About a year ago, state and local governments in the United States began urging residents to adjust their work, school and social lives in response to the spread of a novel coronavirus first identified in China.
Americans could agree on a few things at that early stage of the U.S. outbreak. With restaurants, stores and other public spaces around the country closing their doors, most saw COVID-19 as a serious economic threat to the nation. Most approved of their state and local officials initial responses to the outbreak. And they generally had confidence in hospitals and medical centers to handle the needs of those stricken with the virus.
As the pandemic wore on, however, there was less and less common ground. Indeed, the biggest takeaway about U.S. public opinion in the first year of the coronavirus outbreak may be the extent to which the decidedly nonpartisan virus met with an increasingly partisan response. Democrats and Republicans disagreed over everything from eating out in restaurants to reopening schools, even as the actual impact of the pandemic fell along different fault lines, including race and ethnicity, income, age and family structure. Americas partisan divide stood out even by international standards: No country was as politically divided over its governments handling of the outbreak as the U.S. was in a 14-nation survey last summer.
As the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. extends into its second year with more than 500,000 dead and major challenges to the nations economy Pew Research Center looks back at some of the key patterns in public attitudes and experiences we observed in the first year of the crisis.
Our first COVID-19 survey went into the field on March 10, 2020. We interviewed nearly 9,000 Americans over the course of the next seven days a period that saw the World Health Organization declare the virus a pandemic; President Donald Trump declare a national emergency and ban travel to the U.S. from parts of Europe; and the White House advise Americans to avoid gatherings of more than 10 people.
News about the virus was breaking so rapidly that public concern ticked up noticeably even within the weeklong field period of our survey. By mid-March, all 50 states had reported coronavirus cases. By the end of the month, the U.S. had more cases than any other country, and a majority of Americans were under some kind of stay-at-home order.
There were already some indications of the partisan divide over the virus in that first sounding. While majorities in both parties anticipated the economic problems hurtling toward the nation, Democrats and Republicans differed sharply over whether the virus was a major threat to the health of the U.S. population. About six-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (59%) said it was, compared with only a third of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. That 26 percentage point gap would grow to around 40 points as spring turned to summer and then fall.
Other divides also became apparent in that first survey. They included heightened health concerns among Black and Hispanic Americans, as well as greater economic concerns among workers with lower incomes and less formal schooling. Both would become recurring themes throughout the pandemic and the severe recession it brought on.
Overall, our first polling on COVID-19 showed that the public had mixed expectations about how the outbreak would play out in the months ahead. That wasnt necessarily a surprise, given that most Americans had little or no experience with a pandemic. In mid-March, only around a third of U.S. adults (36%) expected the virus to pose a major threat to the day-to-day life of their community.
By late March and early April, the mood had clearly changed. Two-thirds of Americans including majorities in both parties and across all major demographic groups saw COVID-19 as a significant crisis at that time. Large majorities saw a recession or depression coming, predicted the pandemic would last more than six months, said the worst was still to come and anticipated that there could be at least some disruptions to Americans ability to vote in the presidential election in November. All of those things would turn out to be true.
The arrival of a first-in-a-lifetime pandemic created a sudden need for average people to find and process large amounts of complicated and rapidly evolving information. Americans turned to many different sources for that information, but two commonly cited ones, the White House and the news media, brought out especially sharp partisan differences in attitudes.
In late March, views of how Trump was handling the outbreak were already starkly split along party lines. Around eight-in-ten Republicans (83%) said the president was doing an excellent or good job, including 47% who said he was doing an excellent job. A nearly identical share of Democrats (81%) rated his response as only fair or poor, including 56% who said it was poor.
In early April, around two-thirds of Republicans (66%) said Trump was quick to take the major steps needed in response to international reports of the outbreak; 92% of Democrats said he was too slow off the mark. In the same survey, 69% of Republicans said Trump was accurately characterizing the severity of the COVID-19 situation; an even larger share of Democrats (77%) said he was making it seem better than it really was. Fall came but the partisan divide remained: In early September, around eight-in-ten Republicans (79%) said the president was giving the country the right message on the virus; a bigger proportion of Democrats (90%) said he was delivering the wrong message.
If views were partisan when it came to the president, they were only slightly less so when it came to the news media. In mid-March, 89% of all Americans said they were following news about the outbreak very or fairly closely. But Democrats were already much more likely than Republicans to say the media had covered the pandemic at least somewhat well (80% vs. 59%), while Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say the media had exaggerated the risks of the outbreak (76% vs. 49%).
As the pandemic continued, divisions over the media became more apparent. In late April, majorities of Democrats said the news coverage of the outbreak was getting them the information they needed (73%), was largely accurate (66%), worked for the benefit of the public (66%) and helped the country (63%). Fewer than half of Republicans agreed with each statement.
By September, around eight-in-ten Democrats (81%) continued to say the media were doing very or somewhat well covering the outbreak, but the proportion of Republicans who agreed had fallen below half (45%).
On many subjects related to the coronavirus, public attitudes differed not only by political party, but within each party, depending on where people turned for news and information. Republicans who relied on Trump and the White House for COVID-19 news, for example, were consistently more likely than Republicans who turned elsewhere for news to rate Trumps response highly and the medias response poorly.
Meanwhile, with the perceived trustworthiness of information from both the White House and the media deeply divided along partisan lines, Americans expressed concerns about the proliferation of misinformation.
As early as mid-March, around half of Americans (48%) said they had seen at least some information about COVID-19 that seemed completely made up, on subjects ranging from the origin of the virus to its risks and potential cures. In early June, sizable shares in both parties but especially Republicans said they were finding it harder to tell what was true and what was false about the outbreak. And conspiracy theories began to gain a foothold: In the same June survey, a quarter of U.S. adults saw at least some truth in the theory that powerful people had intentionally planned the outbreak. Republicans were about twice as likely as Democrats (34% vs. 18%) to say the claim was probably or definitely true.
It may seem hard to believe today, but in late March 2020, there was strong bipartisan support for a variety of government-imposed shutdown measures. At the time, broad majorities in both parties supported restricting international travel to the U.S., canceling sports and entertainment events, closing K-12 schools, asking people to avoid gatherings of more than 10 people and halting indoor dining at restaurants.
