Walter Barker has, since the fall of 2020, had five doses of COVID-19 vaccine. Hes already starting to ponder when he might need a sixth.
Barker, a 38-year-old office worker in New York, received his first two doses a year ago, as part of an AstraZeneca vaccine trial. But the shots, which havent been authorized by the FDA, couldnt get him into some venues. Sick of having to test every time he went to a Yankees game, Barker nabbed a pair of Moderna injections in the spring. Then, when the government urged boosters, he figured hed rather be safe than sorry, especially because of his Type 2 diabetesa risk factor for severe COVID. That was vaccine No. 5. Plus, he told me, hed also caught the actual virus between his AstraZeneca and Moderna shots.
Now Barkers steeling himself for the possibility of a new booster or two every year. Inklings of such a policy are already starting to appear. Israel is debating whether to offer fourth shots to higher-risk groups, including people over 60 and health-care workers. Some physicians are arguing that certain Americans should dose up again as well. And vaccine makers have long insisted that well likely need annual shots at least. Given the clip at which the coronavirus seems to change, I do think well have to keep updating the vaccine, Katie Gostic, an infectious-disease modeler at the University of Chicago, told me.
Read: Omicron has created a whole new booster logic
At this point in the pandemic, though, theres no consensus on the number of shots well need in the long term; plenty of the worlds leading COVID-vaccine experts have shifted their stance in just the past few weeks. Back in the summer, Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, thought, There is no way we will need annual vaccinations, he told me. I am [at] 50 percent now.
A future of annual vaccinations would almost be a relief. In the past year, the U.S. government has recommended that almost everyone eligible be COVID-vaccinated three times over, and the possibility of an Omicron-focused shot now looms. But the sweet spot for boosting frequency isnt all that easy to findboth undervaccinating and overvaccinating have downsidesand the narrative is definitely not as simple as more is more. Maybe well luck out, and finagle some truly durable protection out of our current shots. Or perhaps were just at the start of what could be the worlds most intense and widespread repeat-vaccination campaign to date.
There are two main reasons to vaccinate the already vaccinated: a substantial drop in our bodys defenses or a huge hike in the viruss offenses.
Were still, for instance, working to understand how well our immune systems cling to the intel offered by our shots. For months, scientists have been monitoring the lift and drop in protection from asymptomatic infection and milder forms of COVID-19, dynamics that seem tightly tethered to antibodies, the molecules that can waylay viruses outside of cells. Antibodies always decline in the months after infection or vaccination, for any pathogen, Rafi Ahmed, an immunologist at Emory University, told me. But boosters can lift their levels back up, sometimes to new heights; the triply dosed are better at fending off the virus, even dueling new variants that theyve never encountered before. (Protection against severe disease and death is less capricious, thanks to defenders such as B and T cells, which stick around long-term.)
Read: A better name for booster shots
After peoples first two mRNA shots, levels of neutralizing antibodies ticked down about five- to tenfold from their peak in about six months. Now immunologists are monitoring what happens after the third dosewhere antibody levels will stabilize, and how long reaching that plateau will take. The lower it is, or the steeper the downslope, the sooner we might be asked to vaccinate again. In a nonideal scenario, wed see something of an up-and-down sawtooth trend, John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University, told me, with a similarly steep decay after every dose. (Some researchers are starting to wonder whether were seeing the beginnings of this nowand durability may differ by vaccine brand.)
Then again, maybe the drop will be less pronounced, or at least more gradual, after the third shot. Theres reason to hope that might be the case. Post-boost, we pump out more antibodies than we did after the first shots; theyll naturally take longer to dip below a protective threshold. Repeat exposures to a vaccine can also up the quality of antibodies, which get iteratively better at sniping SARS-CoV-2 down. That means it takes way fewer of them to protect you, Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona, told me. If that process keeps chugging along after the third shot, or perhaps the fourth, we might be able to get away with vaccinating much less often than we are now. The final pace of vaccination will also depend on what we want our shots to achieve. Blocking severe disease requires fewer shots; trying to suppress most infections and transmission means more. And well need to set our expectations reasonably. Indefinitely preventing infections is a bar that vaccinology, historically, has not been able to really meet, Kizzmekia Corbett, an immunologist and COVID-vaccine developer at Harvard, told me recently.
All this gets more complicated, though, if the coronavirus itself keeps metamorphosing. Solid protection against one variant might not be enough to thwart another. Already, Omicron is so heavily mutated that many of our vaccine-trained antibodies dont recognize it very well. That puts people who are far out from their first doses in a more vulnerable spot: Their defensive walls are low, and the variants genetically primed to jump extra high. Our current boosters still help in this scenariothe original virus and Omicron are similar enough that, given a glut of antibodies, some will still meet their mark. But even weirder versions of the virus are almost certainly on their way. Viral switcheroos are a huge part of why we offer annual flu vaccines. Coronaviruses dont shape-shift as swiftly, but experts such as David Martinez, a vaccinologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, think our policy to boost is going to be driven by how much the virus is changing. The more variants were troubled by, and the more often we collide with them, the more doses well need.
