Quebecs immunization committee is once again recommending that certain vulnerable groups get vaccinated against COVID-19 this fall.
The recommendations, published Monday for Quebecs Health Ministry as well as health-care institutions, come as the province experiences a summer wave of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations.
The committee recommends boosters for the same groups as it did last year:
Article content
For other groups, such as healthy young adults, one dose could be offered, the recommendations read. However, the (immunization committee) considers that the benefits of such a dose will be minor, given the very low risk of complications from COVID-19 in this population.
It noted that hospitalizations related to COVID-19 are most common among elderly people and those with chronic illnesses.
The provinces positivity rate for COVID-19 tests stands at 16.3 per cent, up from a low of 2.1 per cent in early April, according to the Institut national de sant publique du Qubec. During the week of July 14, the latest week for which data is available, 790 Quebecers tested positive for the virus. Quebec also reported a total of 820 hospitalizations with and for COVID-19 as of July 16, up from a low of 428 such hospitalizations in April.
Article content
The uptick is being driven largely by the KP.3 sub-variant, which is now predominant in Quebec.
For the fall campaign, the immunization committee is recommending Quebec wait for a vaccine adapted to the strains in circulation. It also says the province should not recommend mRNA vaccines over the protein-based Nuvaxovid vaccine, saying both could be offered based on whichever is best suited to variants in circulation at the time.
The committee pointed out that vaccines targeting the XBB.1.5 variant are the most up-to-date, but noted that one targeted to circulating strains should be authorized in time for the fall campaign.
Novavax said earlier this month that it is developing a vaccine that would protect against KP.3 in Canada in time for the fall.
The committee added that primary analyses show the XBB.1.5 vaccine given out during the fall 2023 campaign for those over 60 resulted in that group being 43 per cent more protected compared to those who only received a booster of the monovalent or bivalent vaccine during the fall 2022 campaign.
It suggested an interval of six months from the last dose of COVID-19 vaccine or a confirmed infection, with a minimum interval of three months.
This flexibility aims to facilitate vaccination in fall 2024 and allow a targeted person to receive a dose during this campaign even if they were vaccinated late during the previous campaign, the recommendations read. It is not intended to allow the offering of a dose of vaccine every three months. A targeted person should receive no more than two booster doses in a 12-month period.
The committee also suggested that Quebec offer COVID-19 boosters at the same time as flu vaccines.
It added that recommendations for the fall will be revised if necessary ahead of time or during the campaign as the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve.
Recommended from Editorial
Analysis: Quebec in midst of new COVID-19 summer wave
Scientists, clinicians across Canada preparing for future pandemic threats
Analysis: What Franois Legault's health-care video doesn't tell you
Share this article in your social network
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. Arkansas-based furniture retailer Hanks Furniture has agreed to pay $110,000 to a former manager the company fired for refusing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
The lawsuit, brought forward by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the District Court for Northern Florida in late 2023, alleged Hanks Fine Furniture, which operates 18 stores across four states, fired the assistant manager of its Pensacola, Fla., store after she refused to take the COVID vaccine. She cited her religious beliefs as the reason for her refusal.
Federal court records indicate the settlement was reached Monday. Besides the payout, the company must adhere to a three-year decree, which requires it to adopt and implement a written policy assuring employees it will interpret religious accommodation requests broadly based on EEOC guidance and will accommodate religious beliefs that do not put an undue burden on the company. Also, managers and employees are to receive updated training about religious accommodation and anti-discrimination provisions.
HFI will reasonably accommodate employee and prospective employee religious beliefs during all hiring, discipline and promotion activities as well as when engaging in any activity affecting any other terms and conditions of employment according to the requirements of Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), wrote Judge Casey Rodgers. HFI is permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII.
Rodgers also said that Hanks cannot require any proof that an employees or applicants objection to any requirement be an official tenet or endorsed teaching of the religious belief.
Hanks has not responded to requests for comment as of this articles publication. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Hanks denied any and all wrongdoing.
