HIV-1 is one of the fastest-mutating viruses ever studied. Over a dozen distinct subtypes exist, with countless specific versions of the virus varying from person to person. The extraordinary diversity of HIV-1 and rapid mutation rate makes vaccine development a challenge that researchers have failed to overcome for over three decades. However, a new vaccination strategy for HIV-1 induced a diverse arsenal of protective antibodies in monkeys.
Most vaccines offer protection by inducing antibodies that recognize and bind to a functional region of the pathogen. For example, COVID vaccines result in antibodies that attach to the virus spike protein, which the virus uses to hook to the membrane of host cells. These antibodies effectively neutralize the virus, preventing it from attaching (and subsequently entering and infecting). But what happens when that spike protein changes? Those neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are less protective and cannot bind as efficiently. In the case of COVIID, researchers are working to develop vaccines that induce antibodies to regions of the spike protein that rarely mutate. HIV-1 also has spike proteins that it uses to attach to host cells, but scientists are taking a different approach.
HIV-1s diversity requires a vaccine capable of inducing not just nAbs in general but a broad arsenal of nAbs that can neutralize the multiple circulating strains. These broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) emerge in approximately 20-30% of HIV-1-infected people. Thus, the human immune system can produce bnAbs against HIV-1 under the right conditions. But those conditions are tricky.
The HIV-1 spike protein comprises six subunits: three that mediate the spikes attachment to target cells (called gp120) and three that fuse the virus and cell membranes (called gp41). This fusion process requires the spike protein to undergo profound conformational changes; consequently, the spike is an unstable entity. The natural instability of the spike makes it a challenging vaccine choice. However, it is the best candidate scientists have found.
Early HIV-1 vaccine programs focused on immunizing with the spike proteins attachment subunit (that is, gp120). After all, if a virus cant attach, it cant infect. At first, these programs showed great promise. The vaccines protected chimpanzees from HIV-1 infection, and human studies demonstrated that the vaccines were safe and induced robust antibody responses. However, in the real world, the vaccines provided no protection. Outside the laboratory, patients were exposed to strains that evolved under immune pressure, and the vaccinated were just as likely to become infected as the unvaccinated.
Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday
It became clear that vaccines targeting the attachment subunit alone would be ineffective. Researchers hypothesized that an effective vaccine must contain both the attachment and fusion subunits and be capable of undergoing configurational change. So groups raced to create stable forms of the whole spike protein. A group at Cornell University was the first to succeed. They discovered that cleaving a small segment at the end of the spike protein resulted in a highly stable molecule with the regular, propeller shape that is now seen as a defining characteristic of HIV-1 spike proteins.
These researchers didnt pick just any spike protein to model theirs after. Instead, they chose a spike protein from an HIV-1 virus isolated from a 6-week-old Kenyan infant who had become HIV-1 infected at birth. The infant had developed nAb by the time they were 3 years old. Additionally, that particular spike protein had the highly desirable property of binding all known bnAbs. Kevin Saunders and his colleagues at Duke University believed that this made it a perfect candidate for an HIV-1 vaccine.
A new paper in Science Translational Medicine reports that, over the course of about six months, the researchers vaccinated rhesus macaques six times with the stable spike protein. Crucially, they also an added an adjuvant a special immune-stimulating molecule called 3M-052, which also boosts the immune response to the influenza vaccine. The authors found that the monkeys developed bnAbs that could target several sites on the HIV viral envelope. Some vaccinated macaques had a high concentration of these antibodies, whereas others had a low concentration.
To determine if these antibodies protected the macaques from infection, the researchers repeatedly challenged the macaques with intrarectally administered doses of simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV), which is similar to HIV. All nine control macaques that did not receive the vaccine became infected after eight challenges. Thirteen of 15 rhesus macaques were infected after 13 challenges in the low-nAb group, albeit at a slower rate than the control macaques. Only two of seven macaques in the high-nAb group became infected after 13 challenges, demonstrating significant protection compared to the unimmunized control group and the low-nAb group. Notably, the two infected macaques from the high-nAb group had the lowest concentration of HIV-specific antibodies two weeks before the challenge.
The researchers note that the antibodies mimic similar antibodies found in the child from whom the spike proteins were isolated, suggesting that humans also produce these antibodies in response to the stabilized spike protein. In addition, the researchers findings will be assessed in the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 300 trial, providing an opportunity to determine whether this protein can induce bnAb in humans.
As summer vacations wind down, the days get shorter and children prepare to go to school, preschool and day care, they could encounter an unwelcome classmate: COVID. Yet despite the prospect of another fall surge in cases, a remarkably low percentage of young children have been vaccinated against the disease. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends children get vaccinated for COVID. So why have so few parents refrained from getting their child the shot?
The Food and Drug Administration authorized COVID vaccines for children six months through four years oldthe last age group to become eligiblein June. Yet just 3.5 percent of U.S. kids in that group have received at least one dose, according to the CDC. And only about a third of children ages five through 11 have received one or more doses.
In a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) survey of parents conducted in July, more than four in 10 of those with children aged six months through four years said they will definitely not get their child vaccinated against COVID. Others said they will only do so if school or childcare requires them to or that they want to wait and see how the vaccine is working. Of parents of children in this age group, nearly two thirds of Republicans and of people who are unvaccinated themselves said they would not vaccinate their child. But even among parents who are vaccinated themselves, more than a quarter said they would not make the same choice for their little ones.
Although children are at a lower risk for severe COVID than adults, the risk is not zero. As of late August, more than 1,400 children in the U.S. had died from COVID, including more than 500 under age five. Studies suggest one in 3,000 to 4,000 kids have been hospitalized with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a condition in which multiple organs can become inflamed. Others have developed long COVID.
Reasons for Not Vaccinating
In the KFF survey, parents gave a wide range of reasons for not vaccinating their young children. Some were concerned that the vaccines are too new and that there has not been enough testing and research. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been tested in thousands of children without causing serious adverse effects. But occasionally very rare complications can show up only after millions of people have been vaccinated. For example, myocarditisan inflammation of the heart muscleonly appeared among some teenagers and young adults after vaccinations became widely available. Most of these cases resolved on their own.
Other parents specified concerns about short-term side effects of the vaccine, which might mean they would have to take time off work to care for their child. In clinical trials, the side effects in children younger than age five were similar to those seen in older children and adults. These included pain and redness at the injection site, headache, fatigue and fever. With the exception of fever, most were milder than those seen in older children.
