID, and two points behind in its vaccination rate for measles. And even blips can translate into many thousands of at-risk kids, Shah pointed out. Yet one might still be grateful for the sameness overall. A seedbed of resistance to the COVID shots, disproportionately Republican, was already present near the start of the pandemic, and hasn’t seemed to thrive despite two years’ worth of fertilizer runoff from Fox News and other outlets spewing doubt. In August 2020, the Harris Poll’s weekly COVID-19 tracker found that 15 percent of American adults said they were “not at all likely” to get the vaccine when it finally became available. In August 2022, Harris reported that 17 percent weren’t planning to be immunized. Other long-running surveys have found similar results. In September 2020, Kaiser Family Foundation’s vaccine monitor pegged the rate of refusal at 20 percent. In December 2022, it was … still 20 percent.

    The most recent uptake numbers from the CDC suggest that children born in 2018 and 2019 (who would have been babies or toddlers when COVID first appeared) had higher vaccination rates by age 2 than children born in 2016 and 2017. Some of these kids did miss out on shots amid the pandemic’s early lapses in routine medical care, but they quickly caught up. Another, more alarming batch of data from the CDC shows that measles-mumps-rubella coverage among the nation’s kindergartners has dropped for two years in a row, down from 95.2 to 93.5 percent, and is now lower than it’s been since at least 2013. Still, the proportion of kids who get exempted from school vaccine requirements for medical or philosophical reasons has hardly changed at all, and the headline-grabbing “slide” in rates appears instead to be at least in part a product of “provisional enrollments”—i.e., children who missed some vaccinations (perhaps in early 2020) and were allowed to enter school while they caught up. If there really is a wave of newly red-pilled, anti-vaxxer parents, then going by these data, they’re nowhere to be seen.

    Some public-health disasters hit like hurricanes; others spread like rust. “We may not have a full picture yet,” Shah told me, referring to the latest evidence from the CDC on where vaccination rates are heading. “My gut and my clinical experience tell me that it’s too soon to say.”

    Other experts share that view. Robert Bednarczyk, an epidemiologist at Emory University, has been estimating the susceptibility of U.S. children to measles outbreaks since 2016. National immunization surveys have not shown substantial drops in coverage for 2020 and 2021, he told me, “but there is a large caveat to this. These surveys have a lag time.” Any children from the CDC’s data set who were born in 2018, he noted, would have gotten most of their vaccines before the pandemic started, during their first year of life. The same problem applies to teens. The government’s latest stats for adolescents—which looked as good as ever in 2021—capture many who would have gotten all their shots pre-COVID. Until more data are released, researchers still won’t know whether or how far kids’ vaccination rates have really dipped during the 2020s.

    The time delay is just one potential problem. Parents who are suspicious of vaccines, and angry at the government for encouraging their use, may be less willing to participate in CDC surveys, Daniel Salmon, the director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. “Having studied this for 25 years, I would be surprised if we don’t see a substantial COVID effect on childhood vaccines,” he said. “These data are a little bit reassuring, that it’s not, like, an oh-my-god huge effect. But we need more time and more data to really know the answer.”

    Uncertainty doesn’t have to be a source of terror, though. Early uptake data already provide some signs of a “vaccine-hesitancy spillover effect” happening in reverse, UNC’s Brewer told me, driving more enthusiasm, not less, for getting different kinds of shots. Just look at how the push to dose the nation with half a billion COVID shots goosed the rates of grown-ups getting flu shots: For decades now, our public-health establishment has pushed for better influenza coverage, even as the rate for older Americans was stuck at roughly 65 percent. Then COVID came along and, voilà, senior citizens’ flu-shot coverage jumped to 75 percent—higher than it ever was before. This all fits with a familiar idea in the field, Brewer said, that going in for any one vaccine makes you much more likely to get another in the future. “There does seem to be a sort of positive spillover,” he said, “probably because the forces that led to previous vaccinations are still mostly in place.”

