For Immediate Release: February 11, 2022 Statement From: Janet Woodcock, M.D. Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs - Food and Drug Administration
Peter Marks, M.D., PhD. Director - Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified by Pfizer that new data have recently emerged regarding its emergency use authorization request for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age. As part of its rolling submission, the company recently notified the agency of additional findings from its ongoing clinical trial. Based on the agencys preliminary assessment, and to allow more time to evaluate additional data, we believe additional information regarding the ongoing evaluation of a third dose should be considered as part of our decision-making for potential authorization.
Therefore, the FDA is postponing the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 15. This will give the agency time to consider the additional data, allowing for a transparent public discussion as part of our usual scientific and regulatory processes for COVID-19 vaccines. We will provide an update on timing for the advisory committee meeting once we receive additional data on a third dose in this age group from the companys ongoing clinical trial and have an opportunity to complete an updated evaluation.
Since the early days of the pandemic, we have always followed the science in this ever-changing situation. Given the recent omicron surge and the notable increase in hospitalizations in the youngest children to their highest levels during the pandemic so far, we felt it was our responsibility as a public health agency to act with urgency and consider all available options, including requesting that the company provide us with initial data on two doses from its ongoing study. The goal was to understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward with authorizing the use of the vaccine in this age group. Our approach has always been to conduct a regulatory review thats responsive to the urgent public health needs created by the pandemic, while adhering to our rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness. Being able to begin evaluating initial data has been useful in our review of these vaccines, but at this time, we believe additional information regarding the ongoing evaluation of a third dose should be considered.
The agency will ensure the data support effectiveness and safety before authorizing a COVID-19 vaccine for use in our youngest children. In the meantime, the best way to protect children, including when they are at school or daycare, is to practice social distancing and masking in accordance with public health recommendations, and for their family members and caregivers to get vaccinated or receive a booster dose when eligible.
###
Boilerplate
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nations food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
02/11/2022
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) An American Legion post was bustling Saturday not just with veterans, but also with people giving and receiving COVID-19 vaccinations.
I always tell people, some shot, whether its through Moderna, Pfizer or the Johnson & Johnson, is better than no shot at all, said Tyjuan Garrett, second vice president of the Greater Indianapolis NAACP Branch No. 3053.
Garrett chose Tillman H. Harpole American Legion Post 249 on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street for the vaccination site, which is central to where people who need public transportation could access the clinic.
What we are starting to notice is that when more people are taking the shot and more people have gotten vaccinated, and they have stories to tell, we notice the trepidation to taking the shot is decreasing. Theres still going to be those who are still skeptical, Garrett said.
Community Health Network provided shots for the flu and the coronavirus. Robin Ledyard, chief medical officer at Community Health, said, We know that 10% of people who get COVID tend to have long-lasting symptoms. We dont know if they are going to go away or not.
The NAACP, which hosted Saturdays four-hour clinic along with The Indianapolis Recorder, says it plans on having more vaccine clinics around Indianapolis soon.
Dear students, faculty, and staff,
Throughout the pandemic, we have continuously monitored a number of data and metrics, including university and local case counts, to assess the impact of COVID-19 on our campus and implement layered prevention strategies. Additionally, we have followed directives and guidance from public health officials to adjust our protocols as needed. We are extremely grateful to each of you for the part you have played in our response to COVID-19.
Status of COVID-19
We are certainly in a different place this spring than we were spring 2020 or even spring 2021. We have robust testing, and we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines that reduce the severity of illness and the risk of hospitalization for those infected with the coronavirus. We have developed protocols that are proven to be effective when we experience a surge in cases. We have also seen our case counts reduce significantly from the beginning of the semester to today.
Updated Public Health Guidance
In accordance with recent communications from the Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH), institutions of higher learning across the state have been granted the ability to modify mitigation strategies and to utilize CDC guidance to develop strategies for their own campus.
Based on the number of cases and positivity rates in our campus community, availability of health resources, and recommendations from health professionals, we are modifying our masking requirement.
Effective Monday, Feb. 14, 2022, the university will require face coverings only in instructional areas and healthcare settings, regardless of vaccination status.This includes classrooms and other academic spaces like laboratories as well as healthcare settings such as University Health Services.
