The simmering fears over bird flu should leave no doubt: The health of humans and our fellow animals is inextricably linked.
Covid-19 was likely transmitted from animals to humans, and millions died as a result. The world is now anxiously watching for any sign that H5N1, i.e., the bird flu, could cause another pandemic so soon after the last one.
For years, public health experts have preached the importance of a One Health philosophy: treating the health of the environment, animals, and human beings as a single issue that requires a comprehensive approach because the health of one affects the others. On the ground, however, it remains a work in progress; the slow implementation of livestock surveillance for bird flu is only the latest example of that struggle.
The worlds nations are currently negotiating a pandemic treaty that was supposed to prevent humanity from repeating the mistakes of Covid-19. In particular, the agreement was seen as an opportunity to put those One Health principles into practice.
But we might miss our chance. As the pandemic fades into memory, self-interest appears to be winning out over global cooperation.
In December 2021, the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, announced that it would draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The goal was to create a binding international agreement that would compel countries around the world to take steps to prevent future pandemics and, should those efforts fail, to ensure smoother coordination in any future public health emergency.
Negotiators are supposed to largely wrap up their work by Friday, May 10. Representatives from the worlds governments will convene in Geneva on May 27 for the World Health Assembly. The plan is for the pandemic accord to be ratified before the assembly adjourns.
Even with the threat of H5N1 looming, however, it has become clear the world is downsizing its ambitions for the treaty. In place of firm commitments are vague aspirations.
On two important sections the One Health measures and the establishment of a system to share pathogens between countries the latest draft text would defer momentous operational decisions until at least 2026.
One Health has been one of the major points of contention: Rich countries want it because it would lead to a significant investment in disease surveillance in poorer countries, where it is easier for threatening pathogens to lurk unnoticed. But poorer countries dislike it for the same reason, arguing it amounts to a massive unfunded mandate placed on them.
Its a vital step to reduce future pandemic risks. But achieving this demands substantial and costly changes, Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre (GHC) at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, told Geneva Solutions. It requires changing how we raise livestock and animals.
Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.
Comparing the text of an October 2023 draft of the treaty and the most recent draft reveals the dwindling ambition. In the earlier version, there were specific commitments that called for stronger animal surveillance, more research and more education for health workers and communities, and a whole of government and whole of society approach.
In the latest draft, much of that language has been removed. Governments are given more leeway to promote and engage One Health principles as they see fit.
The problem is again money.
Poor countries already spend significantly less money on health care than wealthy nations. Historically, long-term economic growth has been the way to increase health expenditures.
If developed nations want developing ones to make new investments now, the middle and low-income countries argue that the rich countries should be willing to help pay for it.
But at the same time they are demanding One Health investments, those rich nations are balking at a proposal that would help the world identify and fight potentially dangerous pathogens.
I wrote about this issue in late February. Its called pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS). The idea is that rich countries or the pharma manufacturers should pay for access to pathogens of concern that are identified in developing countries and commit to sharing the benefits derived from that access i.e., diagnostics and vaccines that are ultimately produced with those poorer countries. That provision has been a priority for the developing world after the pandemic, when Covid-19 vaccines were slow to reach low-income nations in Africa and the rest of the world.
But the rich countries dont like it. They, along with the pharmaceutical companies they represent, argue such a system would be too bureaucratic and risk slowing down innovation in a future public health emergency.
Some experts have noted the irony of the US and Europe insisting on unfettered access to pathogens from low-income countries at the same time the US government is facing criticism for being slow to share data about H5N1.
The situation with avian influenza across the United States exemplifies the inherent hypocrisy and vested economic interests around Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response, Dr. Christian Walzer, executive director of health at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said in a statement. While the Global North is demanding transparent and rapid access to pathogen data from the Global South it seems unwilling to share such information with the world.
The two issues have become entwined in last-minute horse-trading. Based on the latest reporting, developed countries are trying to force a compromise by dangling PABS in exchange for the One Health provisions.
But as of now, the most likely outcome appears to be, at best, a symbolic commitment to One Health principles and a directive to reach an agreement on more specific provisions in the next two years.
