The City of Boulder, in partnership with the states COVID-19 vaccination program, will continue to offer free weekly vaccine clinics through Oct. 10, with the potential for future dates to be announced. Clinics will be held on Sundays from noon to 5 p.m. at the Boulder Public Library Main Branch, 1001 Arapahoe Ave., in the Canyon Theater. Those attending the clinics should enter the north side of the building near Canyon Boulevard. Spanish language interpreters will be available at each clinic.
Vaccinations are critical to curbing the spread of COVID-19 and help protect people from serious illness, said Housing and Human Services Department Manager Elizabeth Crowe. As the Delta variant continues to impact the Boulder community, the city remains committed to making the vaccine easily accessible for community members.
All community members are invited to the clinics, including families with children ages 12+. COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective and help protect against the Delta variant. The clinics are 100% free and no insurance, ID or pre-registration is required, however those that prefer to schedule a time can reserve one in advance.
The one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will be available. Those who have already received their first Pfizer or Moderna dose should be aware of the recommended window of time between the first and second doses and should bring their vaccination card with them to the clinic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that both doses of the vaccine series be completed with the same product. Additional shots will be available for people whose immune systems are compromised.
In addition to vaccinations, testing is an important component of the citys pandemic response. COVID-19 testing is available at Stazio Ball Fields, located at 2445 Stazio Dr. in Boulder, seven days a week from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. As cases of the highly contagious Delta variant continue to impact our community, testing remains vital to stopping the spread of COVID-19.
For more information about testing, vaccines and clinics, visit Boulder Countys website.
Johnson & Johnson shared data from the Phase 3 trial of its booster shot on Tuesday indicating a booster shot at six months provided a 12-fold increase in antibodies. Eva Marie Uzctegui/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption
Johnson & Johnson shared data from the Phase 3 trial of its booster shot on Tuesday indicating a booster shot at six months provided a 12-fold increase in antibodies.
People who receive a Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine booster shot are better protected against the coronavirus for a longer period of time, according to the pharmaceutical company's latest trial results.
The one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been found to be 66% protective against moderate and severe disease overall worldwide and 72% protective against such cases in the U.S. But when a person receives a booster shot two months after getting the pharmaceutical company's one-dose vaccine, the protection against COVID-19 increased to 94%.
A booster shot at six months provided a 12-fold increase in antibodies.
The company had previously shared earlier evidence from this trial that people who received its one-shot COVID-19 vaccine could benefit from a booster shot after six months. The information shared Tuesday was part of the company's Phase 3 trial.
"Our large real-world-evidence and Phase 3 studies confirm that the single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine provides strong and long-lasting protection against COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Additionally, our Phase 3 trial data further confirms protection against COVID-19 related death," said Mathai Mammen, global head of Janssen research and development for Johnson & Johnson, in a statement.
Experts have said coronavirus boosters will be needed down the road because the efficacy of these vaccines, including the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna shots, wanes over time. Johnson & Johnson's trial data provides further support that a COVID-19 booster shot could go a long way in providing continued protection from the virus.
"Our single-shot vaccine generates strong immune responses and long-lasting immune memory. And, when a booster of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine is given, the strength of protection against COVID-19 further increases," Mammen said.
Pfizer's own data indicates booster shots can restore its vaccine's efficacy to 95%. A third dose of the Moderna vaccine, given six months after the initial two doses, also significantly boosts immunity, according to the company's data.
Despite President Biden's earlier announcement that the U.S. plans to get booster shots in the arms of already-vaccinated Americans, it's unclear when health officials would approve such a move for the general public.
Health officials have already recommended a third shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for a more limited population people who are moderately to severely immunocompromised. But last week, the Food and Drug Administration recommended against approval of a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people 16 years and older.
That ruling didn't weigh in on a Johnson & Johnson booster shot, however.
The company says it has provided available data to the FDA and plans to submit the data to other regulators, the World Health Organization and National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups worldwide to inform decision-making on vaccine administration strategies.
Data from Johnson & Johnson's booster trial showed strong protection against severe COVID-19 infections soon after the second-dose was administered.
At least 28 days after a patient received the second Johnson & Johnson shot, data showed at least 75% overall efficacy against severe or critical COVID-19 infections, across all age cohorts and all countries included in the study.
Doses of the Johnson & Johnson Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption
Doses of the Johnson & Johnson Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.
Specifically for the U.S., the company reported a 74% efficacy against critical COVID-19 infections. The booster also provided 89% efficacy against hospitalization and 83% against COVID-19-related death.
