Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

A study published in the journal Nature provides the prevalence of persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection at the population level and describes how persistent infection may contribute to viral evolution.

Study:Prevalence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 in a large community surveillance study

Chronic persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection is considered to be the most likely contributor to the emergence of highly divergent viral variants with improved fitness. In particular, viral infection persists for months or even years in immunocompromised patients who are unable to clear the virus from the body because of a weakened immune system.

Over the course of chronic infection, SARS-CoV-2 gets exposed to the hosts immune system and other selective pressures that arise from long-term treatment. This can trigger the acquisition of new mutations in the viral genome, leading to the emergence of highly divergent viral variants that can potentially seed new outbreaks in the community.

In this study, scientists have estimated the prevalence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general UK population and explored their contribution to long-COVID and their potential for adaptive viral evolution.

The scientists collected viral sequence data, symptoms, and epidemiological data from the Office for National Statistics COVID Infection Survey (ONS-CIS), a large-scale community-based surveillance study conducted in the UK.

They used the data to identify individuals with high-titer SARS-CoV-2 infections lasting for one month or more. They compared viral evolutionary changes, viral load, number of reported symptoms, and prevalence of long COVID (post-acute COVID-19 sequelae) between individuals with and without persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The scientists analyzed 93,927 high-quality SARS-CoV-2 sequences from the ONS-CIS data. The sequences were collected between November 2020 and August 2022 from 90,146 individuals living in 66,602 households across the UK.

The sequence analysis identified 381 persistent infections with high viral load (Ct value of 30 or lower) lasting for at least 26 days. These infections were caused by alpha, delta, BA.1, and BA.2 variants of SARS-CoV-2. Of all persistent infections, 54 lasted for at least 56 days. The most prolonged infection was with the BA.1 variant, which lasted for at least 193 days.

About 68% of the identified persistent infection samples showed no nucleotide differences at the consensus level during infection, indicating that sequences identified from persistent infections belong to the same infection.

The lack of consensus changes observed between several pairs of samples collected from the same infection indicated limited within-host adaptation (neutral evolution or weak selection). Further analysis of sequences with no consensus changes throughout infection indicated that the virus is probably replicating during infection despite acquiring no consensus changes.

Despite significant evidence of weak position selection, the study identified 277 unique mutations and 18 unique deletions in persistently infected individuals. This observation indicates a period of strong positive selection. Many of these mutations have previously been identified as signature mutations in SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, recurrent mutations in immunocompromised patients, or key mutations at target sites for monoclonal antibodies.

The study identified two mutations (T1638I and T4311I) that emerged twice during persistent infections. These mutations were mildly deleterious based on the global phylogeny. As mentioned by the scientists, these mutations may be beneficial at the within-host level but deleterious at the between-host level, because mutations that are selected during persistent infection tend to be better at transmitting between individuals.

About 82% of identified persistent infection cases showed rebounding viral load dynamics, i.e., the resurgence in viral load after an initial drop during the course of infection. This finding highlights the presence of replicating viral populations in persistent infections.

Regarding clinical consequences, the study found that individuals with persistent infections remained mostly asymptomatic during the later stages of infection. Individuals with persistent infections showed a 55% higher probability of self-reporting long-COVID 12 weeks or more after infection than those with non-persistent infections.

The study estimates that the prevalence of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections that last for at least 60 days is approximately 0.10.5% in the general UK population. These infections can potentially give rise to new viral variants with divergent mutational landscapes.

Read more:

Persistent COVID-19 could drive virus evolution, new study suggests - News-Medical.Net

COVID-19 Vaccine

Published on: 23 Feb 2024 | Editor: Iria Carballo-Carbajal

Health Feedback is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to science education. Our reviews are crowdsourced directly from a community of scientists with relevant expertise. We strive to explain whether and why information is or is not consistent with the science and to help readers know which news to trust. Please get in touch if you have any comment or think there is an important claim or article that would need to be reviewed.

Read the original post:

The American Red Cross doesnt prevent people vaccinated against COVID-19 from donating blood, contrary to ... - Health Feedback

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers flooded journals with studies about the then-novel coronavirus. Many publications streamlined the peer-review process for COVID-19 papers while keeping acceptance rates relatively high. The assumption was that policymakers and the public would be able to identify valid and useful research among a very large volume of rapidly disseminated information.

