A Yale-led study reveals that low- and middle-income countries that hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines are receiving proportionately fewer doses of these vaccines, suggesting that there are wealth-based disparities in COVID-19 vaccine access among countries that participate in testing.
The study, published Nov. 18 in JAMA Network Open, examines access in terms of regulatory authorization or approval as well as delivery of six unique COVID-19 vaccines listed for emergency use by the World Health Organization (WHO) as of Sept. 7, 2021. Clinical trials for these vaccines were completed in 25 countries and are currently ongoing in an additional 12 countries.
In an analysis of both completed and ongoing clinical trials for WHO-recommended COVID-19 vaccines across 37 countries, the researchers found that more than 90% of the tested vaccines had been authorized for use as of early September. They also found that over 90% of the countries that hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines had doses of tested vaccines delivered. However, among countries hosting completed clinical trials, high-income countries received enough doses to vaccinate a median 51.7% of their population ages 15 years and older compared with rates of 31% and 14.9% in low- and middle-income countries, respectively.
These wealth-based disparities weve found among countries whose populations have participated in testing of these vaccines reflect the broader disparities in COVID-19 vaccine access that were seeing worldwide, says Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, a National Clinician Scholar at Yale School of Medicine and the studys lead author. As many lower income countries continue to experience inequitable shortfalls in COVID-19 vaccine supply amid the ongoing pandemic, efforts must be undertaken to ensure timely access to all countries, regardless of income group, including those hosting clinical trials.
The researchers also identified significant variation in the number of countries that hosted completed clinical trials for the different vaccines. Two high-income countries participated in testing for the COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Moderna, while 9, 10, and 14 middle- and high-income countries hosted trials for vaccines manufactured by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca/Serum Institute of India, respectively. With the exception of AstraZeneca/Serum Institute of India, high-income countries that hosted completed clinical trials for all other manufacturers received more doses to vaccinate larger median proportions of their populations.
Appropriately including low- and middle-income countries in research is an important goal, particularly when an experimental medicine or vaccine targets a disease or condition burdening a country, like COVID-19. However, inclusion must correspond with fair access to the benefits of research, otherwise it can be exploitation, said Jennifer E. Miller, an assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and co-author of the study.
The authors also examined vaccine access in countries hosting clinical trials through COVAX, a global initiative co-led by the nonprofit Gavi, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and WHO, which aims to make COVID-19 vaccines and other health technologies more accessible in low- and middle-income countries. They found that, as of early September, COVAX has delivered a much larger proportion of procured doses to upper middle-income countries (78.8%) than low- (15.4%) and lower middle-income (38.8%) countries that tested these same vaccines.
Data for this study were extracted from the Airfinity COVID-19 platform and generously provided by Anthony Kamande and Max Lawson of Oxfam International, a member organization of the Peoples Vaccine Alliance.
An agreement to waive the intellectual-property rights underpinning Covid-19 vaccinesa prospect poor countries have hoped would ease supplies to the developing worldis becoming increasingly unlikely, say people familiar with the situation, with the U.S. not acting to bridge disagreements between developing world countries and those opposing such a measure.
In May, the Biden administration said it would support temporarily suspending patents and other IP linked to the shots to allow developing countries to produce the Covid-19 vaccines created by big drug companies.
RAPID CITY, S.D. (KELO) The COVID-19 pandemic has become dj vu for Dr. Shankar Kurra.
Kurra, the vice president of medical affairs at Monument Health, is back asking the public to help flatten the curve when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Monuments main Rapid City hospital, there are 56 COVID-19 patients in hospital beds, 15 in the ICU and 13 on ventilators. With full hospitals, cases and positivity rates rising again, Kurra said more people need to choose to become vaccinated against COVID-19 to assist local hospitals.
Were already at capacity in the ICUs in the hospital. The only way we can kind of manage this is to get vaccinated so we can slow down and flatten the transmission curve, Kurra said. What we want to avoid in South Dakota is a crisis standard of care situation. The only way you can do that is by vaccination. Vaccination completely suppressed transmission.
As of Thursday, the South Dakota Department of Health reports 70% of the population, age 12 or older, have received at least one dose of the vaccine, while only 58%, age 12 or older, is fully vaccinated. Kurra pointed out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists 69% of the United States population, age 12 or older, is fully vaccinated.
The groups that go to work and go to school are currently under vaccinated, said Kurra, who added the age groups throughout 18 to 50 are 40-50% vaccinated.