Just as important as sussing out our need for shots is determining how many our immune systems (and psyches) can handle. At a certain point, yet another exposure to the exact same vaccine just wont do the bodys defenses much good. Our current vaccination regimens arent running this risk yet. But repeatedly dosing every few months may rack up unnecessary costs.
Some are logistical. The more vaccines we need, the more well have to manufacture, and the more often public-health officials will have to convince communities to accept them. Side effects can keep people out of school or work, and researchers dont yet know to what extent boosting might raise the risk of rare, serious events such as heart inflammation. Faced with an unending series of shots, some people might stop getting them, or never start the vaccine series at all. Cumbersome dosing regimens could also exacerbate vaccine inequities, as countries with fewer resources struggle to administer repeat shots.
Theres good reason to wait between doses, too. A stretched-out interval can give antibodies more time to mature. Ellebedys team, which has been tracking this prolonged antibody coming-of-age, has found that, half a year out from the second mRNA dose, many molecules are still on their self-improvement kick. Waiting at least a few months could help ensure that the mediocre antibodies get weeded out, leaving only the best to be called into action. If you wait to boost, the antibodies should be more durable, and peak at a higher level, Martinez told me. And redosing prematurely, into a body still teeming with antibodies, might also mean that the molecules wipe out the vaccine before it can teach cells anything new, Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, told me.
Read: Fully vaccinated is about to mean something else
Right now, though, case rates are shattering records; people cant afford to wait very long for immune cells to stew, or for antibodies to chill. Even super-strong immune defenses can be overwhelmed by sheer quantity of virus. The United Kingdom and Israel recently halved the dosing interval between second and third injections, from five or six months to three, so more people could shore up their defenses sooner. The TL;DR is for everyone to get a booster now, the University of Chicagos Gostic told me. If cases drop to less worrisome levels in a few months, maybe most of us can take our time with dose No. 4.
And someday there probably will be a fourth dose, if not more, experts told me. (Many immunocompromised people, who dont respond well to vaccines, already need them.) We might, for instance, pivot to an Omicron-specific vaccine in a few months. If Deltas still around in the spring, though, well have to verify that Omi-vax works against both variants, especially for people who havent yet gotten shots. Well also need to prepare for the possibility of a new variant that could oust Delta, Omicron, or both.
No matter what, our next dose probably shouldnt be an exact repeat of the ones weve been getting, modeled on the original SARS-CoV-2s spike. It might not be ideal for the immune system to be told, yet again, This is the version of spike to pay attention to. That spikes pretty much defunct; such a tactic would be like asking students to study a decades-out-of-date textbook before a grueling final exam. Immune cells could, in a sense, get hung up on ideas that are no longer terribly useful. A version of this phenomenon, called imprinting, happens with flu viruses. Its not necessarily catastrophic, but Gostic and her colleagues have recorded some instances of peoples bodies getting so distracted by old flu strains that they dont steel themselves properly against new ones, even when given updated vaccines.
But SARS-CoV-2s biology is very different from that of flu viruses, and this new coronavirus just hasnt been around that long. Experts think that this sort of skew is quite unlikely to dent our defenses anytime soon. Even if a few peoples bodies do get stuck on old variants because theyve been vaccinated or infected multiple times with the same thing, theres probably a fix, Ahmed said. Bodies might let go of their biases if we dose them a couple of times with new, unfamiliar recipeseffectively persuading them to overcome their inertia, and reinvest in the foreign matter they see. We should definitely get boosted right now, but thats a short-term strategy, he told me. Hopefully, the next boost we get matches the circulating strain.
Read: Omicron wont ruin your booster
Martinez agreesand is trying to think big. His team at UNC is one of several groups chasing a universal coronavirus vaccine that might fend off a panoply of variants (and perhaps, in certain cases, some of their more distant cousinsSARS-1, MERS, and the like). That way, were not just playing whack-a-mole with variants, Martinez told me. Other researchers are feeling optimistic about nasal-spray vaccines that could tickle out airway-specific immune responses.
Even if these newfangled formulations are better at kicking the virus to the curb, they wont necessarily be panaceas. Wed still have to figure out a way to coax the body into remembering the doses long-term, and maybe stay flush with enough antibodies to keep most sickness at bay. But the hope is that theyd keep vaccine regimens trimmer and, by extension, more practical for the people running them and receiving them. Such a strategy could pay dividends: Durable vaccine protection might mean fewer infections among the inoculated, and fewer opportunities for SARS-CoV-2 to further mutate. More people might get the shots. Population immunity would grow. Our vaccines would gain an even stronger edge; they could reinforce their own success.