However, in my review of 74 COVID-19 papers published in 2020 in the top 15 generalist public health journals listed in Google Scholar, I found that many of these studies used poor quality methods. Several other reviews of studies published in medical journals have also shown that much early COVID-19 research used poor research methods.

Some of these papers have been cited many times. For example, the most highly cited public health publication listed on Google Scholar used data from a sample of 1,120 people, primarily well-educated young women, mostly recruited from social media over three days. Findings based on a small, self-selected convenience sample cannot be generalized to a broader population. And since the researchers ran more than 500 analyses of the data, many of the statistically significant results are likely chance occurrences. However, this study has been cited over 11,000 times.

A highly cited paper means a lot of people have mentioned it in their own work. But a high number of citations is not strongly linked to research quality, since researchers and journals can game and manipulate these metrics. High citation of low-quality research increases the chance that poor evidence is being used to inform policies, further eroding public confidence in science.

I am a public health researcher with a long-standing interest in research quality and integrity. This interest lies in a belief that science has helped solve important social and public health problems. Unlike the anti-science movement spreading misinformation about such successful public health measures as vaccines, I believe rational criticism is fundamental to science.

The quality and integrity of research depends to a considerable extent on its methods. Each type of study design needs to have certain features in order for it to provide valid and useful information.

For example, researchers have known for decades that for studies evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, a control group is needed to know whether any observed effects can be attributed to the intervention.

Systematic reviews pulling together data from existing studies should describe how the researchers identified which studies to include, assessed their quality, extracted the data and preregistered their protocols. These features are necessary to ensure the review will cover all the available evidence and tell a reader which is worth attending to and which is not.

Certain types of studies, such as one-time surveys of convenience samples that arent representative of the target population, collect and analyze data in a way that does not allow researchers to determine whether one variable caused a particular outcome.

All study designs have standards that researchers can consult. But adhering to standards slows research down. Having a control group doubles the amount of data that needs to be collected, and identifying and thoroughly reviewing every study on a topic takes more time than superficially reviewing some. Representative samples are harder to generate than convenience samples, and collecting data at two points in time is more work than collecting them all at the same time.

Studies comparing COVID-19 papers with non-COVID-19 papers published in the same journals found that COVID-19 papers tended to have lower quality methods and were less likely to adhere to reporting standards than non-COVID-19 papers. COVID-19 papers rarely had predetermined hypotheses and plans for how they would report their findings or analyze their data. This meant there were no safeguards against dredging the data to find statistically significant results that could be selectively reported.

Such methodological problems were likely overlooked in the considerably shortened peer-review process for COVID-19 papers. One study estimated the average time from submission to acceptance of 686 papers on COVID-19 to be 13 days, compared with 110 days in 539 pre-pandemic papers from the same journals. In my study, I found that two online journals that published a very high volume of methodologically weak COVID-19 papers had a peer-review process of about three weeks.

These quality control issues were present before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic simply pushed them into overdrive.

Journals tend to favor positive, novel findings: that is, results that show a statistical association between variables and supposedly identify something previously unknown. Since the pandemic was in many ways novel, it provided an opportunity for some researchers to make bold claims about how COVID-19 would spread, what its effects on mental health would be, how it could be prevented and how it might be treated.

Academics have worked in a publish-or-perish incentive system for decades, where the number of papers they publish is part of the metrics used to evaluate employment, promotion and tenure. The flood of mixed-quality COVID-19 information afforded an opportunity to increase their publication counts and boost citation metrics as journals sought and rapidly reviewed COVID-19 papers, which were more likely to be cited than non-COVID papers.

Online publishing has also contributed to the deterioration in research quality. Traditional academic publishing was limited in the quantity of articles it could generate because journals were packaged in a printed, physical document usually produced only once a month. In contrast, some of todays online mega-journals publish thousands of papers a month. Low-quality studies rejected by reputable journals can still find an outlet happy to publish it for a fee.