But a significant proportion of parents of children younger than age five in the KFF surveymore than 10 percentsaid they felt their child did not need the vaccine or that they werent that worried about COVID itself. Many children have gotten COVID already, and most of them have had relatively mild cases and recovered on their own. By the time vaccines became available for the youngest children, they were less effective at preventing infectionso the benefits of vaccination were harder to see. Pretty much everybody knows somebody whos gotten COVID despite being vaccinated, says survey co-author Liz Hamel, vice president and director of public opinion and survey research at KFF. The promise of what the vaccine will do for you is different now.
Hamel and her colleagues asked parents whether getting the vaccine or getting infected would be a bigger risk to their childs health. Parents of kids who had already had COVID were much more likely to say the vaccine would be a bigger risk.
Michelle Fox is the mother of a two-year-old boy in Hochdale, Mass. Her son got COVID in May, just before his age group became eligible for a COVID vaccine, and she and her husband have not gotten him vaccinated yet. I think if he hadnt had COVID, we would have got him vaccinated as soon as we possibly could, she says. But she hasnt been in a great rush, in part because her son already has some immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, and in part because her husband has some reservations. Hes British, and Fox says he is somewhat wary because of the fact that the U.K. has not yet approved the vaccine for use in young children. Were generally people who definitely trust what the doctors say, she says. But Fox had a complicated pregnancy that resulted in her son being born prematurelyso her and her husbands calculus on the risk of rare but serious outcomes has changed somewhat, she says. Nevertheless, she adds, as the weather gets cooler and her son spends more time indoors, where COVID risk is higher, that might play into her decision about whether or not to vaccinate him.
A subset of parents have been extremely eager to get their young children vaccinated against COVID. Allison Moy, a microbiologist and mother in Pittsburgh, Pa., vaccinated her nearly two-year-old son as soon as he was eligible. He has had two out of three doses of the Pfizer vaccine. As a scientist with a background in microbiology, Moy says she felt confident in the science behind the mRNA vaccines and did not have any safety concerns. For her, getting her son vaccinated wasnt just about protecting him but also about protecting those around him. My parents are getting older; my husbands parents are getting older, she says. It was more about doing our part to protect the vulnerable.
The KFF survey also found that vaccination rates among young children were divided along political party lines: parents who identified as Republican were less likely to have vaccinated their child or to have been vaccinated themselves, compared with parents who identified as Democratic. Even among Democrats and vaccinated parents, however, a sizable proportion had not vaccinated their kids.
Racial and ethnic demographics also played a role. More than four in 10 Black parents of children younger than age five cited access barriers such as having to take time off work to care for a child with side effectscompared with fewer than a third of Hispanic parents and fewer than a fifth of white parents. More than four in 10 Hispanic parents of such children said they were concerned about not being able to get their child vaccinated at a place they trust, compared with more than a quarter of Black parents and about a sixth of white parents. And both Hispanic and Black parents were more likely than white parents to say they were worried about having to pay out of pocket for the vaccineswhich are available for free in the U.S. regardless of insurance status. People are not used to getting things for free in health care in this country, Hamel says.
Other research supports the KFF surveys findings. Jessica Calarco, an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University Bloomington, and her colleagues surveyed parents in Indiana about their decisions on vaccination. In data that have not yet been published, they found that, from relatively early on in the pandemic, parents were not all that concerned about their kids getting COVID. Parents told the researchers that messaging in the media suggested that childrenespecially white children without preexisting conditionshad a very low likelihood of getting severely ill or dying, Calarco says.
Parents really latched onto those early messages, in part because it allowed them to feel comfortable sending kids back to in-person schooling and in-person day care, Calarco says. As the pandemic progressed, an increasing percentage of parents told Calarco and her colleagues that they consumed less news about COVID. According to a not-yet-published national survey that was also conducted by Calarco and her colleagues, the more parents who perceive COVID itself as a lower threat to children, [the more] they are significantly less likely to have chosen to vaccinate their children, she says.
In both Calarcos Indiana and national surveys, there was a strong correlation between parents being vaccinated themselves and their kids being vaccinated. But there were a number of parents who had only gotten vaccinated because their workplaces required it. National gender data suggest women are more likely to be vaccinated than men, Calarco says, but her surveys of parents found that stay-at-home mothers with young children had much lower vaccination rates, Calarco says. Parents told Calarco and her colleagues they were more likely to vaccinate their older children, who were going to school and extracurricular activities, than their younger kids, who were staying at home. Many parents also believed that kids were less likely to transmit COVID to others, as early studies showed. But more recent studies suggest that kids canand dospread the disease to others in their household.
Increasing Vaccination through Trusted Sources
The fact that many parents feel less urgency about vaccinating their children may be a product of how the vaccines were tested and rolled out, says Sallie Permar, chair of Pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at NewYork-Presbyterian Komansky Childrens Hospital. The youngest kids were the ones who were tested the last for vaccines, Permar says. And I think that the message that parents got through that process is that it wasnt so important.
KFF survey data suggest that pediatricians are the most trusted source of information on the COVID vaccine for children, yet 70 percent of parents of children younger than age five said they hadnt yet talked to their childs health care provider about the COVID vaccine. That could change when they take their kids in for annual checkups.
Permar sees a crucial role for pediatricians in communicating to parents that COVID vaccines are safe and recommended for kids. I do we think that pediatricians do need to lead this messaging to parents, she says, because the data shows that parents really trust that source of information. But staffing shortages and a lack of resources have made it difficult to get the word out. Most healthy children only see their pediatrician once a year. We really have to go beyond the pediatrician being the sole provider and messenger to these parents, Permar says.
Meanwhile the FDA has authorized updated booster shots that target the Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2. But Pfizers booster is only authorized for kids age 12 and older, and Modernas booster is only authorized for those age 18 and older. So the youngest kids will have to wait a bit longer for these updated shots.
Im just worried that we're going down the same pathway of demonstrating to parents that this is a low priority, that children are a low priority, Permar says. I think the FDA and other policy makers should think about What are the requirements for approval of the vaccines in young children? so that all parents and their pediatricians and providers can go in with their eyes open this fall as to what we should be recommending to children.
DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "UK Travel Vaccine Market Forecast to 2028 - COVID-19 Impact and Country Analysis By Product and Application" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.
The travel vaccine market is expected to grow from US$ 267.56 million in 2021 to US$ 524.88 million by 2028; it is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 10.1% from 2022 to 2028.
Travel vaccines, also called travel immunizations, are shots travelers get before visiting certain areas of the world that help protect them from developing serious illnesses. Vaccinations work by exposing the body to a weakened/dead germ or part of a germ of the disease.