BOSTON We are just one night away from New Years Eve, and now some cities and towns are making last-minute changes to first-night festivities due to rising COVID cases.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu held a news conference Thursday morning to discuss some of the things Boston will be doing to make sure people can ring in a healthy new year. First Night is still going on, but there are some changes. Nearly all indoor events, such as performances, will be moved outdoors. Organizers of First Night Boston are closely following the COVID guidelines set by the city. Even while outdoors, people will be encouraged to wear masks when they are in large crowds.
During the press conference, Mayor Wu announced that there will be two walk-in COVID-19 vaccination and booster clinics available for people attending First Night Boston.
Copley Square near the BosTix booth, from 12 p.m. until 7 p.m., will offer children and adults the opportunity to get their COVID-19 vaccine or booster shot thanks to a partnership with Whittier Street Health Center.
After the firework celebration ends, the vaccination and booster shots will resume until 11 p.m. inside the Boston Public Librarys Central Library in Copley Square through Boston Emergency Medical Services and the Boston Public Health Commission.
PREVIOUS: Update: Bostons First Night returns with an in-person celebration, AND midnight fireworks
Last year, the pandemic forced First Night Boston to be held virtually. That was the first time the indoor and outdoor festivities had to be canceled since the event started in 1975. The town of Rockport just canceled its New Years Eve celebration because of rising COVID cases.
For those planning on going to a party tomorrow night, Dr. Anthony Fauci is cautioning you may want to rethink those plans, especially if they involve being among others who arent vaccinated.
If you plan to go to a 40 to 50 person, New Years Eve party with all the bells, whistles, and everybody hugging, kissing, and wishing each other a Happy New Year, I would strongly recommend that this year we do not do that, said Fauci, the nations director of infectious diseases.
With so many festivities being moved outside, fortunately for people attending, the weather will cooperate. The Boston 25 News weather team is predicting mild temperatures for this time of year, even staying well above freezing at midnight.
Download the free Boston 25 News app for up-to-the-minute push alerts
>> Complete Covid-19 vaccine coverage
RESOURCES:
- Complete local and national coronavirus coverage here
- Follow us on Facebook and Twitter | Watch Boston 25 NOW
- Download our free apps for your phone and smart TV
2021 Cox Media Group
As a physician who has treated pediatric patients over the course of the coronavirus pandemic, Ive fielded numerous concerns about COVID-19 that are based on misinformation. In Part One of this Frequently Asked Questions, I reviewed the science behind mRNA technology and presented research on their efficacy. In Part Two, I seek to shed light on the medical expectations related to immunity and examine moral aspects of COVID-19 vaccination.
Do Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines actually provide immunity?
It is frequently said, or implied, that the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines do not provide immunity or decrease the risk of spread of disease. Yet this is precisely what they do. The outcomes of both the initial Moderna and Pfizer trials (both randomized controlled trials involving 30,000-40,000 persons) showed remarkable efficacy in preventing COVID-19 disease: 95% for Pfizer and 94.1% for Moderna in the Phase III trial publications.
We currently know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have slightly less efficacy against the Delta variant, but even as that variant surged across the world, hospitalizations and deaths were vastly higher amongst unvaccinated individuals. How long the vaccine-induced antibody response and subsequent immunological protection lasts, or will provide protection against future variants is a matter of ongoing study, but the same is true of the immunological response to natural COVID-19 infection.
The use of the term immunity is part of what is at issue here. The CDC/WHO definition of a vaccine changed in early September 2021 from a pharmaceutical that provides immunity to one that provides protection.
Why the change? Because it was becoming apparent that the colloquial use of the term immunity was very different from the scientific use. So while the medical field uses immunity to refer to the immune system being activated to fight an infection to various degrees, the general public was interpreting immunity to mean zero chance of infection (what medicine calls sterilizing immunity, something that very few vaccines actually achieve).
The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine does not provide sterilizing immunity, but it certainly activates the immune system to fight the virus upon exposure, thereby providing protection. The word change, then, while providing bait for those looking to discredit the vaccine and its supporters, indicated nothing about the data supporting its efficacy.
The circulating claim that vaccinated individuals can become infected and infect others more easily than the unvaccinated has no scientific basis whatsoever. Unvaccinated individuals are 6.1 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than their vaccinated counterparts. And while vaccinated individuals can still spread the COVID-19 virus to others, there is good data to show that the levels of nasal virus are lower and drop faster in vaccinated persons compared to unvaccinated. (When looking at data regarding this question, it is important to remember that there is a difference between the Alpha strain and Delta strain of COVID-19, such that the benefits of the vaccine for Delta in regards to transmission are less robust than they were for Alpha, but still far outstrip no vaccine protection at all.) To suggest that having received the vaccine increases the risk of transmission to others, then, is illogical: If a vaccinated individual is less likely to contract COVID-19 and has a smaller nasal viral load for a shorter period of time, it is not mathematically or biologically possible for the vaccinated to be spreading the virus faster.
What about the calculus over the risks and benefits of the vaccines?