Criticizing the quality of published research is fraught with risk. It can be misinterpreted as throwing fuel on the raging fire of anti-science. My response is that a critical and rational approach to the production of knowledge is, in fact, fundamental to the very practice of science and to the functioning of an open society capable of solving complex problems such as a worldwide pandemic.

Publishing a large volume of misinformation disguised as science during a pandemic obscures true and useful knowledge. At worst, this can lead to bad public health practice and policy.

Science done properly produces information that allows researchers and policymakers to better understand the world and test ideas about how to improve it. This involves critically examining the quality of a studys designs, statistical methods, reproducibility and transparency, not the number of times it has been cited or tweeted about.

Science depends on a slow, thoughtful and meticulous approach to data collection, analysis and presentation, especially if it intends to provide information to enact effective public health policies. Likewise, thoughtful and meticulous peer review is unlikely with papers that appear in print only three weeks after they were first submitted for review. Disciplines that reward quantity of research over quality are also less likely to protect scientific integrity during crises.

Public health heavily draws upon disciplines that are experiencing replication crises, such as psychology, biomedical science and biology. It is similar to these disciplines in terms of its incentive structure, study designs and analytic methods, and its inattention to transparent methods and replication. Much public health research on COVID-19 shows that it suffers from similar poor-quality methods.

Reexamining how the discipline rewards its scholars and assesses their scholarship can help it better prepare for the next public health crisis.

Link:

Early COVID-19 research is riddled with poor methods and low-quality results a problem for science the pandemic ... - The Conversation

Taipei, Feb. 23 (CNA) More people will be eligible to receive a government-funded free influenza vaccine shot from March 5, amid the growing spread of flu and COVID-19 in Taiwan, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said Friday.

The spread of various respiratory diseases has continued in local communities and a wave of new flu cases is expected to hit Taiwan from now until early March because of the higher risk posed by students returning to school after the winter break, according to CDC Deputy Director General Lo Yi-chun () that day.

Other factors include large gatherings during the lantern festival and religious events, he added.

After considering the growing number of new flu cases, the CDC has decided to offer a free flu jab to anyone who has not received one over the past five months, starting March 5, Lo said at a CDC news conference in Taipei.

Since the rollout of the annual flu vaccination when the current flu season began on Oct. 1, around 6.5 million doses of the flu vaccine had been made available to students, seniors and people with higher risks of catching the flu and developing serious symptoms, as of Feb. 20, according to Lo.

Currently, about 70,000 flu vaccine doses are still available, and Lo urged seniors, the parents of preschoolers and young children, and medical personnel to seize the chance to get vaccinated before the remaining reserve runs out.

People who plan to get a flu jab should contact clinics or hospitals to check availability before they visit these medical institutions to be inoculated, Lo added.

Jan. 30:Influenza claimed 8 lives last week, including a 3-year-old: CDC

Dec. 5:Half of inbound travelers take voluntarily test at airports positive for flu

He also urged members of the public to get the latest COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccine.

Taiwan currently has 4.336 million doses of Moderna's XBB.1.5 vaccine and around 210,000 doses of Novavax's XBB.1.5 vaccine, and new vaccines help generate antibodies against the current dominant variant JN.1, Lo said, citing research reports published in the United States.

Since Feb. 20, more than 10,000 COVID-19 doses have been administered every day across Taiwan, a rebound from the lower figures recorded during the recent Lunar New Year holiday, according to Lo.

(By Chen Chieh-ling and Kay Liu)

Enditem/AW

Jan. 5:CDC urges public to get XBB vaccine for fast changing COVID-19

Dec. 24:China-bound tourists cautioned about spread of influenza-like illness: CDC

Read the original:

CDC to expand eligibility for free flu jabs, urges COVID vaccination - Focus Taiwan

Key Takeaways

Moderna (MRNA) grabbed a larger percentage of the COVID-19 vaccine market in the U.S. in the fourth quarter, and that helped the biotech firm post a surprise profit. Shares surged over 10% in early trading Thursday following the news.

The company reported that it captured a 48% share of U.S. COVID-19 sales during the fall season, up from 37% a year earlier. Moderna noted that it took "specific actions to transition to a seasonal endemic market in 2023. That included the resizing of its manufacturing footprint to improve cash flow, the flattening of its commercial structure to drive sales execution, and the focusing of its investments toward near-term growth drivers.