Such a disappointing resolution, even as concerns about bird flu grow, is symptomatic of the worlds struggles to apply the lessons of Covid-19. As the urgency with which the negotiations began continues to fade, self-interest and geopolitical rivalries are standing in the way of making the world safer from pandemics.
Lets hope we dont pay the price for that shortsightedness.
This story originally appeared in Today, Explained, Voxs flagship daily newsletter. Sign up here for future editions.
Yes, I'll give $5/month
Yes, I'll give $5/month
We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via
Sign up for our free Health Check email to receive exclusive analysis on the week in health Get our free Health Check email
More than three years since AstraZeneca created its lifesaving Covid-19 vaccine, the pharmaceutical company has withdrawn the jab worldwide.
Once hailed by former prime minister Boris Johnson as a triumph for British science, the jab is thought to have saved six million lives with its creation during the pandemic.
Citing purely commercial reasons for the withdrawal, the company said the vaccine had been superseded by a surplus of available updated vaccines.
The company also said it would withdraw the marketing authorisations of the vaccine - now known under its new name Vaxzevria - within Europe.
The firms withdrawal application came into effect on Tuesday, months after the Anglo-Swedish drugmaker admitted in court documents for the first time that the vaccine causes side effects such as blood clots and low blood platelet counts.
As the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab is discontinued, heres everything we know about it.
What is the jab?
AstraZenecas vaccine was developed in collaboration with Oxford University and produced by the Serum Institute of India.
The vaccine was first approved for use in the UK in December 2020 and the first vaccination outside of a trial was administered on 4 January 2021.
It was widely administered in over 150 countries and is thought to have saved six million lives.
Some studies conducted during the pandemic found the vaccine was 60 to 80 per cent effective in protecting against the novel coronavirus.
Why does AstraZeneca say the jab has been withdrawn?
AstraZeneca said on Tuesday it had initiated the worldwide withdrawal of its Covid-19 vaccine due to a surplus of available updated vaccines since the pandemic.
The company also said it would proceed to withdraw the vaccine Vaxzevrias marketing authorizations within Europe.
As multiple, variant Covid-19 vaccines have since been developed there is a surplus of available updated vaccines, the company said, adding that this had led to a decline in demand for Vaxzevria, which is no longer being manufactured or supplied.
The firms application to withdraw the vaccine was made on 5 March and came into effect on 7 May, according to The Telegraph, which first reported the development.
The firm began moving into respiratory syncytial virus vaccines and obesity drugs through several deals last year after a slowdown in growth as Covid-19 medicine sales declined.
Are there health concerns?
AstraZeneca recently admitted in court documents that its vaccine could cause very rare side effects like blood clots and low blood platelet counts.
The admission came after the company was slapped with a class action lawsuit in the UK which claimed that the vaccine had caused deaths and severe injuries and sought damages up to 100m for about 50 victims.
It is admitted that the AZ vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause TTS. The causal mechanism is not known, AstraZeneca said in court documents in February, The Telegraph reported.
Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS) can cause potentially fatal blood clots due to low blood platelet counts in humans.
One of the people who died after having the vaccine was BBC Radio Newcastle presenter Lisa Shaw, who had her first jab in May 2021 and died just a week later.
In August of that year, Newcastle coroner Karen Dilks ruled the 44-year-old had died from a rare condition associated with the jab that induces swelling and bleeding on the brain, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
AstraZenecas admission that the vaccine could potentially prove lethal ran counter to its insistence in 2023 that it would not accept that TTS is caused by the vaccine at a generic level.
The World Health Organization also confirmed that the vaccine could have fatal side effects, saying in a statement: A very rare adverse event called Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome, involving unusual and severe blood clotting events associated with low platelet counts, has been reported after vaccination with this vaccine.
"As multiple, variant COVID-19 vaccines have since been developed there is a surplus of available updated vaccines. This has led to a decline in demand for Vaxzervria, which is no longer being manufactured or supplied," the statement said.
AstraZeneca said it would now work with regulators and partners to establish a path forward. AstraZeneca in March 2024 voluntarily withdrew its marketing authorization in the European Union, which previously allowed it to promote the vaccine.
The Vaxzevria vaccine was developed with the University of Oxford and was one of the first shots against Covid-19 to hit the market during the coronavirus pandemic, with millions of people around the world receiving it.