Any medical intervention must be analyzed in terms of its potential risks and benefits before being approved for use; this is especially true for vaccines, as they are (typically) given to healthy individuals to prevent possible future harm, rather than to persons already ill and requiring treatment of their disease. The need for convincing data on vaccine safety and efficacy is precisely why pharmacologic products proceed through a very defined set of studies prior to receiving approval for widespread use: Phase I trials simply look at the safety profile of the new drug. If Phase I results are acceptable, Phase II trials begin to assess efficacy in a targeted population. It is only after those two phases are completed successfully that a Phase III trial is initiated these are the large-scale trials that try to confirm both safety and efficacy across the intended population that will be receiving the new medicine. As mentioned earlier, there are varying degrees of statistical strength to the data coming from Phase III trials based on the study design. Large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, such as the trials conducted for the mRNA vaccines, carry the most statistical weight.
The criticism one hears that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not consider the risk/benefit ratio of these vaccines before issuing its 2020 Note is unfounded. The Note focuses on the question of receiving vaccines that have any connection to fetal cell lines (which I address more fully in the next section), and correctly points out that an assessment of the data supporting safety and efficacy is beyond CDFs purview.
It may be helpful to point out some social media landmines to be avoided here. Infovax is an Italian anti-vaccine propaganda site; there are countless more such sites spreading falsehoods in multiple languages.
Assertions one reads, such as more people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID itself, should be supported by more than a reference to a Twitter post; in fact, any statistical claim should be supported by reproducible and validated data systems. But be careful to understand the data systems themselves!
Particularly frustrating to me are repeated claims from some Catholics that are based on a distorted VAERS data. One example being that in nine months these vaccines have caused more deaths than in 30 years of other vaccines. VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) accepts data input from anyone. If anyone believes they are experiencing a negative vaccine reaction, they can input that into VAERS (got flu vaccine on Monday and left big toe hurts on Tuesday). The CDC, the FDA, or other regulatory agencies can then look for a signal are a lot of people suddenly reporting that their left big toe hurts? and investigate if warranted. Most likely it will turn out that a few people happened to stub their toes the day after receiving their flu shots (i.e., correlation does not equal causation).
The salient fact about VAERS is that, for non-professionals, there is no way to sort rubbish from valid concerns before an investigation is done. And since anyone can contribute, it is not hard to imagine that in an age of vaccine controversy like ours, many will input nonsense (intentionally or not) that creates false signals. People are mortal beings and tragedies happen. If someone is convinced the COVID vaccine is dangerous and hears that her second cousin on her sister-in-laws side died two weeks after receiving her COVID vaccine (although it was in a car collision), that person can go list that second cousin as deceased following COVID vaccination. When you are vaccinating millions of individuals in a short period of time, there are going to be deaths that coincidentally occur in close temporal proximity to those individuals receiving their COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine is no more the cause of those deaths than drinking coffee before leaving for work causes the inevitable morning traffic jam; one just temporally precedes the other.
What about fetal cell lines and moral cooperation?
The CDFs 2020 Note addressed the morality of receiving a COVID vaccine that had any connection to fetal cell lines that may have been obtained from an abortion. The cell line at issue in these vaccines is HEK293, which came from either an abortion or a miscarriage that occurred in 1973. The generational descendants of this original cell line are used ubiquitously in pharmaceutical research, touching everything from Tylenol and Sudafed to antibiotics and chemotherapy drugs.
The sanctity of human life from conception to natural death is an absolute norm in Catholic moral teaching, and so all Catholics must take reasonable steps to avoid cooperation with the evil of abortion and should encourage alternate means of drug testing and development. That being said, the question of the morality of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines within the context of a devastating pandemic has been consistently described, by orthodox theologians of excellent repute, as an example of passive material cooperation and as such, is a morally licit decision.
The claim heard recently, that there is a Pfizer whistleblower who has released shocking emails showing that the Pfizer COVID vaccine actually contains fetal cells, is concerning, then, because if true, it could potentially change the moral calculus of receiving these vaccines. However, the whistleblower never actually makes that claim, nor is the claim true.
What she says is that she found internal emails from Pfizer employees discussing the fact that some individuals would have ethical concerns about a vaccine that had even a remote connection to fetal cell lines. The emails confirm what has been known for over a year: The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine does not contain fetal cells. The HEK293 cell line was used in laboratory testing to determine if the proposed mRNA could in fact induce antibody production against the spike protein. The ongoing manufacturing or production of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine that is currently in distribution does not require or use fetal cell lines.
Do the vaccines pose dangers to pregnant women?
Pregnant women and children were not included in the original Phase III trials of either the Moderna or Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines. This was to be expected. Medical research involving these two populations always lags behind other populations, because it is inherently riskier to test a new product on a pregnant woman or young child than on a healthy (non-pregnant) adult. In fact, many of the medications routinely used in pregnant women and children have never been specifically studied in those populations this kind of use is called off-label usage.