The restrictions didnt always wear well over time, particularly as governors and other leaders tried to navigate both public health and economic considerations. By early April, around eight-in-ten Democrats (81%) said their greater concern was that state-level restrictions on public activity would be lifted too quickly, a view shared by only around half of Republicans (51%). That 30-point difference would grow to 40 points by early May.
In addition to differences over government restrictions, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say that social distancing or even personal actions more broadly made a big difference in slowing the outbreak. Around seven-in-ten Democrats (69%) said in early May that social distancing measures were helping reduce the spread of the virus a lot, compared with around half of Republicans (49%). In mid-June, 73% of Democrats said the actions of ordinary Americans affected the spread of the virus a great deal, compared with 44% of Republicans.
Partisans also differed over the reasons behind the rising case counts in the summer of 2020. Most Republicans accepted Trumps claim that the growing number of cases was primarily a result of increased testing, rather than a combination of testing and a real increase in infections.Eight-in-ten Democrats pointed to more infections, not just more testing.
And then there was the subject of masks. While surveys consistently showed that a majority of Americans reported wearing masks in stores and other businesses, divisions by party stood out. In early June, 76% of Democrats said they had worn a mask in stores all or most of the time in the past month, compared with 53% of Republicans.
Mask-wearing became more widespread in both parties as time passed, particularly as Trump donned a mask in public for the first time and the virus moved from more Democratic parts of the country to more Republican ones. But an analysis of volunteered survey responses in September underscored the ongoing differences in opinion over face coverings:
I live in Missouri in a smaller town, less than 5K. Everyone thinks its made up, no one wears masks or social distances. [] I dont feel safe or protected by my managers but I also cant say anything because I need the job. Woman, 36
I wear [a mask] for at least 8 hours a day along with a face shield, gloves and lab coat. I see approximately 100 patients a day and when I hear people complain about having to wear it for 20 minutes or those who refuse to wear it, I just have to scream silently inside. Woman, 59
I have chronic asthma so I am fearful of being exposed to the coronavirus. It makes me extremely angry to go out and see people not wearing masks or keeping social distance. And my intense dislike of Trump has grown because he lies about the coronavirus and there is blood on his hands. His lack of telling the truth about the coronavirus and his attempt to use the public health systems of the U.S. for his own political ends are the equivalent of murdering thousands of people. Man, 73
Forced to wear masks for a virus that killed less than 10,000 people, I am more likely to be murdered in Kansas City than catch COVID there. Man, 28
The entire unnecessary shutdown of the country got my husband furloughed for 9 weeks, more government overreach with mask orders, people are just so terrified to live its disgusting, so the ones of us like me who arent scared get treated like we are awful people Woman, 31
Being forced to wear a completely useless mask when going into businesses. I have bad allergies and cant breathe well. The CDC has reported that the masks are useless, which to me indicates they are virtue signaling items and are being used to control people. Woman, 70
In the bigger picture, the disputes over shutdowns, social distancing and masks pointed to partisan differences over whether the country should place greater emphasis on stopping the spread of the virus or on restarting the economy.
The vast majority of Democrats (94%) said in the summer that the more effective way to fix the economy was to reduce infections to a level where more people would feel comfortable going to stores, schools and other workplaces. Republicans were divided: Half said, for the sake of the economy, these kinds of places should open up even without a significant reduction in infections.
Pandemic-related closures forced Americans to make wholesale changes in their everyday lives, from the way they attended religious services to the way they connected with friends and family, attended exercise classes, shopped for groceries and much more. Many of these activities moved online so much so that 53% of adults said in April that the internet had been essential to them during the first weeks of the outbreak.
Even personal living arrangements changed for a sizable share of the public: In a June survey, 22% of U.S. adults said they or someone they knew had moved because of the pandemic.
While people from all walks of life were personally affected, there were persistent partisan divides in Americans comfort level with a range of daily activities. In the summer of 2020, Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say they were comfortable going out to the grocery store, visiting with family or friends inside their home, going to a hair salon or barbershop, eating out in a restaurant, attending an indoor sports event or concert, and attending a crowded party. On some measures, Republicans became much more comfortable as the pandemic wore on, while Democrats remained more hesitant. In June, around two-thirds of Republicans (65%) said they would feel comfortable eating out at a restaurant, up from 29% in March, even as Democrats remained mostly uncomfortable with the idea.
Back-to-school season brought more partisan divides. In late July, 36% of Republicans but only 6% of Democrats said K-12 schools in their area should offer in-person classes five days a week; 41% of Democrats but only 13% of Republicans favored online classes five days a week. When asked about the factors local school districts should take into consideration when deciding whether to reopen, Democrats focused more on the possible health risks to students and teachers; Republicans focused more on the harms caused by the lack of in-person instruction, such as students falling behind and parents not being able to work with their children at home.
As the presidential election approached, Americans differed not only over whom they planned to vote for, but how they planned to cast their ballots. In a late summer survey, most registered voters who supported Joe Biden (58%) said they would vote by mail taking advantage of an expansion of that option due to the pandemic while roughly the same share of Trump supporters (60%) said they would vote in person on Election Day itself.
The holiday season brought further partisan divides. With health authorities cautioning against holiday travel, more than half of Americans (57%) said they had changed their Thanksgiving plans a great deal or some due to the pandemic. But Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to say they had done so (70% vs. 44%).
The pandemic didnt just expose partisan divides at nearly every turn. It also revealed stark racial and ethnic differences in health outcomes, financial duress and personal experiences with discrimination.
More than half a million Americans died of COVID-19 in the first year of the outbreak alone, with the death toll sometimes exceeding 4,000 people a day. But fatality rates were much higher among Black, Hispanic and other racial and ethnic minority groups than among White Americans. Not surprisingly, Black and Hispanic survey respondents were also consistently more likely than White adults to voice health concerns over the virus and to say they personally knew someone who had suffered serious health consequences because of it.
Already in April, around a quarter of Black Americans (27%) said they knew someone who had been hospitalized or died due to COVID-19. That figure would rise to 34% by May, 57% by August, 71% by November and 78% by February 2021. By then, around three-quarters of Hispanic Americans (74%) also said they knew someone who had died or been hospitalized, even as White and Asian Americans remained less likely to say so.