With South Dakota trailing the national average for vaccinations, Kurra said theres more opportunity for the coronavirus to transmit. He also said South Dakotas rural makeup creates drastic variables in vaccinations county by county.
As long as you have counties (with large unvaccinated populations), and theres several of them, thats half the population susceptible to the virus, Kurra said. That will be a perfect stage for the next wave.
Kurra said he expects a winter surge and more upticks in COVID-19 cases throughout the months of December, January and February.
Each of the waves are directly related to our human behaviors, Kurra said. Anytime you see an upward trend, there are two things going on. No. 1 its human behaviors and No. 2 is vaccination. The virus itself doesnt drive these waves; its people. The biggest one is the vaccine. Thats the best way to suppress spread.
Until the pandemic chapter of COVID-19 finishes, Kurra said health systems have to remain prepared for large influxes of new patients. Hes optimistic the vaccine now being available for kids aged 5-11 will help get more of the total population to 70% vaccinated against the virus.
Thats a big impact. These kids that go to school are very effective transmitters of the disease, Kurra said.
With more age groups eligible, Kurra still stressed people in all age groups from 5 to 50 need to reach 70% vaccination until COVID-19 can be considered to be more endemic.
Then well stop seeing more waves, Kurra said. The only reason we see waves is because we dont have enough vaccination rates.
With Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Eve and New Years Day approaching, discussions between family and friends on the COVID-19 vaccine may happen.
Kurra emphasized choices to become vaccinated or not are rational choices.
You have to meet people at where they are in life, Kurra said. My advice for everyone would to engage in a conversation with empathy.
Kurra said hes noticed when people see a neighbor or close friend affected by the disease, theyre more likely to listen.
If we show empathy and understanding of why people chose not to vaccinated, given how bad things are today, I think we can get folks to vaccinated, Kurra said. I dont believe in tough conversations that actually push people away and show a lack of empathy and understanding.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a sharp rise in deaths and the number of infections worldwide. The pandemic has resulted in the deaths of more than 5.1 million people from more than 254 million infections as of November 18, 2021. Therefore, the development of safe and effective vaccines was considered an important measure to contain the pandemic and restore peoples lives to normal.
As per the global statistics reports from August 2, 2021, there are 326 total vaccine candidates. Out of them, 103 vaccines are in clinical trials, while 19 are now in everyday use. The 19 vaccines include 8 inactivated vaccines, 5 protein subunit vaccines, 2 mRNA vaccines, and 4 non-replicating viral vector vaccines. Furthermore, reports show that 53.7 percent of the world population has received at least one dose of the vaccine, while 41.5 percent are fully vaccinated.
However, the infection rate of COVID-19 is still high due to the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Therefore, rapid herd immunity through vaccination is required to prevent the emergence of these new variants that can completely escape the immune surveillance.
The effectiveness and safety of the three mainstream vaccines in the market have been evaluated based on random clinical trials (RCT). The mRNA vaccines were found to be the most effective, followed by viral vector vaccines and inactivated virus vaccines. Although the current safety of the COVID-19 vaccines is high, long-term monitoring needs to be carried out, especially for people with underlying conditions. However, real-world studies vary significantly from the RCT. Mass vaccination in the real world requires considering several heterogeneous populations, vaccine supply, willingness, medical accessibility, etc. Several studies report the effectiveness of vaccines in the real world but the results remain controversial.
A new study published in Infectious Diseases of Poverty aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in the real world as well as establish a reliable evidence-based basis to determine the actual protective effect of the COVID-19 vaccines, especially considering the new waves of infection brought about by the variants.
The study involved searching three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, for eligible studies that have been published by July 22, 2021. It included 58 studies, out of which 32 were for vaccine effectiveness and 26 were for a safety study. The study was strictly performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
Observational studies were included that examined the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines among vaccinated people. Studies with irrelevant subjects, insufficient data, overlapping participants, reviews, editorials, case reports, conference papers, animal experiments, and those that did not clarify the identification of COVID-19 were excluded.
The studies were identified by two investigators who carried out data extraction and also assessed the study quality. A third investigator resolved any disagreements. Finally, meta-analysis was performed with the extracted data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Flowchart of the study selection
The results of the study reported vaccine effectiveness (VE) separately for the first and second doses. For the first dose, the VE for prevention of infection was 41 percent, for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 infection was 52 percent, for prevention of hospitalization was 66 percent, for prevention of ICU admission was 45 percent, and for the prevention of COVID-19 related deaths was 53 percent.