Examples of medications that are used this way in children include numerous antibiotics, pain medications and anti-seizure drugs. Similar lists can be created for medications that women may use during pregnancy. However, as it became clearer that infection with COVID-19 during pregnancy increased the risk of poor outcomes both for the mother and her child, there was increased interest in giving COVID vaccines to pregnant women even if they had not been specifically studied in that population.
Initial reassurance about the safety of receiving the vaccine while pregnant came from the fact that, while not part of the study design, 57 women discovered they were pregnant during the course of the Pfizer, Moderna and J+J phase III trials combined. (Pregnant women with COVID-19 infection have a higher rate of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation than non-pregnant women with COVID-19. Pregnant women with COVID-19 are also more likely to die or have their newborns admitted to the Neonatal ICU than pregnant women without COVID-19.) There was no difference in miscarriage rates or pregnancy course between women in the control group versus women who received the vaccine. This unintended small study has now been replicated in a larger observational trial and there was again no difference in risk of miscarriage between those who received the vaccine while pregnant and those who did not. Over the past 9-10 months since the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines became available, hundreds of thousands of pregnant women have received the vaccines and safety data monitoring systems have not detected any increased risk to these women or their unborn children.
There are certainly women who have received the COVID vaccine and later suffered a miscarriage. That is undeniably tragic and the loss to those families should not be minimized, but the relevant question in the vaccine discussion is whether miscarriage is occurring at a higher rate in vaccinated women than unvaccinated women. Miscarriage is very, very common. If millions of women are immunized, there are going to be women who miscarry after vaccination (again, correlation does not equal causation). Without referencing background rates of miscarriage it is simply not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions.
Are there secret components in the vaccines that are being withheld from the public for commercial reasons?
The vaccine ingredients are not trade secrets. They are published and readily available to anyone who wants to know them.
Compared to most other vaccines, there are relatively few components to these mRNA vaccines. And while some of the components may sound concerning (4-hyroxybutyl or monobasic potassium phosphate), it is important to remember that life is built from chemicals. Many items we consume daily sound far different if described by their chemical names: The boy drank dihydrogen oxide because he had eaten too much sodium chloride versus The boy drank water because he had eaten too much salt.
I have heard it said, sometimes sarcastically and sometimes in all seriousness, that there are components in these vaccines that will allow for tracking of individuals who receive them. One such theory involved a component called graphene.
Graphene oxide is an artificially manufactured form of carbon being looked at for potential antibacterial and antiviral properties, among other uses. While there are early studies looking at its potential utility in vaccine science (none of these studies have reached human subject trials), it is not an ingredient in any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Claims to the contrary have been thoroughly debunked, and the fact that this rumor continues to circulate is evidence of how easy it is to spread scientific-sounding misinformation online.
What about alternative prophylactic treatments and alternative effective therapies?
I often hear that we do not need these vaccines because there are effective treatments that cure patients. While we all wish this to be the case, it is simply not true. There are treatment protocols developed over the past 20 months that improve outcomes, but they are not those typically cited online and in social media.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence suggesting benefits from Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, for example, but no large scale, rigorous scientific studies to support their use. The kind of studies one considers in order to draw conclusions matters. There are ranked standards for evidence; the gold-standard is the randomized, controlled trial. The plasma treatment advocated for by Dr. Giuseppe De Donno did look promising for a while, and an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in February of this year suggested it was worth looking into, but within a few months a meta-analysis (which combines data from several different large studies) published by Cochrane concluded there was no benefit in moderate to severe disease and uncertain benefit in illness that was mild or without symptoms.
Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are not being systematically boycotted by the WHO or the CDC, as some charge. Both organizations have strongly recommended against the use of the medications in patients with acute COVID-19 infection because there is no evidence that they work to decrease mortality or hospitalization length. Hydroxychloroquine, for example, was examined in the RECOVERY trial, a randomized control trial; the results of that study not only showed no decrease in mortality, but an increase in the length of hospital stay, intubation/ventilation, and death in patients who received the drug. That particular trial involved more seriously ill, hospitalized patients, but another trial looked at the use of Hydroxychloroquine in individuals who were COVID-19 positive but either asymptomatic or well enough to stay at home. The results showed no benefit in virologic clearance or time to clinical improvement.
As emotionally persuasive as anecdotal evidence can be, national and global health organizations cannot make recommendations on medical therapies based on personal stories of positive outcomes; the scientific community depends not on individual cases of apparent recovery after the use of Hydroxychloroquine but on the results of randomized controlled studies involving close to 5,000 patients. It is for this reason that the FDA revoked its emergency-use authorization for Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for acute COVID-19 infection in June of 2020.
The Ivermectin results are similarly unconvincing. Ivermectin is a highly effective medicine in certain types of parasitic infections. But numerous individual studies as well as several meta-analyses have shown no consistent benefit to the use of this drug in treating or preventing infection with COVID-19. Perhaps most convincingly, a large meta-analysis published in July 2021 was retracted by the authors a month later after claims of significant fraudulent data undermined the conclusions of the original paper. While some medical providers continue to express frustration that their hospital systems are restricting the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients outside of ongoing clinical trials, this does not mean that governmental agencies are conspiring to prevent sick people from receiving necessary medicine. It simply means that the available evidence does not support the use of this drug for the treatment of this particular illness at this time.