The rapid development of new vaccines was welcome news in the fight against COVID-19, but one that highlighted additional racial and ethnic differences. In surveys in May, September, November and February 2021, a majority of Americans said they would definitely or probably get a vaccine if one were available, but Black adults were consistently less likely than other adults to say this.
Besides the health disparities it exposed, the pandemic also led to greater financial hardship among Black and Hispanic adults, who were already more likely than other Americans (on average) to have lower incomes long before the outbreak began.
Hispanic Americans were especially affected by the downturn, often because they worked in the industries hit hardest by the recession. Just after the outbreak began in March, 49% of Hispanics compared with 33% of Americans overall said they or someone in their household had taken a pay cut or lost their job. By April, 61% of Hispanics versus 43% of the overall public said they or someone in their household had had one of these things happen to them.
Meanwhile, amid talk of the China virus from Trump and others, discrimination became another cause for concern during the pandemic, especially for Asian and Black Americans. In June, around four-in-ten Asian (39%) and Black (38%) adults said people had acted as if they were uncomfortable around them because of their race or ethnicity since the outbreak began. Asian and Black adults were also more likely to say they had been subject to slurs or jokes and to worry that someone might threaten or physically attack them because of their race or ethnicity.
The recession brought on by COVID-19 arrived with exceptional speed and severity: Unemployment rose more quickly in the first three months of the pandemic than it did in two years of the Great Recession.
But the downturn did not affect all Americans equally. It had an especially hard impact on lower-income workers, who often worked in jobs that could not be done remotely. A Pew Research Center analysis found that 90% of the total decrease in U.S. employment between February and March of last year 2.6 million out of 2.9 million lost jobs arose from positions that could not be teleworked.
By April, 52% of lower-income Americans said they or someone in their household had lost their job or taken a pay cut, compared with 42% of middle-income adults and 32% those in the upper income tier. That translated into greater difficulties paying bills: 53% of lower-income adults said they couldnt pay some of their bills that month, far higher than the proportion of middle- and upper-income Americans who said the same (26% and 11%, respectively).
Lower-income people were also much less likely to have emergency funds set aside to help them withstand the recession. While three-quarters of high-income Americans and around half (48%) of middle-income adults said in April that they had rainy day funds to cover three months of expenses, the same was true of only around a quarter (23%) of those in the lowest income tier.
The stimulus checks that Congress approved in late March 2020 were an important relief measure and one of the few policy steps that drew bipartisan support but Americans didnt use the money in the same ways. A large majority (71%) of lower-income adults who said they were expecting a government payment said they would use most of the money to pay bills or for some other essential need. Upper-income Americans were more likely to say they would put the money into savings, use it to pay off debt or do something else with it.
Many lower-income Americans turned to other sources of financial help. In an August survey, 44% said they had used money from their savings or retirement accounts to pay bills, while 35% said they had borrowed money from friends or family, 35% said they had gotten food from a food bank or similar organization and 37% said they had received government food assistance. Middle- and higher-income adults were far less likely to take each of those steps.
Given these and many other challenges, it may not be a surprise that lower-income Americans were among the likeliest groups to report high levels of psychological distress during the pandemic.
Another clear dividing line in the pandemic was age. A March 2020 survey found that while older Americans worried more about the health effects of the virus, younger Americans expressed more concern about its economic consequences, particularly since many of them were employed in service-sector jobs that were at higher risk from virus-related layoffs.
By early April, those risks were borne out: More than half (54%) of Americans ages 18 to 29 said they or someone in their household had taken a pay cut or lost their job because of the outbreak, considerably higher than the proportion of all Americans who said the same thing (43%).
For those young adults who were enrolled in college, the pandemic profoundly affected their experience. And early evidence suggested that the financial fallout from the COVID-19 recession might derail some students future plans to attend college: Applications for admission and financial aid in 2021 declined, particularly among economically disadvantaged youth.
With many jobs disappearing and the college experience altered, the share of young adults who were neither employed nor enrolled in school soared in the first few months of the pandemic. Between March and June 2020, the share of 16- to 24-year-olds who were disconnected from both work and school rose from 12% to 28%, the highest rate ever recorded for the month of June.
The difficult landscape forced many young adults to move elsewhere. Those ages 18 to 29 were the most likely group to say they had permanently or temporarily moved due to the pandemic. In many cases, they went back to a parents home: By July, a 52% majority of adults under the age of 30 were living with at least one parent, up from 47% in February and the highest percentage since the Great Depression.
While young people faced many challenges during the pandemic, so did parents. In April 2020, with schools around the country closed, roughly two-thirds (64%) of parents with children in elementary, middle or high school said they were at least somewhat worried about their kids falling behind because of the disruptions caused by the outbreak. By October, even as some schools had returned to in-person learning, those concerns had not diminished. At both points in time, lower-income parents were much more worried than middle- and upper-income parents.
Working parents with young children at home faced particular difficulties as they tried to balance their own job responsibilities with their children in tow.
In the early stages of the outbreak, most working parents with kids younger than 12 at home (62%) said it was very or somewhat easy to handle child care responsibilities under the new circumstances. That changed by the fall: In October, 52% of these parents said it was very or somewhat difficult to handle child care. Working moms were more likely than working dads to say it was hard to deal with these responsibilities. They were also more likely than working dads to face a variety of professional challenges during the outbreak, including feeling as though they couldnt give 100% at work because they were balancing their work and parenting duties.
Single moms, in particular, left the workforce in large numbers. Around two-thirds (67.4%) of unpartnered mothers with children younger than 18 at home were employed and on the job in September 2020, down from 76.1% a year earlier. That 9-point decrease was the biggest among all groups of parents, partnered or not, with especially sharp declines among Black and Hispanic single moms.
The coronavirus outbreaks effect on the 2020 presidential election would be hard to overstate. The pandemic changed the way tens of millions of Americans cast their ballots and almost certainly played a role in estimated turnout among eligible voters soaring to its highest level in 120 years. Every state and the District of Columbia saw turnout rise from 2016 levels, with many of the biggest increases occurring in places that held their elections entirely or mostly by mail.