Face coverings will not be required in other public spaces such as residence halls, libraries, dining facilities, the Student Union, Campus Recreation facilities, retail spaces, offices, conference rooms or extracurricular activities held in indoor on-campus spaces.
Supporting Community Members
We recognize that some individuals may be at higher risk, have a family member they are trying to protect, may not be up-to-date on their vaccines or not eligible, or feel more comfortable wearing a mask in indoor public spaces. We ask everyone to support and respect those in our community who need to, or choose to, wear a face covering in non-required spaces.
The university continues to support faculty and staff who wish to keep additional safeguards in work spaces, including plexiglass at desks/work stations. Faculty and staff may require face coverings for visits to their private offices, as well. Additionally, we will continue to provide face coverings to requesting departments.
Continued Monitoring of Community Impact
As we have done since the onset of the pandemic, we will continue to monitor the presence of the virus on our campus and adapt, if necessary, to uphold the health and safety of our community. We remain committed to making the necessary adjustments and adaptations to ensure that we meet our mission and serve our students. I appreciate all that you have done as a member of this campus community to contribute to that commitment.
Sincerely,
Glenn F. BoyceChancellor
CNN's Pamela Brown talks to former Fox correspondent Carl Cameron about Fox's coverage of the trucker-inspired protests against coronavirus mandates that are crippling Canadian cities and have put Ottawa under a state of emergency.
TownNews.com Content Exchange
TownNews.com Content Exchange
Less than two months ago, the Los Angeles Rams were going through what quarterback Matthew Stafford called that tough couple weeks. As the Omicron variant of the coronavirus swept across the country, more than 30 Rams players tested positive during the last three weeks of December. At one point, nearly all of them, including seven starters, were on the reserve/Covid-19 list at the same time.
Between Dec. 12 and Jan. 8, the N.F.L. said it recorded more than 1,200 positive tests among players and team staff around the league, an average of close to 10 per club per week. The Rams Week 15 game against Seattle was one of three that were postponed because of outbreaks. The Cincinnati Bengals, the Rams opponent in Super Bowl LVI, had about 20 players go on and off the Covid-19 list in the last month of the regular season. It appeared likely the finish to the N.F.L. season would be disrupted by the coronavirus.
But with the Super Bowl finally here, what had seemed like a crisis is now a much smaller concern perhaps in part because of changes in the leagues testing policy.
The league said it had not recorded a positive test since the divisional round games. (The N.F.L.s weekly case numbers run through Feb. 5; neither the Bengals nor the Rams have announced any new cases this week.)
The reason we are here is because we have a very mature and disciplined team, Bengals Coach Zac Taylor said, referring to his players willingness to take steps to avoid infection. They have handled themselves up to this point really well, and I expect theyll do that continuing through Sunday.
Taylor said his message to his players has been that a Super Bowl parade would be more fun than any dinner out this week. Stafford described a team effort to mitigate opportunities to get sick after the December outbreak.
Other factors have converged to drive down the number of positive tests to 43 since the playoffs began, or an average of 1.5 per club per week. Zachary Binney, a sports epidemiologist at Oxford College of Emory University, said the virus burning itself out and the N.F.L. returning to enhanced protocols, including indoor mask usage for all people, were significant.
The virus moved through the league in a way that mirrored its sweep through society: Close to 70 percent of all cases recorded by the N.F.L. since the start of training camp took place during the Omicron wave, affecting about 20 percent of players and team personnel.
The N.F.L. population is highly vaccinated compared to the general public, with nearly 95 percent of players and close to 100 percent of team personnel vaccinated. The league mandated in December that coaches, front-office staff and other team employees who have direct contact with players receive a booster shot, in accordance with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But Allen Sills, the leagues chief medical officer, said this week that only about 10 percent of eligible players have been boosted. About 60 percent of people in N.F.L. team environments have been boosted, he added.
On Dec. 18, the league and players union also agreed to a major change in testing protocols, stopping weekly screening tests for vaccinated, asymptomatic people and later, in January, eliminating daily testing for unvaccinated people.
The N.F.L. billed this as a switch to targeted testing, with players and team employees screened daily for symptoms and required to take a P.C.R. test if they reported any. Sills said the goal was to detect sick people rather than random surveillance. He added that the number of cases initially went up for the two weeks after this change was implemented, before dropping off, and that more than 4,000 tests were run in the final week of the regular season.