A Concluding Thought
Catholics around the world are looking to voices of authority for guidance on questions of morality and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Catholic Church has a long tradition of leadership in medical science. From Gregor Mendel to St. Gianna Beretta Molla, Catholic scientists and physicians have demonstrated that effective and faithful health care must embrace a rigorous scientific method and not fear where well-designed and executed research will lead. Those who speak about the COVID-19 pandemic and the mRNA vaccines must follow this example. Ours is a faith that should never shy away from scientific discovery, as all truths about our bodies and our health can only point us closer to the God who created us.
There are many reasons to be concerned about the way public officials and governmental leaders around the globe have addressed the COVID-19 pandemic. Morally serious people should continue to be alert to challenges to authentic human freedom. Catholics have no reason, however, to fear the safety, efficacy, or morality of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccines should be viewed as an example of how dedicated medical professionals can use their God-given talents to help bring an end to the immense suffering caused by this virus.
Part One of Dr. Spaeder's commentary may be found here.
The highly contagious omicron variant now accounts for most new COVID-19 cases in the United States. And with a surge in cases and intense demand for scarce at-home rapid tests which dont differentiate among variants Americans experiencing COVID-like symptoms are scrambling to figure out whether theyve contracted omicron, a previous variant, or just a seasonal cold.
Judith ODonnell, the chief of infectious disease at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, spoke to The Inquirer about the latest surge and how omicron symptoms differ for vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Were still seeing the usual list of symptoms that we would expect with COVID-19: fever, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, and then loss of smell and taste. Sometimes congestion, runny nose, sometimes nausea and vomiting and sometimes diarrhea.
I think what we are experiencing, though, is for people who are vaccinated, or vaccinated and boosted, were not seeing as much fever, if any, as opposed to an unvaccinated person.
READ MORE: Booster demand has been up in the Philly suburbs, but many still havent gotten their extra dose
Theres been some reporting in the scientific literature that when patients are vaccinated, or vaccinated and boosted, the symptoms in general are much milder. Theyre more consistent with a typical cold. Theres a lot of talk in the media about getting a lot more runny noses, or congestions. That does seem to be shown in some of the early scientific studies.
Theres the question of are these [milder cold symptoms] related to the variant? Or are they related to the fact that many individuals who are experiencing an infection with omicron are either vaccinated, vaccinated and boosted, or in some parts of the world, like South Africa [where the variant was first identified], theyve already had natural immunity from a prior infection?
It may not be the variant it may just be us, as humans, because we now have immunity to COVID-19 as a virus, and as a result, our bodies have some prior experience with it. So were experiencing the infection more like a common cold.
In the unvaccinated, omicron looks very similar to delta and all the prior variants and the original strain. It can land you in the hospital if youre unvaccinated and can lead to ICU care or death. It should not be taken as its just a cold for everyone, because thats not the case at all.
READ MORE: Should COVID-19 vaccine mandates include a booster shot? | Pro/Con
In an unvaccinated person, omicron is quite capable of and is actually causing pneumonia. People are coming in [the emergency department] with shortness of breath due to pneumonia, just like it has with prior waves and prior variants.
On our PCR testing platform [at Penn Presbyterian], theres a particular testing pattern that is suggestive of omicron the sample would have to be [DNA sequenced] to know that with 100% certainty, but based on that platform, we can say whether a sample is probably omicron.
We have been seeing a lot of omicron in the region. Its really the predominant strain were seeing here in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Were breaking records every day in the emergency rooms with the volume of visits with people coming in sick, and our hospital inpatient census of COVID cases has risen every day, steadily, over the last week. We have not peaked yet, as far as we can tell.
The patients admitted who require inpatient care are overwhelmingly unvaccinated. There is a small proportion of vaccinated people who are admitted, but by and large, three-quarters at least, if not more, are unvaccinated.
READ MORE: What you need to know about Phillys vaccine mandate for indoor dining
Vaccinated people who have cold symptoms, nasal congestion, runny noses, sore throats, but arent experiencing fever if youre vaccinated and boosted, and those are the symptoms youre having, you may have COVID-19. Its so prevalent across our region that its spreading efficiently and widely.
Id encourage them to try to test themselves. At this point, given youre vaccinated and boosted, this is going to be a mild illness. They should consider this great news, because they did get vaccinated and boosted, and its allowed them to have a COVID-19 infection that is mild. And theyll recover in a week or so, just like with other common cold symptoms.
I encourage everyone to get vaccinated and boosted, if they havent yet.