A booster shot after two months provided 94% efficacy against COVID-19 in the U.S. According to the company, as early as two weeks after the booster shot was administered data showed 100% efficacy against critical COVID-19 infections.
When a booster of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was given six months after the single-shot dose, antibody levels increased nine-fold one week after the booster and continued to climb to 12-fold higher four weeks after the booster.
Many people assume that when a person experiences side effects after COVID-19 vaccination, it is a sign that the vaccine is working.
This may leave people without such symptoms wondering whether their vaccinations have been successful. According to a new research letter from scientists at Johns Hopkins Medicine, this is not a valid concern.
The Johns Hopkins research confirmed that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are exceedingly effective at generating a strong antibody response regardless of whether a person develops side effects or not.
Stay informed with live updates on the current COVID-19 outbreak and visit our coronavirus hub for more advice on prevention and treatment.
The letters senior author Dr. Aaron Milstone, associate hospital epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, explains,
It wasnt known if a lack of symptoms following vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection would indicate a less-than-adequate antibody response in people who received either the [Pfizer-BioNTech] or Moderna vaccines, so we studied an available group of staff from our hospital to see if there were any connections.
There were none. In the study, 99.9% of all the participants successfully developed the antibodies the vaccines are designed to promote.
The research letter appears in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
The surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is covered in spikes that latch on to healthy cells, allowing the virus to enter and infect. Both of the vaccines tested the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines deliver to the body a set of instructions, or mRNA, to make the spike protein.
In response, the bodys immune system begins producing immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies as a defense against the spike protein. The IgG antibodies destroy and eliminate the spike protein from the body.
Should the immune system encounter SARS-CoV-2, the spikes of the virus trigger the release of these antibodies, which neutralize the virus or limit the severity of any disease it causes.
It is of note that none of the available COVID-19 vaccines contain any living or dead SARS-CoV-2.
In total, 954 healthcare workers at Johns Hopkins Medical took part in the research. All of them had received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, and some had previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
What indicated an infection was either having a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within 14 days of the second vaccine dose or having an elevated IgG antibody count before receiving the vaccine.
The researchers asked the participants to report their reactions to their first and second inoculations. They could report none, mild including injection site pain, headache, and mild fatigue or clinically significant symptoms, such as fever, chills, and fatigue.
Just 5% of the participants reported side effects after their first inoculation, although 43% said that they experienced side effects after the second one.
People who took the Moderna vaccine were more likely to have clinically significant symptoms after either dose, and those who had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience them after the first shot but not the second.
Whether individuals experienced side effects or not, almost all 953 out of 954 developed IgG antibodies 14 days after their last vaccine dose.
The lone exception was an individual taking immunosuppressant medication.
Some people had especially high IgG levels, which the researchers link to a few possible factors. These include reporting clinically significant symptoms, being female, being under the age of 60 years, having received the Moderna vaccine, and having had earlier SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
Lead author Dr. Amanda Debes, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, tells HUB, the news center for Johns Hopkins:
The findings suggest that either spike mRNA vaccine will work well against SARS-CoV-2, even if a person doesnt experience symptoms after vaccination or if they had a prior infection by the virus. This should help reduce anxieties that the vaccines will be less effective in either situation.
For live updates on the latest developments regarding the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, click here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 21, 2021
MILWAUKEE Mayor Tom Barrett and Health Commissioner Kirsten Johnson have announced a new COVID-19 vaccine incentive program for City of Milwaukee residents. Beginning Thursday, September 23, any City of Milwaukee resident over the age of 12 who receive their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine at the Northwest Health Center (7630 W. Mill Rd.) or Southside Health Center (1639 S. 23rd St.) will also receive one $100 U.S. Bank gift card on site, while supplies last.
Every vaccine brings us one step closer to the other side of this pandemic, said Health Commissioner Kirsten Johnson. We are hopeful that this incentive program will encourage Milwaukee residents to prioritize getting their COVID-19 vaccine.
Everyone who is eligible to receive the free COVID-19 vaccine is eligible to receive this gift card, regardless of insurance, ID, or citizenship. The Milwaukee Health Department vaccination sites have the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine available for anyone 12 years of age and older or the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 available for anyone 18 years of age and older. Individuals under the age of 18 will need to have a parent or guardian present to receive their vaccine and incentive.
Currently, 53.6% of Milwaukee residents 12 years of age and older are fully vaccinated, with 59.5% having received their first dose. Information about this incentive program can be found at milwaukee.gov/COVIDvax. Any questions regarding this program can be directed to the COVID-19 Hotline at 414-286-6800.