The U.K. was the first country to roll out the shot in January 2021, around a year after the World Health Organization first characterized the Covid-19 outbreak as a pandemic.
AstraZeneca's vaccine, despite confirmation of its safety and efficacy, has at times been met with concerns about side effects after a small number of people began to experience blood clots linked to the vaccine. A U.K. study found that blood clots were "rare" but could be "devastating."
The pharmaceutical maker on Wednesday said it was "incredibly proud" of the vaccine's role during the pandemic.
"According to independent estimates, over 6.5 million lives were saved in the first year of use alone and over three billion doses were supplied globally," its statement said.
"Our efforts have been recognised by governments around the world and are widely regarded as being a critical component of ending the global pandemic," the statement continued.
Next to Covid vaccines, AstraZeneca has been working on a range of other treatments for illnesses, such as cancer. The company said in March that it would buy clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company Fusion Pharmaceuticals Inc, which specializes in cancer treatments.
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was a critical part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. However, on May 7 2024, the European Commission announced the vaccine is no longer authorised for use.
This EU announcement was preceded by an application from AstraZeneca on March 27 2024 to withdraw the EU marketing authorisation. This development has been covered in various media outlets as primarily related to the known adverse events, namely a very small risk of blood clots. However, other factors are far more likely to be driving this decision.
The first AstraZeneca vaccine dose, outside of clinical trials, was administered on January 4 2021. In that year, about 2.5 billion doses were administered, and an estimated 6.3 million lives saved.
It was a key product at the peak of the pandemic. This includes during the emergence of the delta variant in India, across the first half of 2021 where, amid significant global supply issues, the AstraZeneca vaccine was one of the few tools available during that humanitarian crisis.
This COVID vaccine, like those from Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax and others, went through the appropriate levels of testing. The phase 3 trials (where the vaccine is tested on thousands of people) showed the AstraZeneca product was safe and effective. It was distributed in many countries in Europe in early 2021, including the UK.
The potential adverse events related to blood clots were publicly reported in February 2021, with, for example, the UK government and the drugs regulator (the MHRA) then publishing a statement about its continued use on March 18 2021.
Amid speculation and investigation, the European Medicines Agency and the World Health Organization both highlighted how the benefits of the vaccine greatly outweighed any possible risks.
This was a time when COVID levels were extremely high, and getting higher, with around 4 million confirmed new cases globally per week.
It is well established that COVID itself caused a significantly increased risk of these related blood clots and also thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). An August 2021, analysis of 30 million vaccinated people in the UK showed that the risks of thrombocytopenic events were much higher following a COVID infection, compared with any COVID-related vaccine.
From that study, the British Heart Foundation describe how for every 10 million people who are vaccinated with AstraZeneca, there are 66 extra cases of blood clots in the veins and seven extra cases of a rare type of blood clot in the brain. By comparisons, infection with COVID is estimated to cause 12,614 extra cases of blood clots in the veins and 20 cases of rare blood clots in the brain.
To put this into some perspective, these vaccine-associated blood clot rates are much lower than many widely prescribed medicines. For example, the combined contraception pill, prescribed widely to women, has blood clot-related risks of around one in 1,000. With women taking postmenopausal hormone therapy, around one in 300 per year are likely to develop a blood clot.
The AstraZeneca vaccine did suffer from a poor public profile, arguably much of it undeserved. There was some poor quality reporting in Germany in January 2021, with claims that the vaccine was only 8% effective in the elderly. This claim was widely repeated, but it turns out that 8% figure referred to the percentage of people aged over 65 years in the study and not the efficacy measure.
The antivaccine lobby had a field day with fuelling the infodemic, including other false claims such as fabricated links between the vaccine and female infertility. As with the blood clots, COVID infection is known to increase the risks of infertility, but there is no link between infertility and the vaccine.
For individuals and families likely to have been injured by any medicine, including any of the COVID vaccines, compensation schemes are available. Many claimants report difficulties and frustrations with accessing the compensation. This is an area where the government-led schemes should be more transparent, and also where the misinformation from the anti-vaccine lobby hinders those groups they are claiming to support.
So, why would AstraZeneca withdraw this high-profile product? One reason for the withdrawal is likely to be that other COVID vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna, are essentially better products.