While for the second dose, the VE for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 85 percent, for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 was 97 percent, for prevention of hospitalization was 93 percent, for the prevention of ICU admissions was 96 percent, and for the prevention of COVID-19-related death was 95 percent.
Furthermore, the study reported the VE for the various SARS-CoV-2 variants. The VE was 85 percent for prevention against the Alpha variant, 54 percent for the Gamma variant, and 74 percent for the Delta variant. Only one study was available for the Beta variant, where the VE was reported to be 75 percent. The BNT162b2 vaccine was found to have the highest VE for each of the variants.
The study also reported the incidence rate of adverse events for determining the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. It was found that the incidence rate was 1.5 percent for adverse events, 0.4 percent for serious adverse events, and 0.1 percent for death after vaccination.
Healthcare workers showed a higher incidence rate for adverse events, serious adverse events, as well death after vaccination. Also, the incidence rate of adverse events was found to be higher in the AZD1222 vaccine group, serious adverse events were found to be higher in the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine group, and death after vaccination was found to be higher in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.
The current study thus indicated that two doses of the vaccine were effective against the different SARS-CoV-2 variants, although their effectiveness was less as compared to the original strain. The adverse events were found to be varied among different COVID-19 vaccine groups. However, serious adverse events were reported that suggest the need to implement a unified global surveillance system to monitor the adverse events of the COVID-19 vaccines around the world. Also, while determining the priority of the vaccines, the socioeconomic characteristics of each country must be considered.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the improvement of vaccine coverage is still the most essential tool that can help to end the pandemic.
The current study had certain limitations. First, the study included limited basic data on specific populations. Second, no subgroup analysis on more population characteristics, such as age was conducted. Third, most of the original studies collected adverse events only up to 7 days post-vaccination. This could have an impact on the safety analysis.
Monitoring of post-vaccination adverse effects has shown increasing numbers of reports of menstrual changes in women who received the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. A new study published on the preprint server medRxiv* reports on the incidence of this adverse effect, concluding that there is no evidence for such an association, while not ruling out the potential for detection of such a link with larger studies.
Study: Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination on Menstrual Periods in A Retrospectively Recruited Cohort. Image Credit: Studio Romantic / Shutterstock.com
The monitoring system called Yellow Card has received many reports from women with alleged changes to their menstrual cycle following vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine. However, most of these women also reported that their period returned to normal within a single cycle. There is also no observed evidence of disrupted female fertility.
In order to assess the validity of such concerns, the current study included over 1,200 women with a menstrual diary who had also recorded the dates of vaccination. Earlier studies on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine have shown that periods may become heavier or irregular in such individuals, though viral infection itself, even with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), can also cause such changes.
The pathogenesis of this phenomenon may involve immunostimulatory mechanisms that may alter the hormonal cycle. Alternatively, immune cells in the endometrium could be stimulated, thus causing the observed changes by affecting the proliferation and shedding of the tissue.
The cohort tracked in this study is likely to be biased towards those who noted a change in their cycles after vaccination. Therefore, the investigators are currently also tracking another cohort who were already recording their cycles before vaccination. The current study may help, however, to tease out a preliminary hypothesis about a causal link.
Despite the use of different vaccines, there was no obvious correlation between the brand and the presence or type of menstrual alteration in the subsequent cycle. Those who were on hormonal contraceptives were at a greater chance of such changes. Since sex hormones levels are maintained at a low but uniform level in those on oral contraceptives, this could rule out the association between vaccination and levels of sex hormones.
The time of vaccination was not clearly linked to the timing or flow pattern of the next period. The difficulty in finding a clear association partly lies in the sheer variety of changes reported in the period.
There have been many proposed mechanisms for changes in menstruation following COVID-19 vaccination, such as vaccine-induced delay in ovulation or disruption of ovulation. This would lead to a longer cycle than usual.
When considering those who were not on hormonal contraception, vaccination timing apparently appeared to be related to the timing of the next period in those who received the vaccines on pre-ovulatory days, on which less than five people had been vaccinated, and those who were already overdue, the authors found that
This was, however, negated when this association was found to be due to the effect of vaccination on the expected day of periods or the previous day. Taken together, this indicates that these women were already at a high risk of having delayed periods before taking the vaccine. Overall, the timing of the vaccine was not found to be related to the flow of the next period.