###
Missouri is one of several states that last summer announced a lottery to reward people who get the COVID-19 vaccine and entice others to get the shot.
Since Gov. Mike Parson announced the $900,000 lottery in mid-July, more than 668,000 doses of the vaccine have been administered to Missouri residents.
But only 45,000 of the adults who received the vaccine since the giveaways began entered the statewide drawing, a state health department spokeswoman said. That's fewer than 15% of the more than 600,000 people who have entered the drawing, which ends next month.
Still, Missouri State Health Director Donald Kauerauf thinks the lottery has been successful. He said the state is using multiple approaches to inspire people to get the shot, and every strategy helps.
Theres not a single initiative that is the golden ticket to get everyone to get vaccinated, Kauerauf said. That doesnt exist. If it did, every state in the country would do it.
The lottery awards $10,000 prizes to people who have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine. The 900 winners are split between those who received the vaccine before the lottery was announced and those who received it after. The state announces 180 winners every two weeks.
The fourth of five drawings is this week.
Its difficult to identify the reasons people get vaccinated, said Chris Prener, a sociologist at St Louis University who tracks coronavirus and vaccination data.
Its not like we're systematically tracking why people are getting vaccinated when they get vaccinated, he said.
Prener questions the lotterys effectiveness, given that the average number of daily vaccinations in the state was already increasing this summer before the lottery was announced. The number peaked in August before decreasing again.
Nearly 55% of Missourians 12 and older are fully vaccinated.
The delta variant-fueled surge in cases could have prompted people to get vaccinated. The federal Food and Drug Administrations full approval of the Pfizer vaccine in August and several companies vaccine mandates could also have driven the number up.
Incentive programs sometimes discourage people and sow distrust of the vaccine, Prener said.
People see a lottery and say, 'Well, if it's such a good thing, why do you need me to get paid to do it?' he said. For public health folks, they don't want to draw people's minds to a place where there isn't just innate good in vaccination.
Academics have published several studies on the effectiveness of lotteries and other vaccine incentive programs in the past few months, with conflicting assessments of their effectiveness.
One study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that Ohios Vax-a-Million vaccine lottery had little to no effect on vaccine uptake.
Rewards can help encourage people to get medical care, said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease professor at the University of California, San Francisco who has studied incentives for public health measures to reduce HIV rates.
However, when rewards are left up to chance, as with a lottery, people are less likely to be motivated, she said.
The most effective way is to pay people to get vaccinated to the tune of a couple of hundred dollars at least, Gandhi said.
It's usually, frankly, money, she said. Not an offer of money, like a lottery. But money.
Because Missouris lottery has a higher number of winners with smaller payouts, people might be more likely to take part in the lottery here than in a state with smaller numbers of big-ticket winners, Gandhi said.
Most people who take part in lotteries probably dont need much persuading, she said.
What we saw across the country was that incentives worked better when people were likely going to get the vaccine anyway, she said. And so even something small, like doughnuts and a beer, all of these were working.
Follow Sarah on Twitter: @petit_smudge
Jon Fingas is a contributing writer at Engadget.More posts by this contributor
Theres a real chance youll need proof of a COVID-19 vaccination to enter certain venues, and Apple is hoping it can save you the hassle of digging up an email or carrying a physical card in your pocket. The company is bringing verifiable COVID-19 vaccination cards to Wallet as part of a future iPhone software update. The feature will take advantage of the international SMART Health Cards standard (already in use in several states) to produce proof of vaccination, sign it with a private key and create a public key to verify your info.
The just-released iOS 15 already lets you store verifiable vaccination and test results in the Health app using the same standard. Youll receive your records through QR codes, downloadable files or healthcare providers who use Health Records on iPhone.
Apple is promising strict privacy for all your data. The company wont have access to your imported or shared records, and all info must be encrypted and securely stored when transferred elsewhere. The tech giant also cant see your vaccination card or how youve used it. You can share information with approved third-party apps, but only on a one-time basis.
Apple didnt say when it might release the card update. This wont thrill you if youre anxious about the very concept of sharing your vaccination status with a concert venue or restaurant. However, it should at least streamline the process important when youre already running late for a show.
Editors note: This article originally appeared on Engadget.
BioNTechs founding story dates back to the late 1990s, when CEO and co-founder Uur ahin, his wife and co-founder zlem Treci, and the rest of the seven-person founding team began their research.