    Even some of the scariest signals we’ve seen so far—reports that anti-vaccine sentiment is clearly on the rise—can seem ambiguous, depending on one’s breadth of view. Consider the finding from Heidi Larson’s group, that vaccine confidence has declined across the whole of the European Union throughout the pandemic, according to surveys taken in 2020 and 2022. The same report says that attitudes have now returned to where they were in 2018 and that confidence in the MMR vaccine, in particular, remains higher than it was four years ago. Given that the 2020 surveys were conducted mostly in March, at the very onset of the first pandemic lockdowns, they might have captured a temporary spike of interest in vaccines. After all, vaccines can seem more useful when you’re terrified of death.

    In other words, America may truly have experienced a recent drop in vaccine confidence—but from an inflated and unsustainable high. That could help explain other recent findings too, including Shah’s. “You need to take the long view,” says Douglas Opel, a pediatric bioethicist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who has been studying the ups and downs of vaccine hesitancy for more than a decade. For a paper published last July, he and colleagues looked at vaccine attitudes among 4,562 parents from late 2019 to the end of 2020. They found that the parents grew more enthusiastic about childhood immunizations when the pandemic started, but their feelings later returned to baseline.

    Larson told me that a “transient COVID effect” may well explain some of what her team has found, but said it was very unlikely to account in full for the worrying trend. In any case, she told me, “we shouldn’t assume this and should instead make an extra effort to continue to build confidence.”

    No crunching of the numbers can excuse the spread of vaccine misinformation, or suggest that those who peddle it are anything but a hateful scourge on individuals and a threat to public health. But you can’t simply ignore the fact that, as far as we can see, all the gnashing about vaccines’ supposed risks simply hasn’t changed a lot of people’s minds. It certainly hasn’t caused a steep and sudden rise in vaccine refusal. The idea that we’re in the midst of some new vaccine-hesitancy contagion is based as much on vibes as proven fact.

    The problem is, bad vibes can leave us prone to misinterpretation. Take the recent measles outbreak in Ohio: It’s alarming, but not so relevant to recent trends in vaccination, despite many claims to that effect. More than one-quarter of the affected children were too young to have been eligible for the MMR vaccine, while others were old enough to have missed their first shot by 2020, before any hesitancy “spillover” could have taken place. And at least a meaningful proportion of the affected families, from the state’s Democratic-leaning Somali American community, wouldn’t seem to represent the GOP’s white, unvaccinated constituency.

    The stark politicization of the COVID shots can be misread too. Despite the 30-point gap between Democrats and Republicans in COVID vaccination rates, those rates are much, much higher—for members of both parties—than they’ve ever been for flu shots. And interparty differences in flu-shot uptake seem to be long-standing. A preprint study from Minttu Rönn, a researcher at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and colleagues found a broadening divide in coverage between Democratic- and Republican-voting states, based on data going back to 2010. But this may not be a bad thing. Rönn doesn’t think the change arises from a loss of trust among Republicans; rather, she told me, it looks to be related to rising flu-shot coverage overall, with proportionally greater gains in Democratic-leaning areas. (That difference could be the result of local attitudes, ease of access, or insurance coverage, she said.) In other words, red states aren’t necessarily falling behind on vaccination. Blue states are surging forward.

    Optimism here may seem perverse. COVID booster uptake is absurdly low right now, even for the elderly. The politicization of vaccines (whenever it began) certainly isn’t letting up. Given what would happen if trust in vaccination really did collapse, perhaps it makes more sense to err on the side of freaking out. As Larson said, every effort should be taken to build confidence, no matter what.

    But the truth of what we know right now ought to be important too. Maybe it’s okay to feel okay. Maybe there’s value in maintaining calm and taking stock of what we’ve accomplished or what we’ve maintained in the face of all these efforts to confuse us. At the risk of trying way too hard to find some solace in disturbing facts, here’s another case in point. Remember Shah’s results, that parents’ concerns about the health effects of childhood vaccines have steadily gone up throughout the pandemic, even as their belief in vaccines’ benefits stayed high? That increase wasn’t clearly more pronounced in any specific group. Belief that vaccination can result in illness or death went up across the board for men and women in the survey, for young and old, for Black and white alike. It rose among Republicans and also Democrats—in just about the same proportions. If America’s parents have been getting more attuned to potential risks from vaccination, we’re doing it together.