These vaccines are recommended to protect against diseases endemic to the country of origin or destination. It is intended to protect travelers and prevent disease spread within or between countries. In many cases, countries require proof of vaccination for travelers wishing to enter or exit the country.
Travelling and tourism have become an integral part of the human lifestyle. It has added a change in the ongoing routine of people and offered several opportunities to explore different cultures, traditions, spiritualism, rural and ethnic tourism, and wellness and health holidays worldwide.
Travelling outside the country requires immunization as a safety and precautionary measure to avoid spreading infections. Various countries have policies to protect their citizens from travel-associated infections. For instance, in the UK, National Health Service (NHS) organizes routine immunization or vaccination schedule for its citizens. If a person travels outside the UK, they must get vaccinated to prevent infectious diseases such as hepatitis A, typhoid, and yellow fever.
With ~40 million visitors in 2017, the UK is among the most well-liked foreign travel destinations. Although the UK is renowned for its unpredictable weather, the winters and summers are generally temperate, albeit occasionally damp. The UK recognizes Covaxin as a reliable COVID-19 travel vaccination. This indicates that those immunized with Covaxin, one of the two main COVID-19 vaccines, will not have to separate themselves once they arrive in England. After experiencing a significant annual decline in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Statista reports that the number of foreign tourists arriving in Europe increased by ~20% in 2021 compared to 2020.
Based on product, the UK travel vaccines market is segmented into hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal vaccines, and others. The others segment holds held the largest market share in 2021. However, the meningococcal vaccines segment is expected to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period.
The others segment primarily consists of the human papillomavirus vaccine, Zika virus vaccine, DPT (tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis), yellow fever, typhoid, Japanese encephalitis, measles, mumps and rubella, rabies, polio, influenza, varicella and shingles, cholera, and others.
Based on application, the travel vaccine market is segmented into domestic travel and outbound travel. In 2021, the outbound travel segment is likely to account for the largest share of the market. The market for this segment is expected to grow at the fastest CAGR of 10.4% during 2021-2028.
However, the number of vacations abroad only accounted for 15% of the holiday trips made in 2019. Overall, the number of visits abroad from the UK was approximately 19 million in 2021. Spending on trips abroad by residents of the UK increased by 12% in 2021 over the previous year, after dropping sharply in 2020 due to the pandemic.
Market Dynamics
Market Drivers
Market Restraints
Market Opportunities
Future Trends
Key Topics Covered:
1. Introduction
2. Travel Vaccines Market - Key Takeaways
3. Research Methodology
4. Travel Vaccines Market - Market Landscape
5. UK Travel Vaccine Market - Key Market Dynamics
6. Travel Vaccines Market - UK Analysis
7. UK Travel Vaccine Market Revenue and Forecasts To 2028 - Product
8. UK Travel Vaccine Market Revenue and Forecasts To 2028 - Application
9. Travel Vaccines Market Analysis - By Country
10. Impact Of COVID-19 Pandemic on UK Travel Vaccine Market
11. UK Travel Vaccine Market-Industry Landscape
12. Company Profiles
13. Appendix
Companies Mentioned
For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/6unbvt
A man in a white shirt on a black background checks the nasal spray.
This is a short series focusing on the challenges of developing effective influenza vaccines. In the first part of this series, I gave a brief overview of the history and nature of influenza viruses, including why they represent a tricky target for vaccine manufacturers. In the previous two articles which can be read here and here I discussed some of the attempts that have been made to overcome these challenges. This article focuses on another such attempt: intranasal vaccination. Finally, the last few installments will offer a detailed analysis of the latest, and most promising, advances in the development of universal vaccines.
Nasal Vaccination: Straight to the Source
Current influenza vaccines are reasonably effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death, but they need to be updated on a yearly basis to remain protective. The influenza surface proteins that vaccines use to teach our immune system how to defend itself can mutate rapidly, leading to a mismatch between the vaccine antigens and those actually in circulation. A good season will see around 60% of people protected by the flu vaccines. A poorly matched season can see this number drop as low as 20%.
Even when the vaccines are well matched to the circulating strains, they still need to elicit a high concentration of neutralizing antibodies to be effective. Antibodies bind to the influenza surface protein and prevent viral entry into cells, creating a barrier between virus and host. Unfortunately, these wane very quickly a recent meta-study, performed by scientists at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, found that the protection offered by the flu shot can be lost completely within a span of 90 days.
Most flu vaccines are administered by intramuscular injection, delivering the antigens deep into the muscle tissue. This raises circulating antibody levels throughout the body; a generalized, systemic response. Over the years there have been a number of suggestions that a vaccine administered intranasally may offer better protection. The flu, being a respiratory virus, is most at home in the nose and the throat. It spreads by aerosol droplets when people talk, sneeze, or cough. Vaccinating through the nose in the form of a spay, rather than injection would more closely mimic influenzas natural route of infection. Ideally, the corresponding antibody response would be localized, offering highly targeted protective immunity at the very source of infection.
Understanding Mucosal Immunity
Why exactly is it thought that nasal administration could improve vaccine efficacy? To understand this, we need to take a closer look at something called mucosal immunity.
Our skin is one of the first lines of defense against injury and infection, acting as a physical barrier that prevents unwanted entry. But some areas of our body need to allow for a degree of exchange between inside and outside. Broadly, these include: the gastrointestinal tract, the urogenital tract, and the respiratory tract. Each of these inhabits a strange in-between space on the one hand they are inside our body, but on the other they are constantly exposed to the outside world, rendering them particularly vulnerable.
To protect against foreign threats, these areas are covered by a lining known as a mucous membrane, or mucosa. As with our outer skin, part of the mucosas protective function lies in acting as a physical barrier. To this effect, the membrane is covered in mucus, which helps trap and slow the advance of microbes a runny nose is our bodys attempt at expelling microbes once theyve been trapped, so too is phlegm.
But aside from this passive form of protection, the mucous membrane is also packed full of pockets of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), which contain all kinds of immune cells (Figure 1). This layer is known as the lamina propria. It includes B and T lymphocytes, roughly three quarters of which reside in our various mucosal regions. B cells produce antibodies, which can bind to viral particles and prevent them from entering our cells, blocking infection. T cells help kill off cells that have already been infected, curbing viral spread. They also recruit additional immune cells to areas of infection, speeding up viral clearance. Along with B and T cells, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue is also home to natural killer cells and macrophages, which directly engulf and neutralize any pathogens trying to pass through the epithelium. Finally, dendritic cells act as a kind of surveillance system that modulates the specifics of our immune response on a case-by-case basis. Dendritic cells also present naive B and T cells with foreign antigens, prompting them to differentiate and provide the most specific possible immune response against the microbes at hand.