Focused specifically on an area dubbed New Technologies, mRNA stood out as one area with tremendous potential to deliver the teams ultimate goal: Developing treatments personalized to an individual and their specific ailments, rather than the traditional approach of finding a solution that happens to work generally at the population level.
ahin, along with Mayfield venture partner Ursheet Parikh, joined us at TechCrunch Disrupt 2021 to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine, his long journey as a founder, what it takes to build a biotech platform company, and whats coming next from BioNTech and the technologies its developing to help prevent other outbreaks and treat todays deadliest diseases.
At that time, mRNA was not potent enough, ahin recalled. It was just a weak molecule. But the idea was great, so we invested many years in an academic setting to improve that. And in 2006, we realized Wow, this is now working. Okay, its time to initiate a company.'
FDA approval of COVID-19 vaccine not enough to convince vaccine-hesitant caregivers to roll up their sleeves McKnight's Senior Living
The COVID-19 vaccination rate offers a rare opportunity for survey researchers to benchmark their data against a high-profile outcome other than an election in this case, the share of adults whove received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine as documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This kind of benchmarking helps to shed light on whether polls continue to provide reasonably accurate information about the U.S. public on this subject.
A Pew Research Center analysis finds that public polling on COVID-19 vaccination has tracked the CDC rate fairly closely. Polling estimates of the adult vaccination rate have been within about 2.8 percentage points, on average, of the rate calculated by the CDC. Around a quarter (22%) of the polls differed from the CDC estimate by less than 1 percentage point.
This analysis includes 98 public polls conducted by 19 different polling organizations from Dec. 29, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Researchers gauged the accuracy of each poll by computing the difference between the polls published estimate and the vaccination rate from the CDC on the day the poll concluded.
Researchers collected 98 public polls conducted by 19 different pollsters from Dec. 29, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Researchers gauged the accuracy of each poll by computing the difference between the polls published estimate and the vaccination rate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the day the poll concluded. CDC numbers were collected from their publicly available API. For a complete list of polls that were included in this analysis, click here.
When polls differed from the CDC rate, they often came in higher rather than lower but not always. One notable difference between how polling fared for the 2020 presidential election and the COVID-19 vaccination rate is that polling errors regarding the vaccine have been less systematic (i.e., in the same direction). One way to measure systematic error, also known as bias, is by letting polls thatunderestimated the CDC benchmark cancel out polls thatoverestimated the benchmark. (Researchers call this computing the signed average error across polls.)
In this analysis, once over- and underestimates of the CDC benchmark were allowed to cancel each other out, polls differed from the CDC rate by just +0.3 percentage points on average, with the net result being that the polls almost exactly matched the vaccination rate. For comparison, according to ananalysisof national polls conducted in the final two weeks of the 2020 presidential election by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, polls understated Trumps share in the certified vote by 3.3 percentage points and overstated Bidens share in the certified vote by 1.0 percentage point.
To be sure, the vaccination rate among Americans was increasing while each poll was being conducted, making it difficult to pin down the exact difference in the vaccination rates reported in polling data and the official CDC rates. The median duration of the polls in this analysis was six days. If the polls accuracy is judged based on the CDC rate for the mid-date of the data collection, rather than the final date, the average absolute difference would be 3.1 percentage points instead of 2.8. Further complicating the comparisons is the fact that the CDC rates themselves are not necessarily without error because of issues such as delays in jurisdictions reporting vaccinations.
As other research has suggested, poll results may differ from the CDC vaccination rate (and from each other) because of differences in how pollsters asked about vaccine status. The most common type of question in this analysis asks something like Have you gotten vaccinated for the coronavirus? with answer options for Yes or No. Other questions asked respondents if they knew anyone who had been vaccinated and included an answer option for the respondent to say they had received the vaccine themselves. Some pollsters asked if respondents planned to get vaccinated with an option to indicate that they had already received the vaccine. The average absolute difference for the 76 questions using a yes/no format was 2.8 percentage points, compared with 3.0 points for all other questions (22 questions used a different format).
In some ways, the fact that the polling industry has done a better job estimating vaccinations than voting is not surprising. Election polls face challenges that dont exist for non-election polls measuring public opinion on issues like abortion or immigration. Election polls focus on a future behavior (will you vote? for whom?) and need to screen for respondents who are likely voters.
Another kind of benchmarking involves pollsters asking questions that are also on gold standard, high-response-rate government surveys and comparing their results to the government result. While this is an important and worthwhile exercise, those analyses arent comparing a survey to an objective outcome, but rather one survey to another.