The pandemic loomed large as a voting issue, too, albeit one that starkly divided supporters of the two major candidates. In a survey a month before the election, 82% of Biden supporters said COVID-19 would be very important to their vote, a view shared by just 24% of Trump supporters. After the election, Biden supporters again overwhelmingly pointed to the outbreak and, more specifically, Trumps handling of it as a major reason for their candidates victory, even as few Trump supporters agreed (86% vs. 18%, respectively). Majorities in both camps did agree that the expanded availability of early and mail-in voting was a major reason for the outcome.
When Biden took over from Trump in January, he quickly struck a different tone on COVID-19, warning that the nations death toll would climb in the months ahead and that the situation would get worse before it gets better. The new presidents first legislative priority was to try to push a $1.9 trillion relief plan through Congress in response to the ongoing public health and economic crisis. He simultaneously vowed that his administration would deliver 100 million vaccinations in its first 100 days in office.
Surveys in early 2021 showed that Americans continued to see the pandemic as a pressing issue in the months ahead. In January, around eight-in-ten Americans including majorities in both parties said strengthening the economy (80%) and dealing with the outbreak (78%) should be a top policy priority for Biden and the new Congress, higher than the share who said the same about all other issues asked about in the survey. In early February, seven-in-ten adults again including majorities of Democrats and Republicans said reducing the spread of infectious diseases should be a top long-term foreign policy goal for the nation.
While the economy began to show some signs of recovery in early 2021, the lasting imprint of the COVID-19 recession was coming into clearer view. In January, about half of non-retired adults (51%) said the economic impact of the outbreak would make it harder for them to achieve their long-term financial goals. That included 62% of those living in a household that had experienced job or wage losses during the pandemic.
There were also signs of rising public dissatisfaction with some aspects of the nations response to the outbreak. In mid-February, a declining share of Americans said public health officials and state and local elected officials were doing an excellent or good job responding to the outbreak, and around half (51%) said new variants of the coronavirus would lead to a major setback in the countrys efforts to control the disease.
At the same time, Americans expressed optimism on other fronts, including in their views of the new administration and the growing availability of vaccines. More than half the public (56%) said in mid-February that Bidens plans and policies would improve the nations response to the virus, and around three-quarters expected the national economy to improve a lot (51%) or a little (25%) if a large majority of Americans got the COVID-19 vaccine.
Willingness to get the vaccine was on the rise, too, including among people who had previously expressed much more skepticism. In the mid-February survey, around seven-in-ten Americans (69%) said they would definitely or probably get a vaccine or that they had already gotten at least the first dose. That was up from 60% who said they would definitely or probably get the vaccine in November 2020. A majority of Black Americans (61%) said they planned to get inoculated or had already been vaccinated, up from just 42% three months earlier.
Title photos, from left to right:Steve Pfost/Newsday via Getty Images;James Cavallini/BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images;Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images;Alex Wong/Getty Images;Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images. Photo illustration by Pew Research Center.
Though nearly 300 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines have been administered around the globe so far, the world still has a long way to go before we can think about declaring the pandemic over.
Vaccine distribution remains wildly inequitable, with wealthy countries vaccinating at far higher rates than low- and middle-income countries.
Meantime, with the scramble to ramp up manufacturing, there are concerns that the production of Covid-19 vaccines could cannibalize the ability of companies to make and distribute other vaccines, like those that protect against dangerous pathogens like rabies, tetanus, measles, and human papillomavirus.
advertisement
CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, is among the organizations thinking critically about these issues. Its also one of the partners along with the World Health Organization and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance in COVAX, an entity striving to expand access to scarce Covid vaccines on behalf of low- and middle-income countries.
As it has several times throughout the course of the pandemic, STAT spoke recently to Richard Hatchett, CEO of CEPI. Hatchett told us the group will later this week launch the strategy for its next set of goals and take part in an important discussion at the London think tank Chatham House aimed at finding ways to unblock the vaccine production bottlenecks without harming non-Covid vaccine production.
advertisement
Excerpts from the conversation are below, lightly edited for length and clarity.
In terms of CEPIs future, are you talking about the process of getting to next-generation Covid-19 vaccines? Or are you talking about the fact that there will be future pandemics and we need to start to prepare for them? Or both?
Its actually both. Were kind of poised between trying to think about how we can end the Covid pandemic, but also beginning to look at the institutions and things that we have set up and thinking about how we can carry those forward and the opportunities for pandemic preparedness in the period after.
Initially we were thinking about the next-generation vaccines as just offering attributes that you would want in vaccines for managing Covid for the long term. So, you know, low cost. Ideally in a single dose. Ease of administration might be factors. More thermal-stable products. But I think the introduction of the variants also forces us to think about multivalent vaccines [meaning they would protect against several strains of the virus] or vaccines that can be easily turned from one strain to another if we get into that kind of a dynamic.
But were also drawing lessons from this experience in turning toward the future and thinking about how we can systematically reduce or even eliminate the risk of future pandemics.
Flu vaccines have to be updated virtually annually, and their efficacy is far from ideal. It would be such a missed opportunity if the world follows that paradigm again and then never comes up with a pan-coronavirus vaccine. Wouldnt it be better to not follow the flu path if we didnt need to?
The answer is yes. And I think you will be pleased to hear that we are very shortly going to be putting out a call for proposals around were calling them fully protective betacoronavirus vaccines, which seem to be the main threat. [Both SARS-1, which caused a less widespread outbreak in 2003, and SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid, are betacoronaviruses.]
Theres been quite a buzz about that recently. Our timing seems to have been good. I mean, weve been working on gearing this initiative up for some time and didnt know that all these efforts were going to be attracting the attention that theyve attracted in the last month or so. But there are at least 20 groups around the world that are trying to move in that direction. And were going to be putting out a major initiative, and hopefully by the end of this month, actually.
But obviously, we dont know what the art of the possible is. And I think certainly in the near term, we need to be thinking about different strategies for ensuring that we can provide protection against the emerging variants.
A number of wealthy countries have locked up a lot of vaccine doses more than theyll actually need for their populations. Is this getting in the way of the rest of the world accessing vaccine? Should countries like the U.S. be saying to some of the manufacturers: Were not going to need that order. You can sell it to somebody else or were donating it to COVAX.