Even so, global revenue from the vaccine slumped 43% to $2.8 billion, which it said was driven by lower volume as demand waned. Overall revenue fell 45% to $2.81 billion, although that exceeded forecasts. Thecompany pointed out that the total was boosted by $600 million in deferred revenue related to its collaboration with Gavi, a non-governmental organization (NGO) that was involved in a global program to distribute COVID-19 shots.

Moderna reported earnings per share of $0.55, while analysts hadanticipated a loss. The company said that it was seeing the impact of cost-cutting measures it began to take in the third quarter. CEO Stephane Bancel added that we remain focused on commercial execution and continued investment in our pipeline with financial discipline."

The company reiterated its full-year revenue guidance of $4 billion, noting that it is anticipating gains from its experimental Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine, which it expects will get U.S. regulatory approval by May 12. It also plans to sell the shot in Australia and Germany this year.

Moderna shares were up 10.4% to $96.74 as of about 11:35 a.m. ET Thursday. Despite Thursdays rise, shares of Moderna have lost over one-third of their value over the past year.

TradingView

More:

Moderna Takes a Bigger Share of US COVID-19 Vaccine Market and Stock Jumps - Investopedia

After three arduous years spent combing through the health data of more than 99 million vaccinated people around the globe, Dr. Jeff Kwong was finally done.

He and a multinational team of 34 researchers had just completed the largest-ever study into COVID-19 vaccine safety and yielded results the authors say confirm the safety of the vaccine.

"The bottom line message is that COVID vaccines are very safe," said Kwong, the associate director of the Centre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases at the University of Toronto and a senior scientist at Toronto'sInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

"We're doing these studies just to quantify just how much is the risk? Because at the level of the population, when you are vaccinating millions, you will expect to see some of these adverse events," he explained. "But you've also prevented a lot of adverse events in those who didn't get the infection, because they got vaccinated. It's always a tradeoff."

Published in peer-reviewed medical journal Vaccine, the study confirmed previously noted adverse events after vaccination and revealed "very rare" new ones. Here's what they found.

For the researchers, the task felt monumental to first study the health records of millions of people across ten sites in eight countries, then track their progress for six weeks after COVID-19 vaccination for any complications. It amounted to roughly 23 million person-years of followup time.

The goal was to screen for 13 neurological, blood and heart related medical conditions, then check if there was a greater risk of their occurrence after vaccination.

These included preestablished risks, likemyocarditis (swelling in the heart muscle), but also conditions never-before linked to the vaccine, likeencephalomyelitis (widespread swelling in the brain and spinal cord).

It was only because of their massive sample size that they could test for these incredibly rare side-effects, Dr. Anders Hviid, a professor at Copenhagen's Statens Serum Institut who lead the working group, told the Star.

The overwhelming majority of participants experienced no complications after vaccination, he continued: "The few serious side effects that we have observed in this and other studies have been rare."

But there have been a few serious side effects. To the team's surprise, they noticed a slightly elevated risk ofthe sometimes-fatal encephalomyelitis after a first dose of the Moderna vaccine. Out of more than 10.5 million individuals who got the shot, seven people developed the condition instead of the expected two in a similar, unvaccinated population.

There was also a notable increase in myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, after the first, second and third doses of both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Rates were highest after a second shot of Moderna, which resulted in a more than six-times increase in the expected occurrence.

While usually mild, studies suggest this reaction hasled to at least 28 deaths worldwide.

Similarly, the risk of pericarditis, the swelling of the saclike tissue surrounding the heart, rose 1.7 times after a first dose of Moderna, and 2.6 times after the fourth dose. A third dose of AstraZeneca raised the risk 6.9 times.

So too did they find an increase in Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare immune system disorder targeting nerves, after an initial dose of AstraZeneca. While 76 cases out of 10.6 million people were expected before vaccination, 190 cases were observed.

A first dose of AstraZeneca was also linked to 69 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, when a blood clot forms in major veins of the brain, out of 10.6 million people. In contrast, 21 cases were expected before the shot.

If anything, the study has further confirmed the safety of the mainstream COVID-19 vaccines, said Dr. Fahad Razak, the provincial clinical lead at Ontario Health and Canada Research Chair in data-informed health care improvement at U of T.