Some experts, though, disagreed with both the change and the N.F.L.s assertion that it was rooted in public health. Stopping in mid-December makes no logical sense if youre making your decisions based on the trajectory of the pandemic, said John Moore, a virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. He pointed to the pandemics high-water mark in mid-January, when the nationwide daily average for new cases surged above 800,000.
The changes to testing, Binney added, may have made the Omicron spike in the N.F.L. seem to disappear sooner than it actually did, though it was already on the downslope.
I do think that was driven more by a desire to reduce disruption than it was an actual science and health-driven response, Binney said. But there is a real discussion to be had about how much we should be doing screening testing at this point, with vaccines being widely available for anyone who wants to protect themselves.
The testing protocols announced in December also called for weekly, strategic spot testing of position groups or staff members to supplement the symptomatic testing. But Sills said this week that the N.F.L. has stopped all random surveillance testing. A league spokeswoman did not give a date for when spot testing was stopped but said symptom-based testing was sufficient. Removing the extra layer of spot testing, Binney said, increases the number of cases that could have been missed.
For a player or staff member to test positive before the Super Bowl, they would have to self-report symptoms during the daily screening, which Sills said is continuing.
Some mainstay Super Bowl week events were canceled or postponed in response to Omicron, including the players unions Pitch Day competition for entrepreneurs. Players and coaches gave media interviews over video conference, with the only in-person media availability scheduled for Friday.
California announced plans this week to lift its indoor mask mandate for vaccinated people, but that will not go into effect until Tuesday, two days after the game. To attend the game, fans over the age of 5 must show proof of Covid-19 vaccination, or a negative P.C.R. test within 48 hours or a negative antigen test in the last 24 hours. All attendees over the age of 2 will be required to wear a face covering during the game, except while actively eating or drinking.
(CNN) If you're planning to travel to Las Vegas, here's what you'll need to know and expect if you want to visit during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The basics
Nevada lifted its indoor mask mandate on February 10.
There are no restrictions on domestic travel to Las Vegas or the state of Nevada, but testing and vaccination requirements apply for most international arrivals to the United States.
What's on offer?
This is America's playground for adults, and gambling is the star attraction.
For those not swayed by the allure of slot machines and roulette wheels, Las Vegas has emerged as a major foodie destination. Comedians, singers and other entertainers also set up shop here.
The lights of the Las Vegas Strip at night are a spectacle unto themselves, and nearby desert escapes are outstanding.
Who can go
There are no restrictions on domestic travel to Las Vegas.
What are the restrictions?
Every air traveler entering the United States needs a negative Covid-19 test result. Passengers are required to get a test within one day before their flight to the United States departs and to provide documentation of their lab results. Or they must provide documentation of having recently recovered from Covid-19.
Las Vegas, as well as the rest of Nevada, doesn't have any testing or vaccination requirements on domestic travelers arriving for a vacation from within the US or its territories.
What's the Covid situation?
As of February 10, there was a seven-day average test positivity rate of 14%, down from a peak of 42.9% on January 9.
What can visitors expect?
The state of Nevada lifted its indoor mask mandate on February 10.
In a news conference, Gov. Steve Sisolak said, "Now is the appropriate time for me to announce that Nevada will rescind our mask mandate, effective immediately."
Sisolak said the state was better equipped to fight the pandemic, citing at-home testing kits and the decrease in overall cases and hospitalizations in the state.
Resources
More coverage
CNN's Forrest Brown, Michelle Watson and Marnie Hunter contributed to this report.
At the start of the pandemic, COVID-19 was often depicted as an agent of random chaos, a disease that affected everyone irrespective of their race, gender, or socioeconomic status. On virtually every count, this assumption has proved to be false. Although the coronavirus managed to disrupt how human beings live and work, it didnt do so proportionally. The crisis hit an unequal world and, when it did, exacerbated those inequalities. By and large, living through the worst of the pandemic has been easier for the wealthy, many of whom could afford to maintain a certain semblance of normalcy while mitigating health risks. The superrich got even richer.
To get a glimpse into the world of the affluent during the pandemic, I reached out to many of the businesses that flourished off them. Private jets, superyachts, personal catering, concierge medicinethese industries have not only survived but thrived during the pandemic, in large part because they could provide their customers with all the things that COVID-19 had rendered in short supply, like safely, seclusion, and, above all, a sense of control. The wealthy have already learned how to live with COVID-19 (albeit at a very high cost). Now the rest of the world must figure out how to do the same, on a budget.