COVAX would welcome that and we are working through making sure that we are ready to receive and use promptly any doses that are contributed.
But I was in the U.S. government during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and actually I led the policy development process around vaccine donation, which led to the international donation program. H1N1 was nothing like SARS-CoV-2 in terms of its severity or impact. And yet the debate within a reasonably progressive administration in that pandemic was intense. And I can only imagine what it must be like inside governments now, which are struggling to get vaccine to meet their domestic demand.
Every government has to figure out for itself what it can do. For most of last year, we made the argument that there were two core pieces. One was that it was the right thing to do. The other was from enlightened self-interest, which was even if you protect your own population, all countries are interdependent on each other and entangled in a global economy that will continue to suffer if the pandemic isnt brought under control everywhere.
And the third argument that has entered the discussions and I think, somewhat to my surprise actually, seems to be the most impactful is the argument from biology that the virus is out there mutating. And it may be that your huge investment in vaccine is completely upended by variants that evade the immunity that the vaccine provides. And theres been a real sea change, with G7 and other wealthy nations really realizing they do need to figure out how to end the pandemic.
Do you think theres room to be a little bit more generous or a little bit more accepting of the notion that other people have a right to vaccine too?
Im fully in the choir. I might be your associate pastor.
One other thing that I dont know if its on your radar screen but were having a two-day meeting at Chatham House to talk about supply-chain concerns. Whats happening right now is that all of the vaccine manufacturers who have achieved some kind of positive Phase 3 result are now really dialing up their manufacturing. And I think there are nine or 10 vaccines that have been approved by some regulatory authority, somewhere. Theyre all dialing up their production simultaneously.
So what youve got is a potentially very concerning situation where the main types of vaccine depend largely on a relatively narrowly defined set of critical inputs, whether these are consumables or raw materials that theyre all depending on. And that actually other vaccines and other biological medical products depend on as well.
Vials and vial stoppers?
Exactly. The bags. The stoppers. The tubing. There are actually chemical raw materials and other things as well. And we were beginning to get signals from individual vaccine manufacturers that they are on relatively thin ice in terms of supplies to continue their manufacturing. Simultaneously we were having conversations with some of the upstream providers of these critical supplies, hearing about lengthening back-order times and compensatory behaviors of the companies that rely on these materials placing larger orders because they were concerned they were going to need to stockpile or hoard.
Which makes it worse?
Which makes it worse. Vicious cycle. And then youve also got the overlay of the countries being increasingly antsy and willing to impose export controls or in the case of the United States, to use the Defense Production Act. And so it was a concern seeing all of these trend lines that will intersect not too far in the future and could actually result in a compromise even of the existing capacity.
Its easy for world leaders to think that the solution is just creating more manufacturing capacity. And thats all well and good if the upstream supply issues are sorted out and you can make more vaccine. But just having more square footage isnt it going to result in more vaccine if the system has got a sort of upstream bottleneck.
Is there a risk theyre going to have to start siphoning off materials needed for the production of regular vaccines?
Well, I think its something that people are concerned about. The estimated global aggregate production of vaccines was in the range of 3.5 billion to 5.5 billion doses, pre-Covid. And what we are being told by the vaccine manufacturers, based on their projections, is that theyre aspiring to produce 10 billion to 12 billion or 14 billion doses of Covid vaccines alone in 2021. So youre looking at a huge uptick in terms of vaccine production.
There are concerns that the consumption of resources to produce those vaccines could have an impact on the production of non-Covid vaccines. And we obviously want to prevent that from happening.
We need the stakeholders to understand the different stresses that each one is under the countries, the vaccine manufacturers, the upstream suppliers and to think about possible solutions. The solutions that are available to governments, in particular, can be quite blunt instruments. And if they arent used carefully, they can potentially be counterproductive.
I havent yet been vaccinated. But I am looking forward to the day.
Me too.
Only teachers and staff at schools of Pre-K, K-12, DECAL licensed or exempt childcare programs are eligible at this time.
ATLANTA Teachers and staff across the state can finally roll up their sleeves to get the COVID-19 vaccine in Georgia. Educators have been pushing Gov. Brian Kemp to expand eligibility to include them -- and the day has finally come.
Kemp made the announcement last week that they'd be eligible, along with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their caregivers, and parents of children with complex medical conditions who are at high risk for COVID complications.
Only teachers and staff at schools of Pre-K, K-12, DECAL licensed or exempt childcare programs are eligible at this time, the governor's office said. It does not include staff at colleges and universities.
The governor has stressed the need for children to return to face-to-face instruction.
"To ensure that happens as quickly as possible, effective March 8, Pre-K, K through 12, public and private school teachers and faculty and the Department of Early Care Learning educators and staff will now be eligible for the vaccine," he said last week.
A representative with Kemp's office confirmed that 83,000 doses of the newly-approved Johnson & Johnson vaccine will arrive Monday and Tuesday, with some educators getting the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine.
For a complete breakdown - and to see if you are eligible - click here.
Those who are not covered under these categories can register at the Georgia Department of Public Health's MyVaccineGeorgia website for email updates and learn when they will be eligible to receive the vaccine.
The state has a total of nine mass coronavirus vaccination sites across the state. Four of them are open now -- in Fulton, Bibb, Dougherty and Habersham counties. The remaining five sites -- in Chatham, Ware, Washington, Bartow and Muscogee counties -- will open on March 17.
Massachusetts continues to press on in the effort to vaccinate state residents as quickly as possible to protect against COVID-19.
Officials have been providing frequent updates on the endeavor to get doses of the COVID-19 vaccines into the arms of state residents encountering more than a few snags along the way. Below, we have a summary of what you should know this week about the vaccination rollout in Massachusetts:
Gov. Charlie Baker announced last week that the state will allow educators to begin signing up for appointments at all vaccination sites starting Thursday, March 11. The update came after the federal government moved to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to teachers at pharmacies. The update from Baker also came as local pressure ramped up on the governor to put out a more aggressive teacher vaccination program, with the state pushing to require schools to begin fully reopening in April.