U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents exempt; business leaders say new rule will have little effect on trade because most truckers vaccinated
by: Julian Resendiz
Cargo trucks lineup to cross to the United States near the US-Mexico border at the Cordova-Americas International Bridge in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua state, Mexico, on April 4, 2019. (HERIKA MARTINEZ/AFP via Getty Images)
EL PASO, Texas (Border Report) U.S. authorities on Jan. 22 will begin requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination from all foreigners entering the country, including those who come here for school, work or to do business. Non-compliance could result in people being turned back.
The federal government on Nov. 8 lifted non-essential land travel restrictions for fully vaccinated foreigners but has continued to exempt essential travelers from the vaccine requirement. This will change next month.
Foreign nationals traveling across the land border for both essential and non-essential reasons will be required to be fully vaccinated.This includes individuals who have previously been crossing the border for essential travel, such as work or medical appointments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a statement.
U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents of the U.S. will not be required to provide proof of vaccination when crossing into the U.S. The requirements also do not apply to those ages 17 and under.
The change might affect enclaves of the U.S.-Mexico border where vaccination rates are low, but its unlikely to cripple international trade in the El Paso, Texas-Juarez, Mexico corridor where rates are high, some observers say.
El Paso County as of Thursday reported a 73.6% full vaccination rate among residents over 5 years old and a 92.5% rate among those 65 and over. Juarez does not post vaccination rates but officials there said more than 80% of their population has been vaccinated.
(Mexican) Truck drivers who go back and forth across the border are considered essential workers and they were never necessarily under the (travel restrictions) ban, said Jerry Pacheco, president and CEO of the Border Industrial Association. Now they have to show proof of the vaccine and I think thats alright. There was ample time for people to get prepared for that, especially the essential workers.
Manufacturers and other U.S.-based companies that do business in Mexico are typically compliant with regulations and likely have already informed their employees about the change coming Jan. 22.
Those workers, either through company programs, their insurance or just (off-site) clinics should have been able to get the vaccine by now, Pacheco said.
U.S. citizens also have had plenty of time to get vaccinated but unlike foreigners the U.S. cant deny them re-entry to their own country, he added.
CBP officials say visa holders can verbally declare compliance with the vaccination requirement to the officer at the port of entry. They should have proof of vaccination ready in case the officer asks for it. CBP says not every individual will be asked to show the document but is required to carry it.
Researchers at the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science are working on a COVID-19 vaccine that not only delivers lifelong immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus but could also be transported at room temperature to far-off corners of the world, The Japan Times reported.
As infections caused by the Omicron variant surge across the world, countries may soon face the difficult choice of either imposing strict lockdowns or letting the variant run through the population. Vaccinations are reducing the severity of the disease but are ineffective in halting the spread of the highly transmissible infection. As vaccine companies rush to develop variant-specific booster doses that might become the norm in this pandemic that will soon enter its third calendar year, the news of a single vaccine that can last a lifetime is highly welcome.
The vaccine that is being developed byMichinori Kohara and his team of researchers employs the most successful vaccine used in history, one against smallpox. The team uses a strain of the vaccinia virus that does not cause disease but replaced some of its protein components with those from the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
While recombining the spike protein with a different delivery mechanism is a common strategy used in vaccine design these days, Kohara is confident that his vaccine can not only deliver potent neutralizing antibodies with a single dose, they also induce strong cellular immunity that offers long term protection.
Experiments conducted in mice showed that vaccinated mice maintained high antibody levels for over 20 months or their average lifetime, The Japan Times reported. When two doses were administered, three weeks apart, the neutralizing antibodies increased tenfold, the report said.
Similar experiments conducted in macaques showed that vaccine protected them from infection as virus levels in the vaccinated macaques remained lower than detection limits, seven days after they were infected with the coronavirus.
Kohara also told the news outlet that the vaccine would offer an added advantage of producing fewer side-effects compared to other vaccines that have been given emergency-use authorizations. The non-pathogenic strain used in the vaccine design is incapable of replicating in mammals and would produce fewer side-effect reactions, Kohara claimed.
The researchers have tested the vaccine against the four previously reported coronavirus variants of concern and found it to be effective. Kohara told the media outlet that he expects it to work against Omicron as well while also stating that the vaccine could be stored at room temperatures making them easy to transport and administer in developing countries with tropical climates.
TheTokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science does not have previous experience of commercializing a vaccine and has signed up domestic drugmaker Nobelpharma Co to take it through clinical trials. The first and second phases of human clinical trials are expected to begin only in 2023 followed by a larger phase trial immediately if no efficacy and safety concerns pop up. If all goes well, the vaccine may be commercially available from 2024, at the earliest,The Japan Times reported.
DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "EU COVID-19 Vaccine and Therapeutics Insights, Trends, and Growth Opportunities" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.
This research service provides critical insights into the European Union and UK COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutics market. The report analyzes COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics in development and delves into supply chain considerations and requirements to manage distribution. Importantly, the study identifies actionable growth opportunities for industry participants.