Coronavirus vaccinations rates present pollsters with a rare opportunity to compare their results on a high-profile outcome that is both fully available to the U.S. adult population (rather than only citizens and registered voters) and has a known truth that pollsters can compare to. Unlike the polls less-than-stellar performance in the 2020 election, the results from this analysis suggest that the polls have done well in tracking growth in the share of adults receiving the vaccines.
While vaccine hesitancy is an age-old phenomenon, it has found a newand profoundly frustratingexpression during the COVID-19 pandemic that has led some physicians to reportedly refuse care to patients who have forgone SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
But as infuriating as it can be to treat patients who refuse the safe and highly effective COVID-19 vaccines that are widely and freely available in the U.S., doctors should keep in mind their professional ethical obligations. It turns out there is extensive guidance for just such a situation.
Ethics in our profession is about making hard choices in the face of conflicting values, said AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD. An important value for meand this is inherent within our AMA Code of Medical Ethicsis a physicians duty to provide care for the patient, even when that choice is difficult.
The short answer
Elliott Crigger, PhD, is the AMAs director of ethics policy and secretary to the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. He expanded on Dr. Harmons forceful view.
In general, no, a physician should not refuse a patient because the individual is not vaccinated or declines to be vaccinated, Crigger said.
Physicians have a clear duty to provide care in emergencies, Crigger noted, citing principle VI in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, which states that a physician shall, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate and the environment in which to provide medical care.
But the physicians commitment to care for those who are sick or injured carries with it a duty to treat in other circumstances as well, including public health crises, when, according to Opinion 8.3, Physician Responsibility for Disaster Response and Preparedness, doctors may face greater than usual risks to [their] own safety, health or life.
Moreover, Opinion 1.1.2, Prospective Patients, bars physicians from refusing care to patients based solely on their infectious disease status or for any reason that would constitute discrimination against a class or category of patients.
The AMA recognizes the critical importance of scientific integrity, transparency and public trust in the fight to contain the global spread of COVID-19. Stay updated with the AMA on COVID-19 and vaccine development.
Learn more with the AMA about how to answer the question, Can physicians decline unvaccinated patients?
Extenuating circumstances
The strength of a physicians obligation to treat may, however, vary based on the conditions, Crigger noted.
Determining whether, in a particular instance, a physician may ethically decline a patient requires careful reflection, he said.
For example, in the context of a highly transmissible disease that poses significant risk of severe illness for which a safe, effective vaccine is available, the decision to accept or decline a patient must balance three factors:
These are among the questions to be considered.
What are the unvaccinated patients medical needs and how urgent are those needs? In emergency situations, physicians may not ethically refuse to provide care, regardless of the patients vaccination status. But it may be justifiable to decline to provide routine care, such as an annual physical examination, for an otherwise healthy patient.
What is the nature of the physicians practice and patient population? Physicians may decline a patient if meeting the individuals medical needs would seriously compromise the physicians ability to provide care needed by other patients, Crigger said, again citing Opinion 1.1.2.
Likewise, if an unvaccinated patient would pose significant risk to other patients in the practicefor example, if the physicians other patients are immune-compromised or cannot be vaccinated for medical reasonsit may be ethically justifiable to refuse an unvaccinated individual, the more so with the greater the risk of severe disease for other patients in the practice.
Can accommodation be made to minimize the risk an unvaccinated patient may pose to other patients and staff? For example, can unvaccinated and possibly infectious patients be seen in a dedicated examination room or at dedicated times? Or can they be tested negative for COVID-19 before receiving care? Can care reasonably be provided via telemedicine? Opinion 1.2.12, Ethical Practice in Telemedicine, provides additional guidance.
Can the practice provide adequate personal protective equipment to minimize risk of exposure to physicians and other staff? This has been a vexing question in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, when initial supplies of PPE were extremely limited for some practices, Crigger said. As PPE has become more readily available, the responsibility has increased for physician practices and health care organizations to ensure adequate supplies of PPE to enable them to accept even unvaccinated patients.
Can the patient be persuaded to accept vaccination? When an unvaccinated patient presents for care, physiciansor other appropriate staffhave an opportunity to explore with the patient why they are not vaccinated, respectfully acknowledge and address their concerns, and seek to persuade them to accept vaccination to protect themselves and others.
In sum, Crigger said, A patients vaccination status alone is not sufficient reason, ethically, to turn that individual away.
Visit the AMA COVID-19 resource center for clinical information, guides and resources, and updates on advocacy and medical ethics.