Earlier in the week, some lawmakers were pressing Baker to give teachers priority access to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. State Rep. Patrick Kearney and 20 other legislators requested that the roughly 72,000 public school teachers, as well as administrators and staff, be given the Johnson & Johnson vaccine so that when they are forced back into the classroom by DESE it is safe.
The letter was published a few days before Baker moved to open vaccine eligibility to teachers, but efforts to facilitate the quick inoculation of educators continue to be put forward this week. Unions representing teachers and firefighters are expected to meet Wednesday with the states health and human services secretary to present their proposal to have firefighters administer COVID-19 vaccines to school workers, The Boston Globe reports.
Baker said last week that the expectation is that an initial shipment from Johnson & Johnson to Massachusetts will include thousands of doses from the companys current 3.9 million-dose inventory. The governor said he expects those doses to be distributed pretty evenly across the network of small and large vaccination sites in the state. But the initial shipment will be followed by a pause in deliveries for a few weeks as Johnson & Johnson ramps up production.
You probably wont see really significant amounts of additional vaccine until later this month, Baker said.
Barnstable County officials announced last week that they will dispense 1,200 doses of the one-shot vaccine this week, starting with about 600 doses on Tuesday and about 600 more on Thursday at the Cape Cod Community College gymnasium.
The newly-approved vaccine doesnt need to be kept frozen or followed by a booster shot, like its Moderna and Pfizer counterparts. Officials, including Baker, are raising concerns that even if decisions to send the shots to harder-to-reach communities make practical sense, doing so could drive perceptions of a two-tiered vaccine system with marginalized communities potentially feeling they are getting an inferior vaccine. In a call between governors and Biden administration officials, Baker stressed the need for health officials to clearly communicate the benefits of the one-shot vaccine.
In what is becoming a weekly occurrence, the number of new vaccination appointments posted Thursday for Massachusetts were filled within hours after their release, which state officials blamed on a limited supply of doses from federal authorities.
No new first-dose appointments were available at three of the states mass vaccination sites Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Reggie Lewis Center last week. By 10:40 a.m., the state announced that all appointments at mass vaccination sites had been booked.
Unfortunately due to limited supply, it will take about a month for all eligible residents to secure an appointment, officials wrote on Twitter. Thank you for your patience. Please check back next week.
In the three weeks leading up to last week, Massachusetts had been posting upwards of 50,000 new vaccine appointments online each Thursday for the states mass vaccination sites. But last Thursday morning, just 12,000 such slots were available and none at three of the states largest sites.
Baker said last week the main reason for the change was that its time for residents who already got their first dose at those high-volume locations last month to get their second dose. And since there has been no major increases in total supply, those second doses are taking up an increasingly large percentage of the states available vaccines. Baker estimated that more than 70 percent of the shots being given at mass vaccination sites this week are going to be second doses.
The governor said the lowered number of first doses is going to be a constant issue until the states supply of vaccines increases.
Massachusetts spent almost two decades and millions of dollars developing a blueprint for how the state would mobilize its network of local public health departments in response to an emergency situation, but The Boston Globe reports the state quickly abandoned that plan after the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved, opting instead to hire private companies to run its mass vaccination sites.
The state has invested in this, Dartmouth public health director Christopher Michaud told the newspaper. They took the playbook, threw it in the dumpster, and privatized the whole thing.
Massachusetts is reportedly paying more than $1 million per week to the for-profit startup CIC Health that is running the mass vaccination sites at Fenway Park and Gillette Stadium.
Read the full report at the Globe.
Baker announced last week that the mass vaccination site at Fenway Park will be moved to the Hynes Convention Center later this month, ahead of plans to allow fans back at the ballpark for Red Sox opening day April 1.
According to the governor, the Hynes Convention Center site located a half-mile away in Bostons Back Bay will begin accepting patients on Thursday, March 18. Fenways last day as a vaccination site will be Saturday, March 27.
Boston rolled out a pilot version of the citys mobile coronavirus vaccine clinic on Friday, beginning at the MLK Building in Roxbury. The mobile clinic consists of EMTs and paramedics who set up sites inside the designated building where theyre stationed for the day.
Marty Martinez, chief of health and human services for the city, said last week the mobile clinics will first focus on Boston Housing Authority buildings, which house older adults and people with disabilities. As more doses become available and eligibility expands, the city will look to expand the program. With spring weather in the near future, Martinez said officials are also considering holding outdoor pop-up vaccination sites at parks and courtyards throughout Boston.
The number of people who have been fully vaccinated (as of Sunday): 703,676.
According to The New York Times vaccine rollout tracker, Massachusetts falls in the bottom half of states based on the percentage of residents who have received both vaccine doses (9.6 percent). But Massachusetts is in the top 10 based on the percentage of the state population who have received one dose (21 percent). See how Massachusetts compares to other states and U.S. territories here.
Heres who is currently eligible for booking appointments:
Phase 1
Listed in order of priority:
Phase 2
Listed in order of priority:
Effective March 11
Heres who will be eligible next:
Frontline and essential workers, including transit, grocery, utility, and sanitation workers, are up next. See the full list here.
Heres how to make an appointment:
Search for and book a vaccination slot through the states VaxFinder: https://vaxfinder.mass.gov/
Or visit: mass.gov/covidvaccine
Those who are 75 or older can connect with the states vaccine hotline operator by dialing 2-1-1 Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (press 2 for the call center).
According to the state, the mass vaccination locations will post their new appointments on Thursdays when they update their schedules, while smaller locations offer fewer slots and tend to update their schedules daily.
A map and list of COVID-19 vaccination sites in Massachusetts:
Get Boston.com's e-mail alerts:
Sign up and receive coronavirus news and breaking updates, from our newsroom to your inbox.
Vaccination, particularly for the most vulnerable Americans, is the surest way for us to overcome the Covid-19 crisis. As physicians, we celebrate the light at the end of the tunnel, in large part due to Operation Warp Speed. But as members of Congress, we are becoming increasingly concerned that federal bureaucracy continues to stand in the way of rapid, widespread administration of Covid-19 vaccines.