Razak, who is unaffiliated with the project, noted that while the researchers discovered health risks to the vaccines, "these are extremely rare."

"You don't live your life worrying about being killed by lightning and you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to have an adverse event likeencephalomyelitis," which has less than a one-in-a-million chance of occurring after vaccination, he told the Star.

As the "largest, most robust" study of its kind, Razak hopes it could serve as the "definitive data" to assure the public that it's far safer to get vaccinated than go without: "The complications of COVID-19 infection far outstrip the complications of having one of these adverse events from a vaccine," he said.

Although the group's project has wrapped for now, Kwong says the global vaccine network they developed a web of participating health agencies around the world sharing the health data of millions of individuals can be used to rapidly perform similar, massive vaccine studies in the future.

"There's no vaccine that doesn't cause any side effects," he said. "It's about knowing the risks versus the benefits."

Visit link:

Canadian scientists helped run the world's largest COVID-19 vaccine safety study. Here's what they found - Toronto Star

Pictured: COVID-19 collage with earnings, vaccine, and patient/Nicole Bean for BioSpace

When the race began to create working vaccines and treatments for the COVID-19 pandemic, it was understood that not only was public health at stake, but also a financial windfall for the successful developers.

For BioNTech and Moderna, successfully developing a vaccine meant being propelled from small-scale biotechs into the large-cap company space. For well-established large companies such as Pfizer, the increase in sales led to a significant boost in share price. Since the peak of the pandemic, however, revenues from COVID-19 vaccine sales has dropped significantly, leaving companies trying to maintain their bottom lines and retain shareholders.

In its full-year 2023 financials, Pfizer managed to surprise the market by outperforming expectations, thanks to its unexpectedly strong COVID-19 business. Even though sales of its Comirnaty vaccine, developed alongside BioNTech, and its oral antiviral pill, Paxlovid, collectively fell 42% in the fourth quarter of 2023 compared to the same quarter in 2022, they brought in more revenue than expected. Overall, full year 2023 results saw Comirnaty earn $11.2 billion and Paxlovid $1.2 billion.

Moderna also managed to pull off better than expected results in its fourth quarter financials, with profits of $217 million. Net sales of its Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine fell by 43% to $2.8 billion, but this was offset by a higher average selling price, the company noted. Modernas results were also boosted by the recognition of $600 million in deferred revenue, related to work with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

The company stated that it also focused on reducing its costs by scaling back its own manufacturing capacity and commitments with contract manufacturing partners. A spokesperson for Moderna was not immediately available for comment.

Looking ahead to full-year 2024 sales, Pfizer CFO Dave Denton stated in the investor call that the company expects to earn $8 billion in sales for its COVID-19 products, with Comirnatys revenue predicted to continue falling to $5 billion. Moderna also estimated that sales would continue to fall, from 2023 net sales of $6 billion to approximately $4 billion in 2024.

Kevin Marcaida, pharma analyst at GlobalData, told BioSpace that both companies have sought to maintain revenue of vaccines but raising the cost. As a response to waning demand and the privatization of COVID-19 treatments, Pfizer has quadrupled the price of Comirnaty, now priced at $120 per dose. Similarly, Moderna has set the list price for Spikevax at $129 per dose, a strategic move to enhance profitability.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have also responded to this challenge by working to establish a vaccine that can become a staple of annual vaccination, through the creation of a combined influenza and COVID-19 vaccine. Moderna announced in October 2023 that it had begun dosing patients in a Phase III trial, around the same time that Pfizer said that it would start a Phase III trial in the coming months.

A combination vaccine against influenza and COVID-19 has the potential to help the impact of both diseases with a single injection, which could simplify immunization practices for providers, patients, and healthcare systems all over the world, a Pfizer spokesperson told BioSpacein an email.

But Marcaida predicted that moving forward, pharma companies will prioritize therapeutic drugs aimed at treating patients, and move away from preventative vaccines.He estimated that Pfizers Paxlovid will generate $34.2 billion in total sales from 2023 to 2029.

Ben Hargreaves is a freelance science journalist based in Tosse, France. Reach him on LinkedIn.