After the second dose, the same trends, or lack thereof, were observed. Most women did report the same kind of changes following both doses. This implies the effects of genetic or individual factors are predominant in vaccination-related alterations in period timing or flow.
Association between reports of changes in timing (A) and flow (B) following first and second vaccine dose.
There is an apparent concern about the risk of period delay following vaccination in women who already have polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or endometriosis. Many women have this concern, stating that with already heavy, painful, and/or difficult periods, they hesitate to take the vaccine for fear of aggravating these symptoms.
In the current study, however, such a trend was not observed in women who had already been diagnosed with a pre-existing condition of the uterus or menstrual abnormality, including those with a history of menorrhagia, abnormal bleeding, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or PCOS. However, a borderline significance was observed after adjusting for multiple factors.
In particular, women who had heavy or abnormal bleeding or had fibroids were found to have a slightly greater chance of having an earlier period, while a delay in the next period is somewhat more likely in those with a history of PCOS.
The results of the current study do not find any observable associations between the COVID-19 vaccination, the brand of vaccine, and menstrual timing. Delayed periods were reported mostly by women who were already heading for a late period at the date of vaccination.
People on hormonal contraception were at a greater risk for differences in the flow of their next period following vaccination, which rules out a hormonal etiology. The lack of a plausible biological mechanism to explain this mandates follow-up analysis to rule out reporting bias.
That is, since many women use hormonal contraceptives to control their menstrual flow, a heavier flow following vaccination may have led many of them to join the study, as compared to those who are not on such pills but also had heavier flow after taking the vaccine.
The explanation for the high degree of similarity between the changes observed after the first and second doses indicates that individual, including genetic, variation might explain a lot of these changes. Other potential reasons include the eight-week interval between doses, which could mean that whatever biological change followed the first dose, would still exert an effect by the time of the second dose, thus accounting for the similar side effects.
The lack of association between menstrual changes and pre-existing gynecologic disease should reassure women who fear that their condition will worsen after vaccination. People with endometriosis and PCOS did have a slight advancement and postponement of their periods, respectively, which must be followed up for validation. Until then, these findings should not contribute to vaccine hesitancy, especially since it is well-established that SARS-CoV-2 itself affects the menstrual cycle.
The current study does not fully determine the frequency of menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination as a result of its retrospective design that lends itself to recall bias. Instead, prospective studies should be done. Alternatively, already collected menstrual data that has been stored for other purposes could be mined to answer this question more accurately.
The authors recommend data from menstrual cycle tracking apps, both because of the volume of data logged over multiple cycles and the detail in which such data is stored. It is also important to note that the study participants were mostly British and that the study did not look at other vaccines like Sinovac or Sputnik V. Most of these other vaccines use a shorter interval between doses, which could lead to different side effects.
In conclusion, this study of 1273 retrospectively recruited participants was unable to detect strong signals to support the idea that COVID-19 vaccination is linked to menstrual changes. However, large, prospectively recruited studies may be able to find associations that we were not powered to detect.
medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
Papua New Guinea (PNG) is, economically, one of the poorest countries in Asia-Pacific, with significant human development challenges. Its health infrastructure is run-down. Approximately 85% of the country live outside of the cities, and moving around the country is extremely difficult. Until relatively recently, the biggest impact of COVID-19 on the country had been economic. However, in recent months the Delta variant of the virus has taken off. Health services are being overwhelmed and, although data are patchy, reports suggest rapidly rising deaths.
COVID-19 vaccination rates are low in PNG; in fact, some of if not, the lowest in East Asia Pacific. Supply of vaccines was an issue at first, and issues with health infrastructure are an ongoing problem. But news reports, as well as a series of smaller studies, have pointed to vaccine hesitancy as a serious impediment to vaccination uptake too.
In late May 2021, our team began research to find out just how prevalent COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was in Papua New Guinea. We also sought to learn more about potential drivers of vaccine hesitancy, and how it might be reduced.
This research involved adding questions to an existing World Bank phone survey and conducting a separate online experiment. Both samples were large (2533 for the survey; 2392 for the experiment). However, neither cell-phone use, nor access to the internet are universal in Papua New Guinea. These facts posed a challenge; however, as we detail in our new World Bank discussion paper; the challenge wasnt insurmountable. Weighting, drawing on the most recent Demographic and Health Survey and census, allowed us to produce findings that were more representative of the population. Broadly representative is far from perfect, but in the middle of a pandemic, in a remote country where surveys are extremely difficult to deliver, our approach was the most feasible way of answering questions that are increasingly urgent.