The nation has gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about Covid-19 over the past year. Similarly, over the past few weeks, the scientific community has published encouraging analyses about the vaccines that are playing a starring role in leading us out of this crisis. Mountains of real-world evidence are showing that the two mRNA vaccines authorized by the FDA the first made by Pfizer and BioNTech, the other by Moderna, both of which are supposed to be administered as a two-dose regimen will provide substantial protection against Covid-19 even after only one dose.
Considering that nearly every state is facing shortfalls in the supply of Covid-19 vaccines, we believe this groundbreaking development can help remedy some of the vaccine supply issues the nation is facing. This new evidence indicates that the second doses currently administered to comply with the Food and Drug Administrations emergency use authorizations (EUA) could instead be used as initial first doses essentially doubling the supply.
advertisement
Unfortunately, governors who would like to follow this new evidence and provide protection for more citizens have their hands tied by the emergency use authorizations. The FDAs failure to revise it to allow single doses now with second doses administered when they become available may result in tens of thousands of additional deaths. According to recent data coming out of the United Kingdom, it is clear that second doses can be administered up to 12 weeks after the first dose, while maintaining efficacy.
On March 2, President Joe Biden announced the United States will have enough doses of Covid-19 vaccines to allow every citizen to get vaccinated by May 31 under the current emergency use authorizations. Imagine if they were revised to increase the window for administering the second dose. Under this scenario, April 15 could be National Vax Day the day when every vulnerable or essential worker has gotten at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine instead of National Tax Day.
advertisement
As physicians who are also members of Congress, we are calling on the FDA to break down the bureaucracy and consider revising the EUAs. This call for revising the dosing schedule is bicameral and bipartisan, with seven members of the GOP Doctors Caucus joining two Democratic senators calling for such a change.
What is stopping this from happening? The bureaucracys failure to truly follow the science. The FDA claims the manufacturers themselves must apply for any change to their emergency use authorizations. But we know the FDA has been unwilling to look at real-world evidence in the past, especially if it comes from other countries.
Nonetheless, in this case the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary has clear statutory authority to revise the EUAs using real-world experience and not wait for a manufacturers request if he or she finds the revision is appropriate to protect the public health or safety.
The large amount of real-world evidence collected from data analysis of the Covid-19 vaccines in Israel and Great Britain two countries whose scientific rigor is well appreciated clearly supports the revision we suggest.
Frustratingly, when Dr. Anthony Fauci was asked this week about changing the EUA, he noted it would be a messaging challenge.
With all the recent calls for patient-centered care, we should be willing to be honest with our patients and give them the choice to receive one dose now, with the knowledge that their designated second dose would be going to a vulnerable or essential person. They can receive a second dose later, and have nearly the same protection.
Calling it a messaging challenge is not following the science. Fauci also raised concerns that offering only a single dose of these Covid-19 vaccines would enable variants to spread. Yet a February report by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota reiterates our calls, and urges timely consideration of these new studies. That report actually came to the opposite conclusion of Fauci: the change needs to be made now in order to get ahead of the variants and potentially save up to 50,000 lives.
The Biden administration must cut through the red tape and ivory-tower arguments now and immediately consider revising the dosing schedule of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines to allow for an extended second dosing interval. Any other action will cost lives that need not be lost.
U.S. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) is an anesthesiologist and former head of obstetric anesthesiology at Johns Hopkins University. U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) is a urological surgeon who has practiced for more than 30 years. U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) is an ophthalmologist and former president of the Iowa Medical Society.
With educators now eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine, 3,500 Arlington ISD staffers will be vaccinated Monday.
The Texas Department of State Health Services expanded vaccine eligibility Wednesday to include school employees and child care workers.
Registered Arlington ISD staff members will receive the newly approved one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Monday, according to a district news release.
The Arlington Fire Department will give the vaccine to district staff at the Esports Stadium and Convention Center vaccination site. Arlington ISD has around 10,000 total employees, including full-time teachers, substitutes and part-time workers.
As of March 1, the district had 36 active COVID-19 cases, including 19 staffers and 17 students. Since the school year began last August, the district has had 2,725 confirmed cases.
COVID-19 vaccine distribution has not gone as smoothly as we all would like. With health systems and physician practices across the country expressing their frustrations, the message is clear: More vaccines are needed to meet the growing demand.
COVID-19 vaccine rollout and distribution was discussed at the inaugural AMA Insight Network virtual meeting. The network aims to help AMA Health System Partner Program members save time and money, gain early access to innovative ideas, get feedback from their peers, network, and learn about pilot opportunities. Learn more.
These meetings are meant to bring together AMA subject-matter experts and health care leaders from around the country to share insights, best practices and also address questions or challenges that many are sharing on key issues, said James Gilligan, AMA vice president of health systems and group partnership. The networks meetings may be held up to 10 times a year and will cover a variety of topics such as satisfaction and sustainability, health equity, advocacy andchronic disease prevention.
Our team keeps a close eye on trends in health care that are relevant to our group partners, said Gilligan. Additionally, with several health system leaders reaching out about key vaccine questions, it led to the topic of planning and executing on strategies to distribute vaccines quickly and effectively to your communities.
Weve been hearing from physician offices that theyre not able to get the vaccines with the amount that they would like to be able to get, said Margaret Garikes, AMA vice president of federal affairs.
Focusing on COVID-19 vaccination rollout and distribution, the AMA Insight Network meeting in February featured presentations from physician leaders at Hattiesburg Clinic, Marshfield Clinic Health System and The Permanente Medical Group.
They all reported a similar problem: The supply of vaccines they are receiving is far below their capacity to administer them to eligible patients. The average weekly vaccine allotment from their individual states is only 20% as much as they could administer if they got more doses. The physician leaders attending said that states should look more to health systems already equipped to operationalize distribution.
Find out more about these health systems and others are moving medicine at theAMA partner spotlight page.
During the meeting, Garikes also shared the AMAs recent and ongoing COVID-19 advocacy efforts to help health systems and physician practices.
The AMA offers a COVID-19 vaccines guide for physicians to help build trust in vaccine safety and efficacy. This guide contains background and actions, evidence-based messaging guidance and best practices for consideration in external communications on COVID-19 vaccine topics.
Learn more about how the AMA is helping health systems face 2021s biggest challenges.