Perhaps the most obvious luxury enjoyed by the wealthy during the pandemic has been relatively safe and reliable travel. Take private jets. Yann-Guillaume Jaccard, the CEO and a co-founder of the private aviation company Simply Jet, told me that at the start of the pandemic, his business, like most others in the travel industry, nearly came to a grinding halt, save for flights to get people back to their home country. But once international-travel restrictions started to loosen, Simply Jet began to experience what would ultimately become an industry-wide boom. At a time when travel feels precarious and expensive, we are seeing unprecedented levels of activity, Jaccard said, noting that demand for private jets is higher now than it was before the 2008 financial crisis, which he said had previously been considered the golden age of private aviation. Back then, clients might have sought out private jets for the luxury or the privacy. But now, demand is being driven by one thing: safety.
When you fly with a commercial airline, you might come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of people during check-in, security, and boarding. But when you fly private, the number of interactions is significantly reduced. Private-jet fliers typically depart from and arrive at a private terminal, where they are joined only by security and their flight crew. Additional services, such as rapid COVID-19 tests and even private doctors, can be provided on-site. This is impossible to replicate with a commercial flight, Jaccard said.
That kind of peace of mind doesnt come cheap. Although short-haul private flights on a small, four-person jet can start at $6,000 to $7,000 one way, a transatlantic flight on a larger, 12-person aircraft can go for as much as $120,000 one way.
Over the past two years, private-island brokers and yacht sellers have also reported a surge in sales, owing in large part to the influx of affluent clients seeking to escape the pandemic by any means necessary. Islands in the strong local markets have all basically sold out, Chris Krolow, the CEO of the online marketplace Private Islands Inc. and the host of the reality-TV show Island Hunters, told me. Buyers can spend $1.5 million to $3 million on a small island, depending on the size and location, with bigger ones going for as much as $300 million. Size and location arent the main criteria buyers are worried about, though. Its telecommunications, Krolow said. Its Can I work from the island? Meanwhile, in the yachting world, Raphael Sauleau, the CEO of Fraser Yachts, told me that his business saw a 175 percent increase in sales last year after selling $1.7 billion in yachts, prices for which start at $2 million.
Read: It pays to be rich during a pandemic
A refuge from the pandemic might have been the original reason behind the private-island boompartly inspired, perhaps, by the rich and famous touting their own archipelagic excursions as means of enjoying some pre-pandemic normalcybut several of the people I spoke with didnt necessarily see it that way. I dont think people are fearful of COVID anymore, Will Christie, the founder of Christie Yachts, a superyacht broker, told me. These days, he chalks up the heightened demand to people wanting to reclaim their freedom to travel and see the world from the comfort of their own floating home, complete with its own chef and crew. That sense of wanting to escape and explore the worldthe demand for that has never been higher.
The desire for more quotidian luxuries, such as dining in a restaurant, has been a boon for another industry that caters (literally) to the rich: private-chef services. Michael Kaplan, a restaurateur and co-founder of New Wave Hospitality, in Miami, told me that during the pandemic, he has helped place more than a dozen out-of-work chefs with affluent clients, some of whom are willing to pay as much as $180,000 a year for a full-time chef. According to Kaplan, the appeal is more than re-creating experiences that the pandemic rendered temporarily unviable. Its no longer just about getting a reservation at a restaurant, he said. Its transitioned to this idea of access and exclusivity, one that he predicts will last long after the pandemic does.
Saima Khan, the founder of the Hampstead Kitchen, a London-based catering service, told me that some of her clients have been prepared to pay ridiculous amounts of money to mark special occasions during the pandemic while still abiding by public-health guidance. One such dinner took place on a private jet flying from London to Scotland at a cost of $3,377 a person. (Renting a plane also allowed her clients to avoid running afoul of Britain's COVID-19 restrictions, which forbade groups of more than six people from dining together in restaurants or pubs.) Another catered dinner, this time to celebrate a 15th wedding anniversary, was staged in a garden with an opera singer and a grand piano. To bring families together within the rules that we have, we have to be creative, Khan said. To be creative, you have to spend money. [Our clients] see the value in that.