The bad news from the phone survey is that vaccine hesitancy is high in Papua New Guinea. Less than one in five respondents who were aware a vaccine exists said they were planning to be vaccinated against Covid-19. These numbers indicate that PNGs vaccine hesitancy is potentially some of the highest in East Asia Pacific; at least it was when the survey was conducted in May and June; before the current outbreak which has now claimed many hundreds of lives.
Responses to phone survey question (May/June 2021) on whether participant was planning to be vaccinated
In theory, people might simply have had practical reasons for not planning to be vaccinated, such as difficulty accessing vaccines. However, when our team asked participants why they werent willing to be vaccinated, by far the most common answers were to do with the vaccine: fear of side-effects, or distrust in it.
Responses to phone survey question about why participant was not planning to be vaccinated
Note: multiple responses were allowed to this question, hence percentages total to more than 100.
Although online misinformation has been an issue over the course of the pandemic in Papua New Guinea, survey results suggest participants vaccine hesitancy didnt seem to be coming directly from the internet, with only a small proportion of respondents to the phone survey said they used the internet for health information. And there was no correlation between peoples trust in information from the internet and their willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Certainly, internet misinformation might still be affecting peoples views about vaccines indirectly in PNG, with rumours starting online before subsequently being propelled by word-of-mouth. But the internet on its own does not seem to be primary driver of vaccine aversion.
Respondents to the phone survey were, unquestionably, worried about the vaccine. Yet other responses suggested their views might possibly be changed. When respondents that did not plan on being vaccinated, or who were unsure, were asked what type of person, if anyone, might change their mind, many stated that they would listen to health professionals. In another question we asked respondents about their preferred means of receiving vaccine information; with more than 80 percent saying they preferred face to face communication with health workers.
People who could change respondents minds about getting the vaccine (phone survey)
Note: multiple responses were allowed to this question, hence percentages total to more than 100.
Results from the online survey experiment confirmed that peoples views about the vaccine could, indeed, be changed. In the survey experiment, participants were randomly allocated to either the control group, which received no information about COVID-19 vaccines, or three treatment groups, with each of the treatment groups receiving a simple sentence of information about COVID-19 vaccines.
The effect of the treatments (using unweighted response data) is shown below.
Survey experiment results: share of respondents willing to be vaccinated
Survey experiment results: share of respondents not willing to be vaccinated
The experts message was not effective in changing views. However, the relative safety message clearly increased the share of respondents willing to be vaccinated and caused a substantial fall in the share of respondents who were unwilling to be vaccinated. Whats more, when we weighted responses, the effects of the social norms message became statistically significant too.
Tackling vaccine hesitancy:
PNG faces an urgent task: it needs to quickly increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Yet vaccine hesitancy is worryingly high. However, there is hope and opportunity: our research suggests many Papua New Guineans views are not set in stone. The hesitancy appears to be genuine hesitancy, rather than hardened anti-vax attitudes. People are open to having their minds changed, and our research also points to the fact that vaccine hesitancy can be addressed successfully with the right messages and the right messengers. With clear information about vaccine safety, as well the dangers of COVID-19, communicated by local health workers, views can be changed; and ultimately, many lives can be saved.
IDAHO FALLS Local hospitals plan to comply with a federal health rule that requires healthcare workers get the COVID-19 vaccine.
On Nov. 4, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) requiring COVID-19 vaccination of eligible staff at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The rule was created to protect healthcare workers and patients from the virus, according to CMS. With this rule, over 17 million health care workers across the country must be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022. The remedy for non-compliance is termination, CMS said.
Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, Mountain View Hospital, Idaho Falls Community Hospital, Madison Memorial Hospital and Bingham Memorial Hospital will comply with the mandate, hospital spokespeople told EastIdahoNews.com.
Since COVID-19 vaccines became available earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as our infectious disease experts, have been strongly encouraging vaccination as a critical step to protect individuals from the virus and the majority of HCA Healthcare colleagues have already been fully vaccinated. We are working with our colleagues to assist those that have not yet received the vaccine, an HCA Healthcare representative told EastIdahoNews.com. HCA Healthcare operates EIRMC in Idaho Falls.
Eligible staff must receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine or a one-dose COVID vaccine prior to providing any care, treatment or other services by Dec. 6, 2021, CMS explained.