The close proximity of mucosal immune cells to the membrane surface carries with it a distinct advantage: they can jump into action more quickly than they would be able to in non-mucosal regions of the body. They dont need to waste important time traveling to far off sites of infection, since they are already at the main portal of entry.
FIGURE 1. An overview of the various cells and processes involved in mucosal immunity. The mucus ... [+] membrane stretches from the mucus layer to the bottom of the lamina propria.
Crucially, there exists a class of antibodies immunoglobulin A (IgA) that is only produced by B cells in the mucosal membrane. Immunoglobulin A can take on one of two forms: serum IgA, which circulates through the blood as one might expect, and secretory IgA (sIgA), which is made on the underside of the mucosal membrane and is transported across the membrane to the mucosal surface. A key component of this process is the polymeric Ig receptor (pIgR) that binds to the IgA, enabling the antibody to be absorbed by the epithelial cell barrier and ferried through to the surface. As the IgA exits the epithelial cell, the polymeric Ig receptor is cleaved off, preparing the antibody for action (Figure 2).
An additional strength of sIgA is the fact that it is a dimer, meaning it is composed of two identical molecular IgA parts, held together by a small joining-chain (JC). Whereas monomeric antibodies have two binding sites, dimeric sIgA has four. This is suspected to improve its ability to bind to antigens, allowing for quicker viral clearance.
FIGURE 2. Generation and Transportation of Secretory IgA In this example of a mucosal epithelial ... [+] cell lining a body tract, dimeric sIgA binds via its J chain to a polymeric Ig receptor (pIgR) expressed on the cell surface. The polymeric sIgA molecule is endocytosed by pIgR, transported across the cell (transcytosis), and released into the lumen of the tract. During this release, the pIgR is enzymatically cleaved so that the polymeric IgA and a pIgR fragment (secretory component) remain attached and are released together as secretory IgA.
So, unlike most other antibodies, sIgA is stationed on the outside of the body. Here, IgA can bind to microbes including viruses before they even have a chance to enter the body. This prevents the microbes from binding to our cells, and by extension, protects us from infection. Akiko Iwasaki, Sterling Professor of Immunobiology and Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at Yale University, describes it as putting the guard outside of the door instead of inside the door where antibodies normally work, inside the body.
Problems?
The first nasal flu vaccine, FluMist, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012. By 2016 it had been pulled off the market, not to reappear until 2018. The reason? Decreased vaccine effectiveness. Combined data from 2013 to 2016 indicates that nasal spray vaccine effectiveness was roughly 26% in children between the ages of 12 and 17. This is compared to 51% effectiveness for inactivated vaccines, administered intramuscularly.
Although these low numbers were brushed off as being a result of poorly matched vaccine virus strains, there may also be other reasons the nasal spray influenza vaccine hasnt quite lived up to expectations.
For one, IgA is typically quite short-lived; it is produced only for a brief period after exposure. Any barrier immunity that the nasal spray vaccine does offer us will likely fade as soon as IgA numbers drop. And durability is already a point of concern with traditional, inactivated flu vaccines, which depend on the longer-lived circulating IgG class of antibodies for protection from infection. So, we cannot expect it to be all that durable.
Another worry is that the nasal spray vaccine may be cleared by our immune system before it has the chance to complete its job. Adults who have previously been exposed to the flu and that means more or less every adult will still have at least partial mucosal immunity against the influenza viruses. The attenuated, or weakened, viruses used in the nasal spray vaccine might simply be getting neutralized before they can infect nasal cells, preventing our B cells from updating sIgA to match the viruses circulating that season.
On a more theoretical note, one might also question the belief that vaccine-induced mucosal immunity can provide lasting protection if natural infection, through the same path of entry, fails to do so. Many people are infected by influenza on a seasonal basis, with waning immunity and viral mutation leading to renewed vulnerability year after year. This happens even though they would have built up some degree of mucosal immunity during prior infection. If prior infection through the nose doesnt protect us from reinfection, why would a nasal vaccine?
This hints at a larger issue: we still know very little about the dynamics of mucosal immunity and about the nuances of nasal vaccination. Speaking at the White House Summit for the Future of Covid-19 Vaccines, Dr. Anthony Fauci stressed that we still lack validated animal models to help us sample and quantify mucosal immune responses. Similarly, we lack clear correlates of protection for intranasal vaccines. Although a simplification, IgG levels following intramuscular injection are associated with improved vaccine effectiveness; we dont yet have enough data to make such inferences in the case of intranasal vaccines. Knowledge about clinical trial designs and endpoints is also lacking, further complicating the development and adoption of nasal vaccines.
There has been tremendous excitement around mucosal vaccines, with many in the field pinning their hopes on long-term protection from infection as well as severe disease. The experience with FluMist serves as a caution that the high hopes for nasal vaccination may not be realized.
We will soon have data from two new efforts. In China, CanSino Biologics has just had their inhaled Covid-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use. And in India, Bharat Biotechs Covid-19 nasal vaccine was authorized for restricted use. Many more are in development. Time will tell if they live up to their promise to prevent infection and reduce transmission.
The next article in this series will look at a shift in strategy: moving away from yearly vaccines that try to closely match predicted wild type viruses, and instead, attempting to create vaccines that neutralize a broad array of influenza viruses even in the face of continued viral mutation. So called universal influenza vaccines.
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- A major milestone in the fight against COVID-19. A new kind of vaccine will soon be available.
It's the first new formula since the shots came out in 2020.
The White House COVID response team says the virus is still a danger. This week, new COVID vaccines are being rolled out and they'll be available in the Philly region.
Federal officials say by the end of this week, 90% of Americans will be within a five-mile radius of being able to get the reformulated shots, which contain parts of the original vaccine with components that target omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.
Those strains account for 99% of the circulating virus.
These offer better protection and have been authorized for use as a single booster dose at least two months after primary or booster vaccination.
Health officials say current trends show this is necessary.
"The seven-day average daily deaths are still too high, about 375 per day, well above the around 200 deaths a day we saw earlier this spring," Dr Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, said. "And in my mind, far too high for a vaccine-preventable disease."
"We know that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe," Dr. Anthony Fauci, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said. "We know that receiving the recommended vaccine dose is critical to maintaining optimal protection against severe COVID-19."