Basic characteristics of the survey respondents and factors affecting the COVID-19 vaccination rate
The KMO value was 0.942 and the Bartletts sphericity test value was significant (P<0.001), indicating high validity. The Cronbachs alpha was 0.889, indicating high reliability. The total number of individuals that participated was 1936; however, 38 individuals were excluded because they did not meet the diagnostic criteria for COPD. Altogether, 1898 questionnaires were completed, of which 24 were regarded as invalid, and finally 1,874 valid questionnaires were obtained (validity rate of 98.74%). The age of the patients was mostly 5565-years (n=564, 30.10%); the height was mostly 160170cm (n=721, 38.47%); the weight was mostly 5060kg (n=596, 31.80%); the patients were mostly male, accounting for 56.78% (n=1064); patients in junior high school accounted for the largest proportion (n=649, 34.63%); and married patients accounted for the majority of patients (n=1290, 68.84%). Most patients needed care (n=1476, 78.76%), while unattended patients accounted for only 21.24% (n=398). Cumulatively, 77.16% (n=1446) of the patients were covered by rural cooperative or urban medical insurance, 19.69% (n=369) were self-financed for medical care, and 3.15% (n=59) were covered by public medical care. Most of the families had per capita monthly incomes of 3,0005,000 yuan (n=900, 48.03%), and 36.87% (n=691) of the patients had a history of allergy. A history of smoking was present in 52.56% of the patients (n=985), with the majority having a smoking history of 1020years (n=252, 25.58%), and smoked 510 cigarettes per day (n=322, 32.69%). Univariate analysis revealed that age (P<0.001), marital status (P<0.001), monthly income (P<0.001), habitual residence (P<0.001), household income (P=0.007), history of allergy (P<0.001), smoking status (P<0.001), years of smoking (P<0.001), and number of cigarettes smoked per day (P<0.001) were the key factors affecting COVID-19 vaccination rate. Details are presented in Table 1.
In the survey, more than half of the patients were diagnosed with COPD for the first time (n=1114, 59.45%), and for patients who had been diagnosed with COPD before, the duration of illness was mostly <5years (n=321, 42.24%); nearly half of the patients indicated that they did not have much knowledge regarding COPD (n=963, 51.39%), and 40.00% (n=937) had 12 acute exacerbations of the disease in the past year, while half of the patients were not hospitalized for acute exacerbation (n=852, 45.46%); nearly one-third of the patients did not use medication for COPD regularly (n=554, 29.56%). We recommended treatments based on established guidelines for patients who did not receive regular treatment. 33.62% of the patients (n=630) and 15.64% of the patients (n=293) underwent home oxygen therapy and used non-invasive ventilation machines, respectively; more than half of the patients considered their current health status fair (n=1051, 56.08%). After comparisons, we established whether COPD was diagnosed for the first time (P=0.002), duration of COPD (P<0.001), number of acute exacerbations of COPD in the last year (P<0.001), number of hospitalizations for acute exacerbations in the last year (P<0.001), comorbidities with other systemic diseases (P<0.001), the severity of the current disease, including the degree of dyspnea (P<0.001), degree of cough (P=0.048), degree of expectoration (P<0.001), degree of wheezing (P<0.001), home activities influenced by COPD (P<0.001), ability to go outside (P<0.001), sleep quality (P=0.005), energy level (P<0.001), and current physical condition (P<0.001), regularity of medication (P<0.001), home oxygen therapy (P<0.001), and application of non-invasive ventilation machines (P<0.001) were factors that significantly different in the COVID-19 vaccination rate. The details are presented in Table 2.
Most patients had not been injected with the relevant vaccines (n=936, 49.95%), and among those who had been injected with the relevant vaccines, the influenza vaccine had been administered to the highest number of patients (n=688, 36.71%). The results of the univariate analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the COVID-19 vaccination rate based on whether other vaccines had been injected and whether an adverse reaction had occurred after the injection of other vaccines (both P<0.001). The details are presented in Table 3. Approximately a third of the patients experienced adverse reactions after vaccination (n=281; 29.18%). The most frequent adverse reaction was malaise (n=203, 72.24%) followed by digestive tract symptoms (n=197, 70.11%). The adverse reactions of influenza, pneumonia, or herpes zoster vaccines in patients with COPD are shown in Fig.1.