AstraZeneca is very good, but the mRNA versions have better effectiveness and safety levels.
Read more: Our new vaccine could protect against coronaviruses that havent even emerged yet new study
The initial concerns around the difficulties of the specialist refrigeration needed to transport and store the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been overcome, including in low-income countries. The mRNA vaccines are also easier to update when new variants emerge.
With those factors, orders for the AstraZeneca vaccine are probably much lower now than they were in previous years. It is being overlooked in favour of better-performing vaccines.
For the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, perhaps its time has indeed passed. But it has been a safe and effective vaccine and a key part of the pandemic response for most countries around the world.
Correction. The sentence that read: It is well established that COVID itself caused a significantly increased risk of these related blood clots (thrombocytopenia). Now says: It is well established that COVID itself caused a significantly increased risk of these related blood clots and also thrombocytopenia (low platelet count).
Updated 1 hour ago
WhatsApp messages exchanged between DUP ministers after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic have indicated concern at the high level of restrictions in the first few months.
The exchanges were published late on Wednesday on the Covid inquiry website.
In May 2020, then-Agriculture Minister Edwin Poots told colleagues: "Incremental relaxation based on publi (sic) safety needs to happen and soon."
The discussion then moved onto wider health issues.
The first case to be detected in Northern Ireland had happened in February that year.
Former Education Minister Peter Weir said: "There is no point saving 100 lives from Covid if we cost 200 from other sources."
Mr Poots replied: "We are doing that, less screening, less clinics, less people reporting TIAs (transient ischaemic attack) and chest complaints leading to more strokes and heart attacks.
"All hospitals are operating well below capacity."
Image source, COVID INQUIRY
He added: "Lockdown was based on an overwhelmed health service... we are not in that place."
Messages were also published from the then-DUP Junior Minister Gordon Lyons and special adviser Philip Weir.
It appeared to be a WhatsApp group but the document which has been published does not make it clear.
The exchange is contained in a document entitled "Extract of Edwin Poots' WhatsApp messages with Philip Weir, Emma Little-Pengelly and other members of the Executive, dated between 09/06/2020 and 11/06/2020".
However, the WhatsApp messages quoted above are dated 7 May 2020.
They included what appears to be criticism of some non-DUP ministers, but, again, this is not totally clear.
Meanwhile, the former Sinn Fin minister Carl N Chuiln included a formal apology to families who lost relatives during the pandemic in her written statement to the inquiry.
It has now been published on the inquiry website.
Ms N Chuiln wrote: "I attended the funeral of my dear friend Bobby Storey in a personal capacity, and I accept that in doing so I caused hurt to families who lost a loved one during the pandemic. I apologise for the hurt caused by my actions."
The former minister also wrote about receiving abuse online during the pandemic, some of which she said was misogynistic.
She concluded by saying she hoped lessons could be learned "to ensure that we are better placed to protect lives in the event of a future pandemic".
Ms N Chuiln said there needed to be better information sharing and co-operation with the Irish government.
8 May 2024
A former Sinn Fin minister has said she accepts now that she should not have attended a controversial funeral during the Covid pandemic.
Carl N Chuiln was Communities Minister from June 2020 until December that year.
She was among a group of senior Sinn Fin politicians who attended the funeral of republican Bobby Storey in June 2020.
The gathering was criticised at the time as being in breach of Covid rules.
She was asked by Brenda Campbell KC, representing the Covid-19 bereaved families in Northern Ireland about her attendance at the funeral.
Ms N Chuiln told the inquiry she was "very sorry" and that attending the funeral had an impact on public confidence.
She also said she accepted she should not have attended the funeral using her ministerial car, and had later reimbursed the costs to the department.
But Ms Campbell added: "Do you accept you should not have gone to the funeral at all given your role as minister for communities?"
Ms N Chuiln replied: "I can see the hurt and the anger and I accept that now... yes I do."
To play this content, please enable JavaScript, or try a different browser
Former Education Minister Peter Weir also gave evidence on Wednesday.
He said he regrets that the debate over closing schools in Northern Ireland at the onset of the Covid pandemic created political division.
Lord Weir, a former DUP MLA, was Stormont's education minister from January 2020 until mid-2021.