View original post here:

Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Sales Beat Expectations, but For How Long? - BioSpace

We have more tools than ever to protect against serious COVID-19 disease and death, but we must make sure everyone has equitable access to those tools. CDC Director Mandy Cohen

COVID-19 vaccines prevented an estimated 18 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million deaths in the United States, while saving about $1.5 trillion in medical costs in the first two years after they were introduced.

The nations vaccination strategy, aimed to quickly deliver safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, achieved remarkable success by vaccinating 270 million Americans within the first two and a half years after its approval. This accomplishment was largely attributed to the fact that anyone could receive a vaccine at no cost, regardless of their insurance status.

More than 40 Urban League affiliates across the country supported this effort by partnering with community health clinics, hospital systems, local pharmacies and health departments to bring the vaccines directly to community members. They established pop-up vaccine clinics in Urban League offices, churches, schools, community centers, housing complexes, senior centers, local colleges and universities, farmers markets and street fairs to ensure their communities had reliable and convenient access to the vaccines. In total, Urban League affiliates hosted more than 850 vaccine events and clinics, administering more than 120,000 vaccine doses to community members.

However, after the public health emergency ended in the spring of 2023, the federal government stopped purchasing and distributing the vaccines for free to individuals. Although most uninsured and underinsured Americans remain eligible for free vaccines, many are unaware of how to access them. Consequently, many have delayed getting their updated COVID shots out of fear of being charged, leaving the most vulnerable Americans unprotected amid the current surge of COVID-19 cases this winter.

Most adults are able to receive the COVID vaccine at no cost through their private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid plans.

However, there are still between 25 million and 30 million adults without health insurance, and additional adults whose insurance does not cover all vaccine costs. Paying out of pocket for the updated COVID vaccine is a significant burden for most uninsured adults, who are disproportionately low-income and people of color. Given they are often in poorer health compared to those who are insured, they are even more vulnerable to serious illness and death from COVID-19 infection. People of color are also disproportionately experiencing long-term symptoms and health problems following a COVID-19 infection, a condition known as long COVID. Long COVID does not affect everyone the same way, but common symptoms include fatigue, fever, cough, headache, chest pain and shortness of breath for weeks, months or years after COVID-19 illness. Long COVID has disrupted many lives and is keeping as many as a million people out of work in the U.S.

Anticipating this crisis, the Department of Health and Human Services created a public-private partnership called the Bridge Access Program to ensure continued access to COVID-19 vaccines. Bridge Access provides free COVID-19 vaccines to adults without health insurance and adults whose insurance does not cover all COVID-19 vaccine costs. Bridge Access providers include Walgreens, CVS and pharmacies in the eTrueNorth network, select local healthcare providers, and HRSA-supported Health Centers.

To find an approved Bridge Access provider:

1. Go to vaccines.gov, enter your zip code, select the vaccine you prefer, and check the Bridge Access Program participant box.

2. Select your preferred location and make your appointment.

3. When you arrive for your appointment, confirm that your vaccine should be covered under the CDCs Bridge Access Program based on your insurance status

The availability of free COVID-19 vaccinations through the CDCs Bridge Access Program is critical as we navigate the ongoing challenges posed by COVID-19. By getting vaccinated, we can protect ourselves and the health of our entire community especially the most vulnerable among us.

Morial is president/CEO of the National Urban League.

Go here to read the rest:

Free COVID vaccines for uninsured Americans through Bridge Access Program - The Washington Informer

indystar.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.

Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on indystar.com

Follow this link:

Indiana is one of the top states with reported cases of long COVID - IndyStar

The lawsuit from former crewmembers of the series accused the network of religious discrimination for firing them over their refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

General Hospital

ABC must face religious discrimination claims from two former General Hospital crewmembers who sued the network after they were fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccination, marking one of the first rulings to clear the way for trial over terminations caused by blanket vaccine mandates widely imposed by studios amid the pandemic.

A Los Angeles judge, in an order issued Tuesday, found that James and Timothy Wahl may have had sincerely held religious beliefs that ABC should have accommodated by affording them exemptions and allowing them to follow safety protocols implemented before mandatory vaccination policies were rolled out.