Like the United States, the European Union received criticism for vaccine nationalism, but it is taking steps to encourage global vaccine access. It has launched the Team Europe initiative for improving manufacturing and access to vaccines, medicines, and health technologies in Africa.
Initiatives such as the EU Digital Vaccination Passport and UK NHS COVID Pass app will help Europe in safe reopening and overcoming COVID-19 variants of concern to a certain extent. Although vaccinations are progressing at a fast pace, factors that will determine campaigns' future course include political and religious situations, vaccine availability and access, and vaccine hesitancy specifically in younger population groups.
The low vaccination rate in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is fueling another COVID-19 surge and causing a healthcare crisis in Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia.
Topics covered include:
Key Topics Covered:
1. Strategic Imperatives
2. Vaccine and Therapeutics Highlights
3. Growth Opportunity Analysis
4. Global COVID-19 Vaccine R&D Landscape
5. Global COVID-19 Therapeutic R&D Landscape
6. Vaccine Manufacturer Strategies to Scale Up Their Global Network
7. EU COVID-19 Vaccination Rollout
8. Role of Digital Technology in the COVID-19 Fight
9. Growth Opportunity Universe
Companies Mentioned
For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/7oqxsz
About ResearchAndMarkets.com
ResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends.
Many California counties are reporting high COVID-19 cases as the omicron variant spreads across the state.
The case increase which has led to a tightening of restrictions across the state, cancellations of events and the voluntary closure of some bars and restaurants is unsurprising, given the omicron variant's high transmissibility and because it infects vaccinated people more readily than past strains. In addition, holiday gatherings were widely expected to drive a winter surge regardless of the virus' evolution.
The good news is COVID-19 vaccines are still holding up very well in protecting against severe disease. In San Francisco, where 81% of the population is vaccinated, there's strong evidence of a growing separation between case and hospitalization numbers.
During this summer's delta variant-driven wave, California counties with higher vaccination rates tended to have lower case and test positivity rates, as can be seen in the charts below. Though the vaccination rates listed in both charts are current, they reflect countywide trends in vaccination that emerged before and during the delta surge, as some counties have always had higher rates than others. The analysis is limited to California counties with 100,000 or more residents, and all figures come from the California Department of Public Health.
Although the delta variant caused more breakthrough infections than strains that came before, the clear downward trend line on the test positivity graph suggests vaccines offered significant protection against infection and transmission.
However, in this current omicron wave, that clear downward trend line does not exist.
Counties with higher vaccination rates still generally have lower hospitalization rates than counties with lower vaccination rates, and most experts believe that trend will continue and could grow even more pronounced through the winter. While many counties with better vaccine uptake are now posting higher PCR-confirmed case rates than counties with worse vaccination stats, those numbers probably don't reflect the reality of the situation.
"The more vaccinated counties are likely testing more, and so the lower rates in the less vaccinated counties may be a function of failing to detect cases," UCSF epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford wrote in an email.
When using the percentage of tests coming back positive which at least partly controls for the amount of testing done there's little association between vaccination rates and transmission levels, indicating that large numbers of vaccinated people are getting infected across the region. But because so many of them will have mild, if any, symptoms, some health experts believe officials should be using hospitalization numbers, not case counts, to set public policy.
You can read more about the risk omicron poses to vaccinated individuals in our story on it.
(Wyoming) Just over 47% of Wyoming residents are vaccinated for COVID-19 according to the CDCs distribution and administration data tracker.
The group at Beckers Healthcare recently tallied vaccination information from all 50 states plus Washington D.C.
As of December 28th, 2021 Wyoming ranks 50th in percentage of residents vaccinated at 47.4%. The only state with a lower percentage is Idaho.
Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts rank as the highest percentage states.
For the full list, click here.
Have a news tip or an awesome photo to share?
Diane Pantaleo, USA TODAY NETWORK| Ellwood City Ledger
Some 47% of people living in Lawrence County are fully vaccinated as of Dec. 21, according to data from Pennsylvania Department of Health.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers someone fully vaccinated two weeks after they've been given a single-dose shot (Johnson & Johnson) or a second shot (either Pfizer or Moderna).
Pennsylvania reported 1,904,121 total cases of coronavirus, an increase of 3% from the week before.
The five counties with the highest percentage of their population fully vaccinated in Pennsylvania as of Dec. 21 are Montour County (72%), Forest County (68%), Lehigh County (67%), Chester County (66%) and Lackawanna County (64%).
Here are the latest numbers on COVID-19 vaccinations in Lawrence County as of Dec. 21:
For a county-by-county look at the vaccination rollout, see our COVID-19 vaccine tracker, which is updated daily.
The percentages in this story reflect the total share of the population that has received vaccines. That now includes people as young as 5 years old, for whom vaccines have been authorized.
These weekly stories will be updated as more data on vaccination rates in children, as well as booster vaccination rates, are released.
We pull data on local vaccine distribution on a weekly basis. Check back for our next weekly update mid-week for the latest numbers.