A startup behind the Covid-19 vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca PLC is planning an initial public offering that backers hope will be the biggest market debut of an Oxford spinoff in years.
One hurdle: the university itself.
Nine-hundred-year-old Oxford is wrestling with how to rewrite its rules for fostering companies created by its academics or born in its labs, while in a standoff with one that has been thrust into the spotlight by the pandemic. The startup, Vaccitech Ltd., has been pitching to potential investors and laying groundwork for a stock listing in New York as early as this year, according to people close to the plans and marketing documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Investors are aiming for an IPO valuation of around $700 million, with expectations that Vaccitech could be a $1 billion company by year-end. Big investors such as pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences Inc. and Lilly Asia Ventures, a venture-capital arm spun off from drugmaker Eli Lilly & Co., have expressed interest in investing, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by the Journal.
Vaccitechs chief executive, Bill Enright, declined to comment, as did a Gilead spokesman. Lilly Asia Ventures didnt respond to a request for comment.
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) When theyre not working on your teeth, dentists in North Carolina can now help fight the coronavirus. The North Carolina Dental Board recently announced dentists are now approved to administer COVID-19 vaccines in the state.
If youve ever had a cavity filled, your dentist has probably given you a shot of numbing medication.
Now they can also administer a different kind of shot, the COVID-19 vaccine.
Its welcome news to Dr. Tammy Severt, Dr. Annu Sood, and Dr. Waka Kadoma. The three Chapel Hill dentists want to do something to help fight the pandemic.
As dentists, we have a lot of training in injections. Wed love to be able to help get the vaccine into the arms of people who want it as quickly as possible, said Severt.
I consider it a great opportunity to extend the role of dentists as health care providers and to help, added Sood.
Dentists have already learned a lot about preventing COVID-19.
The infection-control measures we take in our offices are above anything weve done before, noted Severt.
Being able to give the vaccine will allow them to take a more active role in fighting the virus.
Dentists will have to go through training specific to COVID-19 vaccines before they are allowed to administer the doses.
Kadoma is ready. Give me a time and place, and then I will be there, she said.
Dr. Sood and Dr. Kadoma hope to vaccinate people at local vaccine clinics while Dr. Severt is considering offering the vaccine in her office.
She noted thatthe Johnson & Johnson shot would be ideal for administering in the office due to its easier storage requirements and the fact that its a one-dose vaccine.
As far as a community service right now, theres not really anything greater than we could do than trying to get the population vaccinated, she said.
On Feb. 19, I received my second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. According to the nurse who gave me the injection and clinical trial results from the biotech company, the vaccine is about 95% effective against COVID-19 within seven to 14 days, a period that ended for me on March 5.
Now more than ever, Ive thought about how Ill live my life with Duchenne muscular dystrophy after getting my vaccine. While Im not suddenly throwing out my mask collection, attending a large party, or emptying my hand sanitizer, I have less fear about the virus. It will be safe for me to go out again. Everyone will have to face the world at some point. But because of the added difficulty of living with Duchenne, I plan to do it differently.
Imagine being stranded on an island where youre forced to eat coconuts, fruit, and fish, are separated from your family and friends, and are bored out of your mind. After a year of barely surviving, you are finally rescued. Obviously, you would be overjoyed to see the people you love again. But Im guessing the first thing you would want to do is stay at a five-star hotel and order room service all day long.
This is obviously not the situation with COVID-19, but part of me feels connected to that island rescue experience.
I have a newfound appreciation for the little things in life that I once took for granted: eating out for dinner, visiting more than one friend at a time, going to the grocery store (my parents have done this for my safety), watching live sports and movies, and traveling. Ill also rediscover how Duchenne makes all of that so much more difficult. It will be an opportunity, however, to move forward in my life, which had been put on hold by COVID-19.
My parents and I traveled a lot before I got busy with college and life, and Duchenne doesnt make traveling easy. We must haul my scooter in and out of various vehicles, find excursions that arent physically taxing, and negotiate cultures unfamiliar with the rare muscle condition. Traveling has made us experts at working around whatever obstacle we face, and Im hoping to bring that skill back as I reenter society.
Because Ill have more autonomy with my vaccine, Im planning on traveling with friends, going camping again, and enjoying the things we lost because of COVID-19. Each adventure will be a new idea for a workaround and an opportunity to be open-minded about doing life with a disease thats taken my muscles away.
Im going to be socially outgoing, because after extra introspection and time at home, I realized that I missed out on so much before COVID-19 because I was self-conscious about what I could and couldnt do in my wheelchair. Post-COVID-19 me is going to make more friends, ask people I like on dates, and say yes to social events even if I dont feel like going. Ill stay an introvert, of course, but being around people and loving them reminds us that we are human. Its a connection that a lot of us, including me, have lost, however much weve interacted with others online.
COVID-19 has given me an excuse not to pursue my career in journalism with the vehemence I once did. Lets just say the lack of structure I developed during quarantine isnt going to get me any prestigious job offers. The vaccine will give me a pathway to get back on my post-college trajectory and focus on my future.
With added time because of the coronavirus, Ive had time to think about what I want my adult life with Duchenne to look like. Its currently comfortable to live with my parents, who know what I need sometimes even better than I do. With this vaccine, I have the confidence to find an aide and live on my own, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. Ive done it before in Sacramento, California and Washington, D.C., and plan to do it again.
The fear of COVID-19 has been debilitating, and my hope is that I wont be afraid anymore with the vaccine. I wont be afraid of living my life and seizing the day. Ive been blessed with an opportunity to hit the reset button and come out of COVID-19 ready to make my life and the lives of those around me that much better.
***
Note: Muscular Dystrophy News is strictly a news and information website about the disease. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. This content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or another qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The opinions expressed in this column are not those of Muscular Dystrophy News or its parent company, BioNews, and are intended to spark discussion about issues pertaining to muscular dystrophy.
Hawken is a recent graduate from the University of Southern California and a young journalist with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. He has previously worked for the Washington Post, Sacramento Bee, KTLA 5 News and at USC Annenberg Media. When not writing columns, hes reporting on rare disease-related news for the publisher of this website, BioNews.