The ruling comes on the heels of ABC defeating a similar lawsuit from Ingo Rademacher over his dismissal from General Hospital for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Unlike with crewmembers who were not in close, unmasked contact with others, the court found in that case that it was impossible for unvaccinated actors to safely work on set during the pandemic due to the nature of their work.

ABC was among several studios that in the summer of 2021 carried out vaccine mandates, which were agreed upon by Hollywoods guilds and studios. The return-to-work protocols stated that vaccines could be required for those working in Zone A of a production typically a projects main actors, as well as key crewmembers who work closely with them in the highest-risk areas of the set.

In 2022, father and son James and Timothy Wahl, both of whom worked in the special effects department for the show, sued ABC after their requests for religious exemptions were denied. The rejections were based on ABCs uncertainty as to whether their objections to taking the vaccine were based on their Christian faith.

ABC argued that the Wahls did not have genuine religious beliefs and that, even if they did, it could not have accommodated them without undue hardship. It also claimed that IATSE waived any rights members had to object to mandatory vaccination policies.

Ruling against ABC on summary judgment, the court concluded that the studio may have discriminated against the Wahls on the basis of their religion by failing to find a workaround for their refusal to get vaccinated.

On this issue, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Goorvitch sided with ABC in the suit from Rademacher. He pointed to the actors refusal to cooperate with Disney officials in the process of probing whether he should be exempted from vaccine mandates as a follower of a book called The Revelation of Ramala.

Unlike in that case, the court found a jury should decide whether the Wahls were genuine in their beliefs.

In a deposition, Disney ABC TV Group vp production Dominick Nuzzi testified that he became involved in the accommodation process once a request was accepted and that he participated in discussions of whether to grant an exemption to one of the Wahls but ultimately decided against it.

This testimony suggests that Defendant may have initially believed one of the plaintiffs, which supports both cases: Plaintiffs are father and son, and there is sufficient evidence in the record that they share the same belief system, the order stated.

The court also found that ABC could have afforded the Wahls accommodations without undue financial or logistical hardship.

In the suit from Rademacher, Goorvitch concluded such workarounds for the actor are not possible because he interacted with other performers onstage, requiring him to come into close proximity to them without a mask, which endangered their safety.

This decision is consistent with other cases in which courts have found that actors cannot be accommodated with pre-vaccine protocols because the nature of their work requires close, unmasked contact with other performers, the judge wrote in the order.

By contrast, the Wahls largely worked behind the scenes, running the construction and special effects shops for the show. While they periodically had to go to Zone A of the production, where the principal cast was filming, they tested regularly for COVID-19, always wore a mask and did their best to socially distance from the cast, they attested.

A reasonable accommodation, the court said, could have been allowing the Wahls to follow safety protocols that were in effect from July 2020 to the fall of 2021, before vaccine mandates were instituted. During this time, the General Hospital production did not have an outbreak of the virus, lawyers for the crewmembers claimed.

The Courts hands are tied, as they say, the order stated. There are enough disputed facts that the jury, not the judge, must decide whether Plaintiffs could have been accommodated without an undue hardship to Defendant.

In a win for ABC, the court also found that ABC does not have to face a claim for invasion of privacy. Last year, the Wahls dropped claims for disability discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination.

ABC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In another suit from an actor challenging his termination after being refused a vaccine exemption, a federal judge dismissed some claims from Rockmond Dunbar. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ruled that producers Disney and 20th Television did not have to face a disparate impact claim, which accused them of advancing a vaccination policy discriminating against followers of the Church of Universal Wisdom. They still face several other claims.

One consistency across lawsuits against Disney and its affiliates has been the way the company is portrayed as handling requests for religious exemptions.It appears that the interviews vetting the requests are conducted by Disney lawyers, who look into the backgrounds of the individuals who are requesting exemptions. Dunbars religious exemption was denied because he had previously received tattoos and ear piercings in violation of his beliefs as a member of the Church of Universal Wisdom. Rademachers exemption was denied, in part, on his religion lacking any of the formal signs of religious institutions and ABCs belief that his opposition to getting the vaccine was rooted in health or efficacy concerns rather than his faith, according to court filings in the case.

Read more:

ABC to Face Trial Over General Hospital Firings Tied to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates - Hollywood Reporter