All eligible staff must have received the necessary shots to be fully vaccinated either two doses of Pfizer or Moderna or one dose of Johnson & Johnson by January 4, 2022, CMS stated. The regulation also provides for exemptions based on recognized medical conditions or religious beliefs, observances, or practices.
Mountain View and Idaho Falls Community Hospital report that a majority of its team members have already got the COVID-19 vaccine, but spokeswoman Natalie Podgorski said, To respect the privacy of our team, we cannot provide an exact percentage.
In an email letter sent to its staff, Mountain View officials were apologetic and said they risk losing 40 percent of their patients if they did not comply with the mandate. We cannot abandon our patients, so we must change our policy, the email reads.
Madison Memorial spokesman Doug McBride did not say how many of its employees are vaccinated, but that the hospital is working through details of implementation.
In Blackfoot, Bingham Memorial spokesman Mark Baker said 75% or more of its employees are already vaccinated.
While I have personally made the decision to be vaccinated, and believe its the most effective way to combat the COVID-19 virus, I also value and respect individual choice and had hoped other options would be available, CEO Bingham Healthcare Jake Erickson said. We have not previously required employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, nor did we intend to do so.
The order that healthcare facilities are up against is separate from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandate thats currently on hold in the federal court system.
A lot of people assume CMS rule is the same as the OSHA one, but its actually much more strict, Baker said. CMS also has greater leverage over health care providers because over 50% of healthcare is paid for by government payers such as Medicare and Medicaid. They are essentially saying, You do this or we will revoke our contract with you.'
Earlier this week, Idaho Gov. Brad Little joined a multi-state lawsuit to challenge the requirement that healthcare workers be vaccinated against COVID-19. The lawsuit, which originated in Louisiana, includes a dozen states.
Idaho has also joined two other lawsuits opposing COVID-19 mandates. The first lawsuit opposed the mandate that federal contractors require vaccinations. The second lawsuit opposes the OSHA mandate that requires private companies with over 100 employees get their workers vaccinated or be tested weekly for COVID-19.
EastIdahoNews.com reached out to Portneuf Medical Center regarding the situation but did not hear back.
BRANDON, Fla. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation Thursday that will prevent employers from firing workers over COVID-19 vaccination mandates and allow parents to decide whether to vaccinate their children.
The bills were passed through a special session of the Florida Legislature.
DeSantis said the legislation is the strongest pro-freedom, anti-mandate action taken by any state in the nation.
The following is effective immediately in Florida:
READ: Florida House approves bill that could impose fines for businesses requiring COVID-19 vaccine
READ: Agriculture commissioner calls for investigation into states high gas prices
I told Floridians that we would protect their jobs, and today, we made that the law, DeSantis said. Nobody should lose their job due to heavy-handed COVID mandates, and we had a responsibility to protect the livelihoods of the people of Florida. Im thankful to the Florida Legislature for joining me in standing up for freedom.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody said during the news conference that the state is challenging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule in court. Click here to read more about it.
Gov. DeSantis has shown exemplary leadership throughout the pandemic, and I am proud to stand with him as we challenge unlawful vaccine mandates forced on Floridians by the president and his power-hungry bureaucrats, Moody said. I will always fight for freedom, Floridas sovereignty and the autonomy of American workers.
Firefighter Protest
Click here to download the free WFTV news and weather apps, click here to download the WFTV Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
When the novel coronavirus first reached Europe, the married scientists Uur ahin and zlem Treci were working in the small town of Mainz, Germany, at the helm of a biotech company that relatively few people had heard of. The couple founded BioNTech in 2008 to develop individualized vaccines for cancer patients. But the company specialized in a type of genetic material, messenger RNA, that had also shown promise for other diseases including viral infections.
So when ahin read an article about Covid-19 in January 2020, he and Treci both recognized that their companys mRNA technology might have something powerful to contribute. Treci, BioNTechs chief medical officer, led a team that rapidly whittled down 20 vaccine candidates to just one: BNT162b2, which could be described as the shot that changed the world. BioNTech partnered with the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, and in July 2020, the US placed a $1.95 billion order. A few months later, the German government gave BioNTech a $445 million grant to speed up research and production.
The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was the worlds first approved Covid-19 vaccine, and it has helped protect more than a billion people from the coronavirus. The mRNA inside the shot instructs human cells to produce a protein that Treci compares to a wanted poster. The protein warns the immune system to watch out for the coronavirus.