The vaccines will be offered at various CVS and Walgreens locations.
Experts say COVID vaccines will be like the flu reformulated yearly to match the strains.
Jasmine Payoute joined CBS3 Eyewitness News as a reporter in June 2021.
Introduction: In response to the disease, multiple companies created coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations. These vaccines were developed utilizing a variety of technologies and at an unprecedented rate, leading many people to question their efficacy and safety, as well as what they thought about how well the vaccination may protect them. As a result, the goal of this study was to evaluate the factors and motivators that may affect the Saudi Arabian population's decision to get COVID-19 vaccination.
Methods: A sample of Saudi citizens from the Central Region completed an electronic questionnaire. This questionnaire assessed a variety of factors, including why people choose to get or not have the COVID-19 vaccination.
Results: In total, 526 Saudis responded to the survey, with the average age being 3511 years. Of the participants, 408 (77.6%) had receivedCOVID-19 vaccination (one or two doses), and 118 (22.4%) had not been vaccinated. Females (n=233, 73%, P=0.002) and the group less than 35 years (n=223, 54.7%, P=0.017) were more likely than the males to get vaccinated. Married(n=256, 80.5%) andemployed(n=261, 81.1%) participants had higher vaccination rates than unmarried and unemployed. Major reasons for not being vaccinated were a lack of knowledge about the adverse effects (n=74, 62.7%), concerns about possible side effects (n=70, 59.3%), and a lack of faith in the vaccination (n=45, 38.1%). Receiving flu vaccinationwas significantly associated with being vaccinated againstCOVID-19 (P=0.020).
Conclusion: Lack of knowledge about the vaccine's side effects and uncertainty were the major deterrents to vaccination, whereas faith in the Ministry of Health's instructions was the key motivator.
Within a month of its onset, the latest coronavirus disseminating a global challenge, as there is no specific antiviral treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the absence of a vaccine, countries contained the spread of COVID-19 through quarantine and lockdown, social distancing measures, community-wide use of facemasks at all times, and travel bans. These measures caused significant impairment to people's physical and psychosocial well-being, as well as a massive reduction in the global economy [1,2]. Vaccination was important to reduce the spread of the infection. Several global studies reported the importance of vaccination in preventing many different diseases, and the production of a vaccine against COVID-19 accelerated at an exponential rate to minimize and control the pandemic [3,4].
In an effort to combat the prevalence of COVID-19, many governments granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to FDAs that allowed using COVID-19 vaccines prior to being approved [5,6]. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) provided an Emergency Use Listing (EUL) of additional vaccines after the declaration of the public health emergency. Because of the EUA and EUL, multiple COVID-19 vaccines have become authorized and recommended for distribution and utilization [7]. The COVID-19 vaccines include the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnsons Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sinovac, Sinopharm, and Serum Institute of India Pty Ltd [8,9]. These vaccines were developed in several countries, each with a different efficacy rate. Preliminary studies indicated that the efficacy rate of the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine technology, produced by Pfizer and Moderna, is more than 90%, whereas Oxford-AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnsons Janssen have efficacy rates of 76% and 72%, respectively [10].
Vaccine hesitancy is a serious public health concern, and the vaccination uptake rates in Middle Eastern countries vary greatly, depending on region and time of the year [1,11]. Three major causes are ascribed to vaccine hesitancy: (i) individuals' lack of confidence in and fear of vaccines, especially if they believe that the vaccines pose a risk of infection; (ii) individuals not experiencing the need for a vaccine or do not trust the vaccine source; and (iii) individuals or communities have difficulty receiving the vaccine [12]. Several studies identified a number of factors that influence the acceptance of a new vaccine. These factors are related to individuals beliefs about the vaccine's protection and effectiveness, negative health effects, myths regarding the need for vaccination, a lack of interest in the health system, and a lack of community awareness about vaccine-preventable diseases [13].
In Saudi Arabia, the vaccine against COVID-19 was available soon after it was released. The Saudi Ministry of Health accredited only two COVID-19 vaccines, namely Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca [14]. The recommended vaccine dose, for both vaccines, is two doses. The Ministry of Health conducted large media campaigns to increase awareness of the importance of the vaccine in order to safeguard the Saudi population and help people get back to theirnormal life. As of August 31, 2021, 62% of the population received at least one dose, and 41% of the population is fully vaccinated [15]. Yet, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy are a concern for many people, and this was the main driver to conduct the current study, which aimed to investigate the factors and motivators that would affect the decision of the Saudi Arabian population regarding vaccination.
This cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of the general public in the Central Region of Saudi Arabia. Adult Saudi nationals (18 years or older) were eligible for participation. Using a snowball technique, the survey link and initiation were disseminated to the public electronically, and those who received it were asked to share it with their network of contacts. In Saudi Arabia, social media is a key medium for communication and discussion, and it is regarded as a potent instrument for effective recruitment, as the invitation to participate may reach a large number of individuals in a short period. The letter of invitation, describing theobjectives and potential outcomes,and the participants can choose to refuse or participate through completing the form.
As the primary objective of the study was toidentify the factors influencing the publics decision to be vaccinated, we assumed the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy as 0.5 (as no information is available on proportion), the expected sample size was 385. This estimation had a 95% confidence level (z=1.96), and a margin of error (precision) of 0.05. in order to account for the possibility of a low response rate, we oversampled by 40% of the expected sample size resulting in a final sample size of 532.
The data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire measuring several variables, such as the reasons that supported the decision to be vaccinated or not be vaccinated.The questionnaire was comprised of three sections. The first section covered the socio-demographic characteristics, including age, gender, marital status, work status, area of residence, and education level. The second section, which contained 15 items, focused on the factors that influenced a positive decision to be vaccinated and the third section was about myths and concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine. These items were developed, following an extensive literature review [2,16,17], and consultation with a number of public health experts. The responses were yes and no options. The questionnaire was translated to Arabic by the research team and then back-translated to English to ensure accuracy.
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics such as the mean score and standard deviation, as well as frequency and percentage were used to present the data. All the items were tabulated and compared between the groups in terms of the demographic variables, for example age, gender, working specialty, and marital status using the Chi-square test. Significance was considered at a p-value <0.05.
The Institutional Review Board of the Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs provided ethical clearance and approval for this study (RC16/09). The questionnaire had no self-identifiers, and participation was optional and anonymous.