    I’m in that number too. As a scientist by training and a science journalist by trade, I’ve been reporting and editing stories about vaccination for years. Still, I’ve never thought so hard about the topic, and in such critical detail, as I have since 2021. At no point in my life has vaccination been this pervasive, perplexing, and important. When it came time to get my children COVID shots, I learned everything I could about potential risks and benefits. I looked at data on the incidence of myocarditis, I considered very rare but deadly outcomes, and I weighed the efficacy of different shots against their measured side effects. These investigations did not arise from distrust of authority, podcast propaganda, or a belief in microchips so small they fit inside of a syringe. I wasn’t fearful; I was curious. I had questions, and I got answers—and now every member of my family has gotten their shots.

    We’ve all been forced by circumstance to think in different ways about our health. Before the pandemic, Larson told me, most people simply didn’t have to pay attention to vaccines. Parents with young children, sure, but everybody else? “I think they probably said, Yeah, vaccines are important. Yeah, they’re safe enough,” she said. But now the stakes are raised across the population. “I mean, there are these groups around the world where you’re like, ‘why do they care about vaccines?’ And it’s because of COVID.”

    The emergence of so many groups with newfound interest in vaccines could end up being dangerous, of course—in the same way that newly minted drivers are a menace on the road. “A lot of people went online asking questions about vaccines,” Larson told me, in a tone that made it sound as though online were a synonym for “straight to hell.” But sometimes asking questions gets you useful information, and sometimes useful information leads to wise decisions. Debates about vaccines may be louder than they’ve ever been before, but that doesn’t mean that vaccination rates are bound to fall.

    Even if the situation isn’t getting that much worse, the country might still be left to wallow in its status quo. Yes, more than 200 million Americans have been fully immunized against COVID—and more than 100 million haven’t. “This has been a problem for a long time,” Daniel Salmon told me. “It was already ‘a crisis in confidence’ a dozen years ago. We don’t see a free fall—that’s somewhat reassuring—but that’s very different from saying that we’re good to go.”

    The fact of this crisis, however long it’s been around, will never matter more than its effects. After all, “confidence” itself is not the only factor, or even the most important one, that determines who gets shots. “Generally speaking, access to vaccination is a much bigger driver than what people think and feel,” Noel Brewer told me. Early in the pandemic, lots of parents wanted to vaccinate their kids and simply couldn’t. Now many of them can. But obstacles persist, and their effects aren’t evenly distributed. According to the CDC, toddlers’ vaccination rates are somewhat lower among those who live in poverty, or reside in rural areas, or don’t identify as white or Asian. Since the pandemic started, these gaps in opportunity appear to have increased. A grand and tragic spillover of people’s vaccination doubts—the anti-vaxxers’ hoped-for “silver lining” to the pandemic—may or may not come. In the meantime, though, there are other problems to address.

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • Breakthrough COVID-19 cases occur in 7.5% of vaccinated Texas participants, according to UTHealth Houston survey; subgroups at higher risk identified

    Breakthrough COVID-19 cases occur in 7.5% of vaccinated Texas participants, according to UTHealth Houston survey; subgroups at higher risk identified

    [ad_1]

    Newswise — Breakthrough COVID-19 infections after vaccination occurred in 7.5% of Texans surveyed and were linked to Hispanic ethnicity, larger household size, rural versus urban living, type of vaccination, and multiple comorbidities, according to findings from UTHealth Houston School of Public Health published today in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

    The data were collected from December 2020 to June 2022 through the Texas Coronavirus Antibody Response Survey (CARES), and showed that the incidence of breakthrough infections spiked as immunity likely waned and newer variants emerged. This information points to the ongoing need for vaccine updating and monitoring the longevity of immunity of vaccinated individuals across variants, according to the researchers.

    “The arrival of new variants has likely resulted in reduced effectiveness of primary series vaccination,” said Stacia DeSantis, PhD, corresponding author of the paper and professor of biostatistics at the UTHealth Houston School of Public Health. “If we were to analyze today’s data, which is five to six months more of data, I certainly expect a higher percentage of breakthrough than we saw as of June 2022.”