Meanwhile, ahin and Treci became famous almost overnight. We are incredibly proud to have such researchers in our country, Angela Merkel, then-chancellor of Germany and a chemist by training, said in December 2020. In March, they were awarded one of the nations highest honors, the Knight Commanders Cross of the Federal Order of Merit. Though ahin and Treci are now billionaires, they are known for living modestly, commuting to work by bicycle and working long hours in the lab.
But the companys ascent has also come with new scrutiny. When I sat down with Treci at the Falling Walls Science Summit in early November, BioNTech, its partner Pfizer, and its competitor Moderna had been drawing fierce criticism for huge, persistent gaps in access to Covid-19 vaccines. The vast majority of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine doses have gone to a small minority of people roughly 16 percent of the worlds population who live in high-income countries.
It is obscene that just a few companies are making millions of dollars in profit every single hour, while just 2.5 percent of people in low-income countries have been fully vaccinated against coronavirus, said Maaza Seyoum of the Peoples Vaccine Alliance, which has joined the African Union, India, and the US government in calling on vaccine producers to waive their patents so more countries and companies can produce them. Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna have used their monopolies to prioritize the most profitable contracts with the richest governments, leaving low-income countries out in the cold.
I asked Treci about what BioNTech can do about vaccine inequity, and the company also provided a statement to Vox. As a Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer we see it as our responsibility to support the worldwide supply of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine by continuously increasing our manufacturing capacities, a spokesperson said, adding that the companies are in the process of doubling their production capacity and plan to make more than 3 billion doses in 2022. We are fully committed to supplying our vaccine to people around the world in all countries and across all income levels.
Treci also discussed the scientific process, the state of the pandemic, and what the past two years have been like. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.
Can you tell me about the first moment you realized that you and your team could play a big role in fighting Covid-19?
It was the last weekend in January 2020, and my husband who is with me the founder of the company read about the virus. The pattern that was described made it very clear that we were already in the midst of a pandemic. It was very clear that a vaccine would be needed as fast as possible. And our technology, which we had optimized for moving fast from a known genetic sequence to vaccine design to manufacturing it was very clear that it would contribute in this situation. This was the epiphany.
Your team had been working on mRNA vaccines for many years, and your company had recently sold shares to the public and received some major investments. BioNTech was in the right place at the right time but, of course, this wasnt by accident. What have you learned about preparing for the next problem that humans havent encountered yet?
Even though it might have seemed that way, this was not something which was developed overnight, as an immediate reaction. We started in the mid-1990s to experiment with mRNA. In 2012, we treated our first patient. These were long years of preparation.
The next threats are already there but a sense of urgency is not there yet. It is very important, without already seeing the clear threat, to have a vision which can serve as a North Star. And with this perseverance and grit, to work toward actualizing the potential of the technology and trusting in the science to solve it.
The second most important thing is to understand that we are a global community. We are scientists. It wasnt too clear to us what nonscientific challenges geopolitical ones, global ethical ones, societal ones had to be overcome to make all this feasible. Understanding that those are major hurdles, and starting to fix them early on, is important.
Your insight is that we have to treat future problems with the urgency of the present day. We cant wait for them to emerge, but we should move forward as though they are already here.
Yes. And this is an anthropological thing. Our ancestors have been prepared by evolution to feel alerted and react to anything that is immediately there. We still have this in us. Even though we can visualize what will happen take the climate, for example we push it aside.
What do you wish you had done differently?
There is actually nothing I wish I had done differently. It is difficult to reverse-engineer what would have been different with a different action. So the way we did it was the right one.
What do you think the near future holds for the Covid-19 pandemic? What are you concerned about, and what gives you hope?
What I think is important is that we continue to vaccinate. Infection rates and disease rates are rising again. These are not primarily in the vaccinated but rather the unvaccinated. So we need to reach them.
Equality of distribution is obviously a topic. We are trying to do our share by even further increasing our production and going to all those underserved regions for production facilities.
We have to continue to be alert and test each and every emerging variant to understand when the signal is there to adapt the vaccine to a potential escape variant and not act prematurely or preemptively.
We have to also see what has been achieved. More than a billion humans have been vaccinated [with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine]. Several vaccines are available. So its also important to see the positive side of this.
How do you stay optimistic when cases rise? For example, right now, in Europe and here in Germany, cases are near record highs after the rollout of this very effective vaccine.
The same way that scientists always do: to focus on solutions which can help. For the current situation, this includes continuing with production and delivery, informing the public about the need for a third booster dose, and providing the data very transparently to the authorities.