The sample size was realized as 526 participants. The majority were female (n=319, 60.6%) in different age groups, and the mean age was 3511 years. More than half of the sample (n=322, 61.2%) were employed, of which 162 (30.8%) were working in healthcare. The majority (63.5%, n=334) had an undergraduate degree or school level education, with 19.8% having a postgraduate degree. The majority (82.3%, n=433) were non-smokers, and 85 (16.2%) reported having a chronic disease. A high proportion (77.6%, n=408) received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and 121 (23%) were previously infected. Of the sample, 421 (80%) said they knew someone who had the COVID-19 infection who was a family or close friend. Table 1 presents more details on the socio-demographic profile of the study subjects.
All the statements used were negative beliefs about the vaccine. The results were divided into a non-vaccinated group (n=118, 22.4%) and a vaccinated group (n=408, 77.6%). For the non-vaccinated group, 49 (41.5%) reported not believing that the vaccine is safe, 34 (28.8%) thought the virus was developed to make money, a small proportion (15, 12.7%) thought that the vaccine will alter their genetic background, and 17 (14.4%) believed that the vaccination aimed to introduce nano-chips in their body. The majority of the vaccine group disagreed with all the statements related to myths regarding the COVID-19 vaccine; 385 (94.4%) disagreed that the vaccine will introduce nano-chips in their body and 378 (92.6%) disagreed that the vaccine will infect them with COVID-19. However, 86 (21.1%) agreed that the virus was developed for financial gain. Table 2 illustrates the myth and concerns that might influence the decision to be vaccinated.
Lack of knowledge about the adverse effects (62.7%, n=74), worry about possible side effects (59.3%, n=70), and lack of faith in the vaccination (38.1%, n=45) were the main three reasons given for not getting the vaccine. In the vaccinated group, the major reason for being vaccinated was related to the fear of infecting their family members (n=345, 84.6%), followed by the Ministry of Health recommendations (n=325, 79.7%), travel requirements (n=245, 60%), fear of being infected with COVID19 (n=236, 57.8%), as well as family/friends recommendations (n=203, 49.8%). The lowest scoring statements were related to feeling embarrassed if they were not vaccinated (n=33, 8.1%), and job requirements (n=131, 32.1%). Table 3 presents more details regarding the reasons for taking the vaccine.
In terms of the factors associated with receiving a COVID-19 or flu vaccine, the study findings showed that the males were more likely than the females to receive the vaccine (84.5%, n=175), with a significant gender difference (P=0.002), other factors included age over 35 years old (82.6%, n=185, P=0.017),being married (80.5%, n=256, P=0.046), employed (81.1%, n=261, P=0.016), smoker (87.1%, n=81, P=0.015), and never infected with COVID-19 (82.5%, n=334, P<0.001). The group with a postgraduate degree had the highest proportion of being vaccinated (82.7%, n=86, P=0.012), of which 32.7% (n=34, P=0.012) also received a flu vaccine, 91 (28.3%, P<0.001) were employed and 62 (38.3%, P<0.001) were a healthcare worker. Being vaccinated with a flu vaccine was significantly associated with vaccination with COVID-19 (P=0.020) (Table 4).
Fear of vaccines is an obstacle in the global attempt to control the current pandemic, which has negatively affected individuals health and the economy. Understanding the factors that prevent or encourage people to be vaccinated, is critical for planning and accelerating the vaccination process. This study identified several factors associated with the decision regarding vaccination, including that males were more likely than females to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. This finding is consistent with the studies from Egypt and Portugal, which illustrated that females had lower compliance with vaccination [2,18].
The current study indicated that 38% of the non-vaccinated groupdid not trust the vaccines and 41.5% did not believe that the vaccine is safe, despite the fact that the majority disagreed with the statement of lacking information about the vaccine (91.9%) and its side effects (73.3%). An explanation for this inconsistency is that individuals believe they have sufficient understanding of the new vaccinations, which is compounded by media misinformation. Many studies also indicated that anti-vaccination messages posted by very active vaccine-hesitant groups [19] might influence people negatively to decline the vaccine and increase their hesitancy, as well as the widespread misinformation during the pandemic [19]. As a result, to persuade populations to adopt vaccination, solid proof of vaccine safety and efficacy, supported by clinical trial findings, is required.
The current study identified several factors associated with the willingness to be vaccinated, including gender, age, and educational level. This result is consistent with a study about vaccine acceptance, in which older people and males were more compliant with vaccination [20]. Vaccination rates were higher in the group with a higher educational level, this might be explained by their lower proclivity to believe in conspiracies [20]. The married group was more likely to take the COVID-19 vaccine, possibly due to their fear of infecting their beloved family members. This point was supported by our study which indicated that 81.7% who received the vaccine were due to their fear of infecting their families. The employed group was also more likely to be vaccinated, a mandatory job requirement in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Being a smoker was associated with higher rate of being vaccinated, possibly due to the proportion of male smokers, which is higher than female smokers in Saudi Arabia [21].
Participants who reported that they were previously infected with COVID-19 had a higher rate of vaccination which might be explained by their level of knowledge regarding the seriousness of the disease itself, as well as their experience with the disease. Our findings also revealed that participants who received the flu vaccine were more likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. This finding could be explained by the fact thatindividuals who are more protectiveagainst the general flu are also more protective against other types of respiratory disease; however, no study was found to support this theory. A study conducted in Saudi Arabia with healthcare workers [22] indicated that76.76% of the group who accepted the COVID-19 vaccination had previously received the seasonal influenza vaccine, which might explain the association between the two vaccines.
Our study also assessed the factors that could positively influence a person's decision to get the flu vaccine, with the goal of determining the intensity of the impact and to compare the impact of same factors regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. We found that the education level and employment status influenced the decision to have the flu and the COVID-19 vaccine. These two variables may be the main influencing factors affecting vaccination against respiratory diseases. The comparison in our study is weak due to the difference in the severity of the consequences if the individual was not vaccinated. We believe that an additional study is required to establish the strength of these factors and their influence on public vaccination acceptability, which might aid decision-makers in determining which group should be given priority.
This study has a number of limitations. The study sample is limited to the perspectives of the people who are living in the Central Region of Saudi Arabia, which may affect the generalizability elsewhere. In addition, the survey was limited to individuals who are able to use social media and access the link to the electronic questionnaire. The sample size was relatively smalland this might be due to the online sampling within a short time, as well as the frequent exposure of individuals to a great number of studies during the pandemic. This could have affected their interest to participate in a new study. Additional studies are recommended, with qualitative methods, to explore the reasons and motives of people to be vaccinated, and provide a deep understanding of their concerns.