He said debate within the Northern Ireland Executive over closing schools created a "level of division".
The context for closing schools, the inquiry was told, was in mid-March 2020, days before the UK government announced a national lockdown.
But the inquiry heard that the Stormont Executive met on 16 March where disagreement between ministers broke out over whether to follow suit.
Lord Weir said he took the view that ministers should be following scientific and medical advice, which at that point did not recommend shutting down all schools.
But he said Sinn Fin and Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) ministers had "one eye towards what was happening in the Republic of Ireland".
"There was a little bit of an element... the situation was that not only would they want to follow the Republic of Ireland, but there was a natural inclination not to follow what was happening in London," he said.
Lord Weir also suggested those ministers held a "level of antipathy" against the Conservative government under Boris Johnson.
The inquiry was shown handwritten notes from that meeting which showed divisions behind the scenes between the parties.
Lord Weir was asked by inquiry counsel Clair Dobbin KC how well children in Northern Ireland were being served when it came to the decision over closing schools, asking whether it had become "political and divisive".
He replied: "I regret it became that, I felt there had been a level of consensus a few days before.
"Others wanted to take it in a different direction.
"At various levels it may have been seen as being directly political."
Asked about notes provided to the inquiry about "confusion" about public messaging on schools at that point, Lord Weir said the executive's position had initially been joined up, prior to the Irish government closing schools.
Lord Weir also said that once the UK Government announced that schools in England were closing, advice from health officials at Stormont also changed and that schools in Northern Ireland should shut.
He acknowledged that it was "doable at that stage", with furlough schemes and finances available from Westminster to help support parents with childcare.
Former Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey disputed a text message that claimed she showed "no interest in Covid" prior to mid-March 2020.
Details of the text were revealed during evidence to the Covid-19 inquiry by counsel Leah Trainor.
She said the then-head of the civil service Sir David Sterling sent the message to another official, Chris Stewart, on 10 March 2020.
Ms Hargey, a Sinn Fin MLA, said it was not her reflection of the time.
The text from Sir David read: "I spoke to Tracey earlier, she's briefing her minister (who has shown no interest in Covid up to now) tomorrow."
It referred to Tracey Meharg, who was the top civil servant in the Department for Communities then advising Ms Hargey.
Asked by inquiry counsel if that was a fair assessment, Ms Hargey said she was "disappointed" to have seen the text message and its contents.
She said she had spoken an executive meeting on that date and was looking at contingency plans for her department as well as how to support key sectors.
"We would have been planning at the start of March and late February for that to happen, so I am disappointed at that text message. I don't think it reflects where we were or conversations I had with Tracey Meharg," she added.
Ms Hargey was Stormont's communities minister from January 2020 until June that year, before stepping aside temporarily due to illness.
Her party colleague Carl N Chuiln filled in during that period of sickness until December 2020 when Ms Hargey returned to work.
Former DUP Economy Minister Diane Dodds also appeared at the inquiry on Wednesday.
She was asked about the impact of the funeral of republican Bobby Storey on the public adhering to Covid restrictions.
Mrs Dodds said the event "damaged relations" within the executive.
"It was really difficult to then stand at another press conference and say to the public, 'we're going to allow you to do this', when all of this had taken place just a few days before it."
As the U.S. grapples with the lasting effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is important to highlight the ongoing challenges faced by the 7 million immunocompromised Americans. For them, the battle against Covid-19 is far from over. Often overlooked or sidelined by newsmakers and policymakers, these individuals continue to confront a heightened risk of severe illness or death due to their compromised immune systems, while society largely adjusts to life with the virus.
Among this vulnerable group are people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, recipients of organ transplants, those with autoimmune conditions, and others. They endure prolonged isolation and sacrifice vital economic, emotional, and societal connections, yearning for a return to normalcy even as the coronavirus remains indifferent to their pleas. Their unique circumstances demand a comprehensive and tailored approach to health care that is both accessible and inclusive.
While commendable progress has been made in developing and distributing Covid-19 antivirals and vaccines benefiting billions the same cannot be said for other innovative prevention and treatment options, such as monoclonal antibodies (mABs), which have only been recently authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration.