You mentioned inequity across the world in distribution. In wealthy countries, around 70 percent of people are vaccinated, but in low-income countries like Haiti or Tanzania, the rate is often under 10 percent. What else can governments and vaccine producers do to close that really large gap?
I think there is not much we can add on top other than what we are already doing as developers and also companies and institutions. Covax, for example, has to facilitate what is not so easy to deliver to those countries.
I think also it is important to ensure the high quality of vaccines going to those countries, and therefore I dont like this discussion about patent waivers. In those countries, there is some vaccine hesitancy. People want to be sure that the vaccine they get has the same high quality as we have here in the Western world, where regulatory authorities ensure that, and the manufacturers are qualified to produce the vaccine. Its important that we keep vaccine quality on the same standard and continue to educate and inform the public there.
[After speaking with Treci, I asked advocates whether patent waivers could lead to the production of lower-quality vaccines. Anna Marriott, health policy manager at Oxfam a member of the Peoples Vaccine Alliance said in a statement that its nonsense to claim that the experience and expertise to develop and manufacture lifesaving medicines and vaccines does not exist in developing countries. This is just a false excuse that pharmaceutical companies are hiding behind to protect their astronomical profits.]
Are you troubled by the low numbers of doses that are delivered to low-income countries?
Actually, I dont think that low numbers in terms of input is a real problem. For example, 40 percent of what we have delivered and this will continue have gone to low- and middle-income countries. [Vox asked BioNTech for data supporting that figure, but the company didnt provide it and we were unable to independently verify the claim.]
In the beginning, getting the framework right, from a geopolitical and logistical and distribution perspective, was a hurdle and we have overcome that as a global society. Not fully, but important steps have been made, and this has to continue.
What advice would you give to the generation of scientists that may have to respond to the next pandemic?
One needs to be courageous to do things that are risky. On the other side, its very important to have humility. Threats of this unprecedented scale and of a global dimension you can only overcome them with science if you get support from all involved. That needs an interaction which is based on humility and also on trust.
In the past year and a half, you [and your husband] have been extremely busy. Have you found any time for yourself?
We are not really those who distinguish between life and work. We are blessed that what we do is what we love to do. So its not really about time for something special. What we do is already fulfilling.
Biden announces sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans
Speaking at the White House, Biden sharply criticized the roughly 80 million Americans who are not yet vaccinated, despite months of availability and incentives.
U.S. Navy sailors who refuse to comply with the coronavirus vaccine mandate will be discharged and could face other administrative actions.
"In order to ensure a fully vaccinated force, U.S. Navy policy is to process for separation all Navy service members who refuse the lawful order to receive the COVID-19 vaccination and do not have an approved exemption," the NAVADMIN said in a statement Monday.
The COVID Consolidated Disposition Authority, led by Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. John Nowell Jr. and Chief of Naval Reserve Vice Adm. John Mustin, will also separate sailors who fail to get the vaccine.Sailors who dont comply and are only separated for refusing the vaccine could receive as low as a general discharge under honorable conditions, Navy Times reported.
RELATED: 100-year-old WWII veteran receives almost 800 birthday cards: 'It's been amazing'
Active-duty sailors had until Nov. 14 to get their last dose of the vaccine, in order to be fully vaccinated by Nov. 28. Members of the Navy Reserve have until Dec. 14 to get their last dose of the vaccine.
Sailors who reject the vaccine could also lose education benefits, promotions and bonus pay.
Another Navy ship at sea has reported a coronavirus outbreak and is returning to port, the Navy said Friday.
"Bonuses, special pays and incentive pays become unearned when a Navy service member refusing the vaccine is no longer performing duties for which they are receiving such a bonus, special pay, or incentive pay," the NAVADMIN states.
"Navy service members refusing the vaccine who are in a frocked status should be defrocked as soon as feasible," the statement added.
Sailors who are denied religious or medical exemptions have five days to start the process of getting fully vaccinated or the Navy begins the separation process.
RELATED: Wounded veterans being recruited as baseball umpires in their communities
Ninety-six percent of active-duty sailors and 93 percent of the total force are fully vaccinated, according to data from the Navy on Nov. 10. The branch has not approved any religious exemption requests, Navy Times reported, and only six permanent medical exemptions were approved.
The Department of Defense announced in late August that all members of the military must get vaccinated, President Biden mandated that all federal employees be fully vaccinated by Nov. 22.
Read more of this story on FOX News.