The study findings are important as they highlight the major reasons for not being vaccinated against COVID-19, as well as the motivators for vaccination in Saudi Arabia's central region. The main reason for not being vaccinated was lack of information about the side effects of the vaccine and uncertainty, and the major positive reason for vaccination was the trust in the Ministry of Health recommendations. However, the study also revealed a lack of trust about the vaccine's efficacy and safety. The factorsthat were significantly linked with a higher rate of COVID-19 vaccination were being male,35 years of age or older, having a postgraduate degree, being employed and prior COVID-19 infection. Factors that influence the decision to have the flu vaccine do not necessarily affect the decision to have the COVID-19 vaccine, however, the educational level and employment status are factors related to a positive decision for both vaccines. It is important to design effective strategies to promote the COVID-19 vaccine uptake in females, young individuals, and less educated or unemployed individuals.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. Staten Island elected officials are calling for an end to New York Citys requirement of the coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine for public school students participating in extracurricular and sports programs deemed high-risk, as well as parents and visitors entering school buildings.
Borough President Vito J. Fossella and other officials sent a letter last week to Department of Education (DOE) Chancellor David Banks and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan requesting the agencies reconsider the COVID-19 guidance ahead of the new school year.
While well-intentioned and noble, some of the decisions in the past have negatively affected many children, the letter reads. Evidence suggests that cases of mental illness in school-aged children are on the rise and low-test scores are sadly becoming the norm. We urge you to reconsider and reverse the policies regarding unvaccinated parents and children.
According to the Department of Education (DOE), the coronavirus vaccine is still required for the following people:
Sports considered high-risk include football, volleyball, basketball, wrestling, lacrosse, stunt and rugby.
Additionally, a COVID-19 vaccination requirement applies to students participating in high-risk after-school extracurricular activities like chorus, musical theater, dance/dance team, band/orchestra (with concern for woodwinds), marching band and cheerleading/step team/flag team.
The letter was also signed by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis; State Senator Andrew Lanza; City Councilmembers David Carr and Joseph Borelli; and State Assemblymembers Michael Reilly and Michael Tannousis.
The elected officials wrote in the letter that the vaccine requirements should be reconsidered for unvaccinated students who wish to participate in those activities, as well as the vaccine requirement for parents citing how important parent involvement is, especially after two years of interrupted school sessions due to the pandemic.
Months ago, New York City rightly relaxed all of its in-person restrictions for the unvaccinated to attend indoor sporting events, concerts, all entertainment venues, or to simply enjoy indoor dining or going to the gym, said the letter. As the DOE COVID-19 guidance stands now, unvaccinated parents are not allowed into their childs NYC DOE school building for back-to-school events, socials, PTA meetings, parent-teacher conferences, fundraising, parent workshops, or any in-school events with their child.
The DOE deferred comment to the mayors office and DOHMH, noting it is the health commissioners orders.
We thank the authors of this letter for raising these important issues with us and we look forward to continuing our dialogue with them in the days ahead, said Patrick Gallahue, spokesperson for DOHMH. We fully recognize the toll that COVID has taken on New Yorkers mental health, especially youth. We have made services for young people a high priority and aim to do even more.
Gallahue continued: We must add, however, that vaccination remains the single best protection against severe illness caused by COVID-19. Every action weve taken has been directed at preventing any more suffering from this terrible virus. We want to keep our children safe in class, in their school communities, and safe from COVID.
According to the DOHMH, many high-risk extracurricular activities are performed indoors, are strenuous, and entail closer contact than classroom activities.
VACCINE MANDATE LIFTED FOR PROMS
The vaccine mandate previously applied to students who were going to prom this past spring. Proms were banned for public schools in both 2020 and 2021 though some parent-led proms not affiliated with schools were held last year.
They made an announcement that unless youre vaccinated by this date, you are not allowed to attend prom, said Kelly McKay, a parent of a New Dorp High School senior, about the vaccine mandate last school year. So I mean, my concern is they can go to school, you can go eat in a restaurant, they can go to a wedding. Why cant they go to a prom?
Fossella said in a statement in March that young adults have suffered enough over the last two years due to coronavirus restrictions severely limiting their academic and social experiences.
A prom and a celebration are just what they need at this time, he said in a statement. This milestone event happens just once in their lives. We are asking that the Department of Education review this guidance and allow all students to go to their prom.
After months of pushback, the DOE lifted the vaccine mandate for proms in May.
NOT REQUIRED FOR ALL STUDENTS
The coronavirus vaccine is not mandated for public school students in New York City, though it is highly encouraged. The DOE stated on its website that vaccination is the best way to reduce COVID-19 risk and encourages up-to-date vaccination for everyone six months or older.
But some Staten Island parents have expressed a fear it could happen. During a rally against vaccine clinics in public schools in November last year, parent Danielle Geandomenico, said vaccination is a medical choice that should be up to each individual person without any pressure or force from other entities.
Theyre going to attempt to mandate it for our children, just like the flu shot is required for schools. When that happens, Ill be gone, she said at the time.
Should the vaccine mandate for students go into effect, Geandomenico said she will pull her kids out of school to homeschool them temporarily, and later seek a learning pod. She predicted that many parents across New York City would do the same.
When it remains clear that New York City will not go back on that mandate and will continue to enforce it, my husband and I will probably do as thousands of other people have already and continue to do, we will seek out life in a different state which offers its citizens rights to religious exemptions for children. We will uproot our family and life here and put down seeds elsewhere and it will be okay, she added.
FOSSELLAS ANTI-MANDATE STANCE
Fossella has been a voice against vaccine mandates across the city, especially on Staten Island.
When New York City mandated all public school employees were required to get the coronavirus vaccine by the end of September last year, Fossella was against it. Staten Island-based lawyers Mark Fonte and Louis Gelormino filed a class action lawsuit against New York City, the DOE and the DOHMH at the time regarding the requirement that all New York City public school employees get the jab.
Fonte said it was Fossella who encouraged the lawsuit. Fossella also called the Supreme Courts ruling striking down the Biden Administrations vaccine mandate for most private employers, a little dose of sanity.
Prior to becoming borough president, Fossella was also seen at several rallies and protests against vaccine mandates, including the Key2NYC mandate that required a vaccine to eat indoors at a restaurant, go to a gym, and go to the movies or other entertainment venues.
As a candidate for borough president, he joined other elected officials and local business owners outside of La Fontana restaurant in Oakwood in August 2021 to announce a lawsuit that called for an injunction against the Key2NYC vaccine mandate.