    Michael D. Swartz, PhD, associate professor and vice chairman of the Department of Biostatistics at the school, was senior author of the paper.

    Researchers examined self-reported data from 22,575 people over the age of 20 who were enrolled in the Texas CARES survey, an ongoing prospective population-based seroprevalence project designed to assess infection- and vaccine-induced antibody status over time among a volunteer population throughout Texas. Enrollment began in October 2020.

    Of the 1,700 participants who self-reported breakthrough infections of the virus, 112 participants, or 6.5%, experienced severe outcomes that resulted in hospitalization. Breakthrough infections were more frequent when the Omicron variant was dominant. Most predictors of breakthrough infections were also predictors of severe infections requiring hospitalization.

    Hispanic participants reported a higher incidence of breakthrough cases and severe outcomes, which mirrors what has been reported in overall COVID-19 cases in literature, and signifies the disproportionate burden of the virus in the Hispanic population.

    “Those of Hispanic ethnicity had statistically significant higher odds of breakthrough infection in a fully adjusted analysis, and statistically significant higher odds of severe breakthrough in the age-adjusted analysis,” DeSantis said. “In raw numbers, 9.8% of Hispanic participants had a breakthrough infection versus, for example, 7.4% of non-Hispanic white participants and 8.3% of Black participants. The breakthrough percentage may seem close, but since the sample size is large, the difference is significant.”

    One rationale for the higher incidence in Hispanics might be that multigenerational households are not uncommon among the Texas Hispanic population, according to researchers. Household members, including older people who often have more comorbidities, may have been at higher risk for infection from younger, working-age generations.

    DeSantis said the link to a higher incidence in rural settings versus urban settings might be related to different industries.

    “The potential lack of ability of rural participants to work from home may have influenced preventive measures during high transmission periods,” she said. “Also, less access to health care – including vaccine and booster scheduling in rural areas – is a known issue. The rural population also tends to be less insured. All of these sociodemographic factors contribute to rural versus urban disparities.”

    Among vaccines, researchers found that there were significantly elevated odds of breakthrough infections in those receiving Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson versus Moderna. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was linked to the highest number of breakthrough infections.

    Analysis showed that health care employees also had higher reports of breakthrough infections. “Working in health care is an obvious exposure and so are the jobs that require daily face-to-face interactions,” DeSantis said.

    Comorbidities such as asthma, obesity and hypertension were identified as risk factors for a severe level of breakthrough infections, which resulted in an ER visit or hospitalization. Availability of a well-established running list of medical conditions could assist in advising patients and delivery of care management over time to those most at risk, according to the study.

    Additional UTHealth Houston School of Public Health authors included Eric Boerwinkle, PhD, dean of the school; Sarah E. Messiah, PhD, MPH; Harold W. Kohl, III, PhD, MSPH; and Steven H. Kelder, PhD, MPH, all professors of epidemiology, human genetics and environmental sciences; Ashraf Yaseen, PhD, assistant professor of data science; Melissa A. Valerio-Shewmaker, PhD, associate professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences; Luis León-Novelo, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics; Cesar L. Pinzon Gomez, MD, research associate; Lindsay N Padilla, MPH, research coordinator; Jessica A. Ross, BS, project manager; Yashar Talebi, MS, biostatistician, and Tianyao Hao, MS, graduate research assistant.

    Other authors included David E. Lakey, MD, vice chancellor for Health Affairs and chief medical officer at The University of Texas System; Jennifer A. Shuford, MD, MPH, commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, and Stephen J. Pont, MD, MPH, medical director, Center for Public Health Policy and Practice at Texas Department of State Health Services; and Mark Silberman, MD; and Samantha Tuzo, BS, with Clinical Pathology Laboratories.

    Funding for Texas CARES was provided by the Texas Department of State Health Services (HHS00086660000).

    [ad_2]

    University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

    Source link

  • Biden to End COVID Emergencies in May

    Biden to End COVID Emergencies in May

    [ad_1]

    Jan. 30, 2023 – The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said Monday. 

    Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since first being declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

    The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were extended to millions more Americans.

    Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11. 

    There were nearly 300,00 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link