Consumer Action, the national nonprofit dedicated to consumer advocacy, education, and empowerment that I work for, commends the FDA for prioritizing this decision and focusing on this often-overlooked segment of the population. Its swift review and approval of cutting-edge Covid-19 treatment therapies, including mABs that have been reformulated and updated to combat the newest strains of the virus, will provide a level and sense of relief for the immunocompromised patient population.
But approval is just the first step. These lifesaving interventions must be made accessible, affordable, and available to those who need them most. The level of accessibility for medications like mABs must mirror the widespread availability of Covid-19 antivirals and vaccines (such as in clinics, hospitals, and pharmacies), seamlessly integrating them into both private and public health care systems to ensure access for all Americans, regardless of their location or socioeconomic background.
Public-private partnerships will play a crucial role in connecting immunocompromised people with these new lifesaving therapies. A key first step would be for the Department of Health and Human Services to instruct insurance providers, nonprofits, pharmaceutical companies, and government health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Health Administration to ensure these treatments are affordable, akin to the Biden administrations actions with Covid-19 vaccines in fall 2023. That collaboration showed how government can work with the private sector to establish a more accessible and inclusive health care system that effectively addresses disease and illness for all Americans.
A comprehensive public health education campaign tailored to the needs of immunocompromised individuals will also be imperative to ensure they understand precautions, risks, and support. This campaign, which should feature input from administration officials, industry stakeholders, and health care professionals from white coats to the White House must address the unique challenges faced by this population. Clear guidance on innovative prevention and treatment options, including mABs, must be provided to empower the immunocompromised and ensure their active involvement in their health care decisions. Engaging the patient advocacy community will help ensure that immunocompromised people know how and where to get these innovative treatments.
We're hosting events nationwide (and virtually) to tackle the biggest questions in health and medicine. Browse our upcoming events to see what's on the horizon.
The ongoing fight against Covid-19 requires a collective effort that leaves no one behind. Championing inclusive and innovative prevention and treatment options for all Americans, particularly the immunocompromised, is not merely a public health concern; it reflects a societal commitment to fundamental rights such as healthcare access, equity, and inclusion.
As Americans strive to move beyond Covid-19, it is important to acknowledge that for the 7 million immunocompromised individuals, the pandemic remains an ongoing challenge. Despite easing restrictions, Covid-19 continues to pose a significant threat to their well-being. Through decisive action, collaboration, and education, we can empower them to navigate this reality alongside their co-workers, family, friends, and neighbors, fostering a stronger sense of community resilience and support.
Ken McEldowney is a senior fellow at Consumer Action, a national consumer advocacy and education membership organization.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic four years ago, there have been reports that the number of children around the world suffering from ADHD has increased significantly. Many teachers, parents, and doctors have spoken of children having difficulty making eye contact, being immersed in screens, and losing the ability to pay attention over longer periods of time.
A new Israeli study sought to find out whether there has been an increase in the prevalence of the disorder and, if so, whether it is related to coronavirus.
The study, which was presented at the Israel Pediatric Association Conference on Wednesday in Tel Aviv, was conducted by Dr. Nitzan Shahar from Tel Aviv University, Dr. Vered Shekalim Zemer, and Prof. Iris Manor, a specialist in child psychiatry with Clalit. The researchers gathered data on three million cases of children aged 6 to 18 years from the electronic database of Clalit Health Services and examined the rate of diagnoses before, during, and after the Corona epidemic.
Information was collected on the age groups, gender, socioeconomic status, and dates of diagnosis of ADHD from the data. The researchers found that the coronavirus epidemic had no effect on the rates of ADHD diagnoses and that there was no significant change in the number of diagnoses during the epidemic.
The study explained that the theory that the coronavirus causes ADHD may adversely affect children who actually have ADHD as they may not be diagnosed, thinking that their symptoms were due to the virus and not the neurodevelopmental disorder itself.
"The rumor that the coronavirus causes attention deficit disorder has been circulating for several years," explains Prof. Iris Menor. However, from all the information collected in the global medical literature and from our research, no difference was found in the rate of attention deficit disorder before and after the epidemic. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder with a genetic and neurological basis, not a response to virus infection."