We represent the people who say no, Fossella said at the time. So if you want to come for their jobs, if you want to come for their business, if you want to come for their liberty, and if you want to come for their freedom, were here to say were standing in your way.
He was also visible at protests at Macs Public House. Danny Presti and the taverns owner, Keith McAlarney, generated national headlines in 2020 when they declared the pub an autonomous zone and kept it open in defiance of government-imposed COVID-19 regulations.
FOLLOW ANNALISE KNUDSON ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.
Experts are voicing concerns about the potential for vaccine providers to mix up the Omicron booster vial with those used for conventional vaccines.
The concern emerged at a public meeting of advisers to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week and was echoed on Saturday by a panel of health experts the Western States Scientific Safety Review Workgroup for four states, including California.
The workgroup remains concerned about the potential for errors in the administration of the various COVID-19 vaccines, given that formulations for different age groups look alike, the group said in a statement. It is imperative that clear COVID-19 vaccination guidelines be disseminated to all vaccine providers.
The new shots are known as bivalent vaccines. Theyre designed to protect not only against the original coronavirus strain but also both BA.5 and another Omicron subvariant called BA.4. The new booster is only authorized for people age 12 and up.
The conventional shots are monovalent vaccines, intended to protect only against the original coronavirus strain.
The conventional vaccine formula is still being used for people who havent yet been vaccinated.
The potential for confusion is from the color of the cap for the vials. The color of the vial caps of some of the new booster shots is identical to those of older shots.
For instance, the conventional and updated bivalent Pfizer shots for those age 12 and up are inserted in a vial capped with the same color gray, according to slides from a presentation that the CDC made to scientific advisers last week. Clinicians will need to read the label to distinguish between the conventional vaccine and the updated booster.
Both vials contain the same amount of vaccine 30 micrograms but the conventional vaccine was designed only against the original coronavirus strain, while the updated booster has half set aside for the original strain, and the rest against the BA.4/BA.5 Omicron subvariants.
For people age 12 and up, the conventional Pfizer vaccine and the updated Omicron booster have the same color vial cap gray.
(CDC)
The label for the updated Pfizer booster includes the phrasing Bivalent and Original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5.
The updated Pfizer booster label says Bivalent and Original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5.
(CDC)
For Modernas vaccines, one possible source of confusion is that the vial cap is dark blue for both the conventional primary vaccine for children age 6 to 11, and the updated booster for adults.
Both vials have the same dose of vaccine 50 micrograms. But the childrens version of the primary dose is all designed against the original coronavirus strain. The adult updated booster has half its volume designed against the original strain, and the rest against the BA.4/BA.5 subvariants.
Modernas vaccines, both the conventional vaccine for children age 6 to 11 years, and the updated Omicron booster for adults, share the same vial cap color: dark blue.
(CDC)
The label for the updated Omicron booster has the phrasing Bivalent and Original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5.
The updated Omicron booster for Moderna has the phrase Bivalent and Original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5" on the label.
(CDC)
Vaccination providers will need to take care to make sure theyre administering the right vaccination to the right person.
At a press briefing Tuesday, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, Dr. Ashish Jha, said FDA scientists are working to make sure vaccination providers are properly training staff to make sure that people can get the right vaccination.
We have not seen any evidence of wide-scale mistakes or people getting the wrong vaccine. I am confident that the system is continuing to work effectively, but I know the FDA continues to monitor this very closely, Jha said.
CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said her agency is actively working to distribute photos of the bottle caps and educating vaccine administrators to minimize confusion.
Sept. 7, 2022
Contact:Jessica SchindeldeckerSanford Health Media Relations(701) 200-6080 / jessica.schindeldecker@sanfordhealth.org
VALLEY CITY, N.D. Sanford Health Valley City, 520 Chautauqua Blvd., is now offering several options for the seasonal influenza (flu) vaccination. Patients may receive the flu vaccine during any regular Sanford visit, by scheduling an appointment, or at a vaccination event by appointment only on the following days:
Sept. 13 7 to 9 a.m. Sept. 19 4 to 7 p.m.
Patients must make an appointment by going to My Sanford Chart or by calling 701-845-6000. All ages are welcome during any of the clinic dates. The nasal mist flu vaccine will not be available at the vaccination events.
Patients six months of age and older will also have the option to also get the COVID-19 vaccination at the same time. The Pfizer COVID-19 is available for individuals six months of age and older. The second dose of the vaccine should be received 21 days after the first dose. Children six months to five-years-old will receive a third dose eight weeks after the second dose.
Patients are encouraged to wear facemasks. If you dont have a face mask, Sanford can provide one for you.
For more information on how to get a flu shot, visit SanfordHealth.org/Flu.
Who should receive a flu shot?Everyone ages six months and older should get a flu vaccination annually to reduce the risk of becoming ill with influenza or transmitting it to others. Certain groups are at higher risk and are strongly recommended to receive the vacation: All children ages six months and older, unless advised otherwise by your physician. Pregnant women and anyone who becomes pregnant during the flu season. People 50 years and older. Adults and children with certain chronic conditions.
To prevent transmission to high-risk populations, vaccination is also recommended for: Health care workers. Caregivers of children less than six months of age and adults over age 50. Adults and children who live with children less than six months of age. Adults and children who live with or care for persons with medical conditions that put them at higher risk for sever complications from influenza.
Additional information: If applicable, patients need to bring their insurance card to the flu vaccine clinic events. If you have a doctors appointment scheduled, ask to get a flu vaccine during your appointment. Flu viruses spread mainly from person to person through coughing or sneezing. Sometimes people may become infected by touching something with flu viruses on it and then touching their mouth or nose. Hand washing is a key to reducing your risk.
About Sanford HealthSanford Health, the largest rural health system in the United States, is dedicated to transforming the health care experience and providing access to world-class health care in Americas heartland. Headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the organization serves more than one million patients and 220,000 health plan members across 250,000 square miles. The integrated health system has 47 medical centers, 2,800 Sanford physicians and advanced practice providers, 170 clinical investigators and research scientists, more than 200 Good Samaritan Society senior care locations and world clinics in 8 countries around the globe. Learn more about Sanford Healths commitment to shaping the future of rural health care across the lifespan at sanfordhealth.org or Sanford Health News.
Dr. Syed Hussain from Trinity Health of New England shares the latest COVID vaccine information and how to stay healthy and safe as flu season approaches.
Author: fox61.com
Published: 11:19 AM EDT September 7, 2022
Updated: 11:19 AM EDT September 7, 2022