Rich folks ability to access immediate and reliable health care and at-home COVID-19 tests, the latter of which were virtually impossible to find in the United States until recently, also made a different sort of pandemic experience available to them. In the early months of the pandemic, Sollis Health, a members-only medical service based in New York City, made headlines after reportedly providing its affluent clients with easy access to COVID-19 tests at a time when those resources were still scarce. Sabine Heller, the chief commercial officer for Sollis, told me that the concierge service has expanded since then, with members now enjoying unlimited rapid, PCR, and antibody testing as well as monoclonal antibody treatments and other services. Memberships start at $3,000 a year.
Read: Not everyone can afford to learn to live with COVID-19
For the wealthiest, this kind of opulence offers a sneak peek of what adapting to life with COVID-19 in perpetuityand, by extension, all of the new variants, exposure risks, and health issues that come with itmight involve. For the rest of society, however, the path forward is less clear. Air travel, while picking up, remains subject to changing restrictions and, for some families, is prohibitively expensive. Dining out and other activities, although possible in most places, come with their own share of potential health risks. Meanwhile, regular COVID-19 testing is still costly despite the Biden administrations commitment to distribute 1 billion at-home rapid tests to Americans for free (a service that is currently limited to just four tests per household). Not everyone who catches the virus can necessarily afford to take time off work to isolate and recover, let alone decamp to a private villa on the sea.
Nearly 500 people became billionaires over the course of the pandemic, and the richest among them doubled their fortune. Meanwhile, the great majority of humanity are worse off, Gabriela Bucher, the executive director of Oxfam International, told me. Those widening disparitiesand the huge gap between how the rich and the poor experienced the pandemichave led some to call for wealth redistribution. If the 10 richest people on the planet were to surrender 99 percent of the wealth they gained during the pandemic, we would have enough money to vaccinate the world; we would have the money to invest in having universal health care, Bucher told me. That would be a hefty levy. But hanging on to just 1 percent of their gains would still leave the ten most deep-pocketed humans $8 billion better off than they were at the beginning of March 2020.
Protestors opposed to Covid-19 vaccine mandates and vaccine passports by the government rally at ... [+] City Hall in New York City.
In 2021, then-Mayor Bill de Blasioenacted a series of coronavirus vaccine mandates. In July 2021, heannounced a vaccine mandate for city workers. And in December 2021, heexpanded the vaccine mandate to private-sector workers, too.
But starting January 1, 2022, New York City gota new mayor, Eric Adams. Mayor Adams has decided to keep in place former Mayor de Blasios vaccine mandate for city workers. This includes the February 11, 2022deadline to getinoculated.
Most of New Yorks city workers have gotten vaccinated, but a few thousand have not and risk losing their jobs.
New York Citys Authority to Impose the Coronavirus Vaccine Mandate
When it comes to a state or citys legal authority to impose vaccination requirements, the law is fairly well settled. Going back more than a hundred years, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the authority of local governments to require its citizens to get vaccinated.
The two key casesestablishing this precedentareJacobson v. Massachusetts(from 1905) andZucht v. King(from 1922). And although the legal theories have changed somewhat since then, the overall premise of local government authority to enforce vaccine mandates is still solid law. Morerecent caseshave cometosimilar legal conclusions.However, one of the current legal questions still up to debate is the implementation ofreligious exemptions.
How Religious Exemptions Work
TheFirst Amendmentto the United States Constitution prohibits governments fromenacting laws that wouldestablish a religion or infringeon an individualsfree exercise of religion. Its this latter right that applies to religious exemptions to vaccine mandates.
The premise of someone requesting a religious exemption to a vaccine requirement is that it goes against their religious beliefs. The vast majority of religions commonly practiced in the United Statesdo not have religious tenets thatare against vaccines. Despite this, the sincerity of someones religious beliefs as theyrelate to getting vaccinated isnt usually the primary issue of contention in court.
Instead, the focus is more often on the applicability of a particular legal argument, such as whether the vaccine requirement is universally applied. Why does this matter? Because it can change how the court will approach the legality of the vaccination law.
Courts referred to these approaches as levels of judicial review. The basic idea is that the more compelling the reason the government has for a law that could restrict someones religious beliefs,and the more tailored that law is to limitingany infringement on someones religious rights, the more likely a court will uphold the law.