According to Prof. Manor, it may be the exposure to screens and social media that causes developmental damage that may affect the ability to listen: "Children now rarely make eye contact, express themselves with emojis, hardly ever read books, and are exposed to videos on Tiktok and Instagram that last a few seconds."
"All of these may impair their ability to maintain attention for a long time and their need for immediate stimulation. However, it is not a medical attention disorder, which begins in childhood and continues throughout life. Either way, the recommendation is for any parent in doubt to go to a specialist for a diagnosis," she added.
Many medical institutions in Japan are still providing a significant number of consultations for patients with prolonged aftereffects of COVID-19, a year after the country downgraded the disease to a lower-risk category under the infectious disease control law.
Wednesday marked a year since the government lowered the classification of COVID-19 from Category II to Category V, which includes seasonal influenza. While the usual hustle and bustle has returned to the streets of Japan, many people are still left with COVID-19 aftereffects in some cases with symptoms that greatly hamper people's daily activities.
The World Health Organization defines COVID-19 aftereffects as symptoms that last for at least two months after infection and cannot be attributed to other diseases.
Sign up for our free Health Check email to receive exclusive analysis on the week in health Get our free Health Check email
The Covid-19 vaccine developed by Oxford scientists during the pandemic has been withdrawn from the market.
Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca said that it was incredibly proud of the vaccine, but that it had been withdrawn due to plummeting demand.
In December 2020, the vaccine became the second Covid-19 jab to be approved for use in the UK and former prime minister Boris Johnson hailed it as a triumph for British science.
Vaccine makers agreed that it could be manufactured on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic across the world, and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries.
Our efforts have been recognised by governments around the world and are widely regarded as being a critical component of ending the global pandemic
AstraZeneca spokesperson
Billions of doses were created and made available across 183 countries.
Estimates suggest that the rollout of the jab saved 6.3 million lives around the world.
But AstraZeneca said that the rise of new variants in the virus which causes Covid-19 has shifted market demand towards newer vaccines geared towards tackling these variants.
A spokesperson for AstraZeneca said: We are incredibly proud of the role Vaxzevria played in ending the global pandemic. According to independent estimates, over 6.5 million lives were saved in the first year of use alone and over three billion doses were supplied globally.
Our efforts have been recognised by governments around the world and are widely regarded as being a critical component of ending the global pandemic.
As multiple, variant Covid-19 vaccines have since been developed there is a surplus of available updated vaccines. This has led to a decline in demand for Vaxzevria, which is no longer being manufactured or supplied. AstraZeneca has therefore taken the decision to initiate withdrawal of the marketing authorisations for Vaxzevria within Europe.
We will now work with regulators and our partners to align on a clear path forward to conclude this chapter and significant contribution to the Covid-19 pandemic.
It has been an excellent and vital vaccine, a key part of the pandemic response for most countries around the world
Dr Michael Head, University of Southampton
AstraZeneca has faced a number of claims of vaccine injury linked to the jab.
On April 7 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued updated information on the possible risk of extremely rare and unlikely to occur specific types of blood clots following vaccination with the AstraZeneca jab.
The regulator said the benefits of vaccination continue to outweigh any risks but advised careful consideration be given to people who are at higher risk of specific types of blood clots because of their medical condition.
Last year lawyers acting on behalf of father-of-two Jamie Scott told the High Court that he has suffered brain injury after receiving the vaccine.
Commenting on the withdrawal, Dr Michael Head, senior research fellow in global health at the University of Southampton, said: It has been an excellent and vital vaccine, a key part of the pandemic response for most countries around the world.
There would have been far more deaths, hospitalisations, illness and transmission, if we hadnt had the AstraZeneca vaccine, alongside the other key vaccines such as Pfizer and Moderna.
There are known adverse events, such as the blood clots, but these are rare, and the safety profile is overall very good. For comparison, the accepted rate of blood clots is much higher in medicines prescribed in areas of womens health, such as the combined pill.
The key reason for the withdrawal is likely to be that other Covid vaccines, such as Pfizer and Moderna, are essentially better products. AstraZeneca is very good, but the mRNA products (and probably Novavax too) are better.
They have higher effectiveness and the mRNA platforms are more easily adapted towards the latest Covid variants. Thus, they form a key part of most countries longer-term strategies.