So if a law is universally applied to all individuals (regardless of their religious beliefs),and the government has a really good reason for enacting that law,a court will use a level of judicial review that makes it more likely the law stands.
But if a law only focuses on a particular religion or religious practice,and/or the governments reasonsfor the law arent very important,then courts will use a level of judicial review that makes it more likely the law gets struck down.
So how does this apply to vaccine mandates?Based onprior case law, its possible that a vaccine mandate that only offers a medical exemption willnotbe considered a law of universal applicability. This is because those with medical reasons can get an exemption while thosewithreligious reasonscannot. So unless thegovernment cangive a good reason forthis discrepancy, then courts will use a higher level of judicial review making iteasier to strike down the law on First Amendment grounds.
Fortunately for Mayor Adams, the NYC vaccine mandate for city workers offers both medical and religious exemptions.Therefore, itll be difficult to oppose the New York City vaccine mandate for city workers based on this universal applicability argument.
According to theNew York Times, roughly13,000 exemptions requestsfrom New York City workershave been submitted.About 2,000 have been approved, about 5,000 have beendenied and the rest are still being processed.
Another Legal Optionfor City Workers Who Refuse the Vaccine
Several New York City unionsfiled a lawsuitearlier this week challenging the potential firingsof their members. Specifically, they argue that summarily firing employees for not complying with the vaccine requirement would be a violation of theirdue process rightsbecause theyre being terminated without following the properprocedures.
However, the city argues that getting fired for not getting vaccinated is not a form of workplacediscipline and is instead a condition of employment.As a result,the summary dismissals would not be a violation of the workers due process rights.
Bottom Line
A citys right to require its workers to get vaccinated is well-settled law. Most legal challenges to worker vaccine mandates at the local level have been unsuccessful.
Two potential legal arguments against New York Citys vaccine mandate for workers could attack the law based on religious freedom and due process grounds. Butbecausethevaccinelaw has been set up so that the vaccine requirement is a condition of employment and provides both medical and religious exemptions, its unclear how successful these arguments will be.
Norway is the latest country to discard most coronavirus restrictions | U.S. & World | denvergazette.com Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Norway has joined its Nordic neighbors in discarding most remaining coronavirus restrictions Saturday.
Norwegian health officials lifted the majority of restrictions on Feb. 1, and they decided Saturday that the immunity levels and low hospitalization rates were sufficient to also ditch the remaining rules requiring social distancing, masking, and self-isolation after exposure.
REPUBLICANS CRY 'UNMASK OUR KIDS' AS DEMOCRATS PIVOT FROM COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS
"This is the day we have been waiting for," Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said during a news conference in the Norwegian capital of Oslo. "We are removing almost all coronavirus measures."
Sweden lifted most of its coronavirus rules Wednesday, ditching everything from vaccine passports to social distancing requirements and will designate COVID-19 as "not a danger to society or a threat to public health" beginning April 1. Denmark was the first European Union country to lift all restrictions on Feb. 1, deciding in January that COVID-19 "should no longer be categorized as a socially critical disease."
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The United Kingdom also ended some coronavirus rules in January, including a testing requirement for vaccinated people entering the country and ending the quarantine requirements for unvaccinated travelers.
Original Location: Norway is the latest country to discard most coronavirus restrictions
Washington Examiner Videos
' + this.content + '
As the omicron surge appears to be falling in Alabama, shown by a decreased new daily COVID cases and positivity rate, the state still has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country.
Vaccines have been readily available across the United States since 2021 and according to the Alabama Department of Public Health, there are 2,828,340 people in the state who have received one or more doses of a coronavirus vaccine. Since March 2020, the department has reported 1,262,018 cases of COVID-19, and Friday data showed the state had a 19.6% positivity rate-- or the amount of COVID tests submitted that come back positive.
Stacker compiled a list of the counties with highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in Alabama using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and Covid Act Now. These are the 10 counties with the highest vaccination rate as of Feb. 10. Due to reporting times, the data may differ from that reported by the Alabama Department of Public Health.
Here are the 10 Alabama counties with highest COVID-19 vaccination rates. You can see the top 50 here.
1. Choctaw County
2. Madison County
3. Hale County
4. Jefferson County
5. Marengo County
6. Wilcox County
7. Bullock County
8. Montgomery County
9. Clarke County
10. Baldwin County