Adverse reactions of influenza, pneumonia, or herpes zoster vaccines in patients with COPD. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The vast majority of the patients were currently inoculated with the COVID-19 vaccine (n=1473, 78.60%); among them, 50.31% (n=741) had received three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, 42.50% (n=626) had received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, and only 7.20% (n=106) had received one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (Fig.2A,B). The reason for vaccination was self-selected as the need for disease prevention (n=1050, 70.47%). Fear of causing exacerbation or recurrence of the disease of COPD (n=113, 45.75%) was foremost among the reasons for not having received the COVID-19 vaccine yet. Only 33.14% (n=629) of the patients were worried about the exacerbation of COPD after vaccination prior to receiving the vaccine, and the most common concern was adverse reactions after vaccination (n=900, 47.42%). Most patients had no concerns regarding the COVID-19 vaccine (n=921, 48.52%). The reasons for this are summarized in Table 4.
Status of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with COPD and the number of doses. (A) Status of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with COPD; (B) Number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with COPD. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Nearly half of the patients consulted medical staff regarding COVID-19 vaccination (n=913, 48.72%). Most patients who consulted medical staff received answers (n=634, 69.44%), while only a few patients found the consultation method inconvenient or very inconvenient (n=171, 18.73%). Medical staff recommended the COVID-19 vaccine to most patients (n=1270, 67.77%). The vast majority of patients with COPD had not yet contracted COVID-19 pneumonia (n=1730, 92.32%). More than half of the patients were concerned about contracting COVID-19 (n=1039, 55.44%), and 87.09% (n=1584) believed that the vaccine could prevent COVID-19 infection, and 86.88% believed that the current COVID-19 vaccine was very safe (n=538, 28.71%) or safe (n=1094, 58.38%). The results demonstrated statistically significant differences in COVID-19 vaccination rates among those who had been infected with COVID-19 (P<0.001), those who were concerned about contracting COVID-19 (P=0.001), those who believed that vaccines could prevent COVID-19 (P<0.001), their views on current vaccine safety (P<0.001), whether they received answers after consulting medical staff about COVID-19 vaccination (P=0.001), and whether medical staff recommended COVID-19 vaccination (P<0.001). The attitudes of the respondents toward the COVID-19 vaccine and the factors affecting the COVID-19 vaccination rate are presented in Table 5.
The COVID-19 vaccines administered to patients with COPD include CoronaVac, Sinopharm/BIBP (Beijing Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd.), Sinopharm/WIBP (Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd), CanSinoBio, Zhifei Longcom, KCONECAVAC, and IMBCAMS. In total, 1473 patients with COPD received one dose, 1367 patients with COPD received two doses, and 741 patients with COPD received three doses. The most commonly administered vaccines for the first dose in patients with COPD were CoronaVac (n=551, 37.41%) and Sinopharm/BIBP (n=507, 34.42%). The most commonly administered vaccines for the second dose in patients with COPD were CoronaVac (n=507, 37.09%) and Sinopharm/BIBP (n=441, 32.26%). The most commonly administered vaccines for the third dose in patients with COPD were CoronaVac (n=276, 37.25%) and Sinopharm/BIBP (n=242, 32.66%) (Fig.3).
Brands and number of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with COPD. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Only a small number of patients experienced adverse reactions after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine: 18.94% (n=279), 16.39% (n=224), and 12.55% (n=93) after the first, second, and third doses, respectively. Most adverse reactions occurred within 48h of injection for the first (n=171, 61.29%) and second doses (n=129, 57.59%), whereas adverse reactions occurred primarily within 24h after the third vaccination (n=27, 29.03%) (Fig.4). Adverse reactions were similar for all three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, with very few systemic adverse reactions. The most adverse reactions were weakness or muscle soreness in 74.91% (n=209) and 71.33% (n=199) for the first injection and 59.82% (n=134) and 67.41% (n=151) for the second injection. The adverse reactions after the third injection more often manifested as muscle soreness or redness, swelling, and pain at the injection site in 54.84% (n=51) and 53.76% (n=50) patients (Fig.5).
Occurrence of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccine in patients with COPD. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccine in patients with COPD. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
Using COVID-19 vaccination as the dependent variable, all statistically significant indicators in the univariate analysis were included as independent variables. To eliminate possible associations between the variables, a multicollinearity diagnosis was performed before including them in the multivariate analysis. Our results indicated that tolerance was greater than 0.1, and the variance inflation factor was less than 5. There was no significant collinearity among the factors. Stepwise regression was adopted in the multivariate analysis and the collinearity of the variables was further restricted. The results of multivariate logistic regression analyses (Table 6) revealed that the factors that influenced COVID-19 vaccination were: age being 7585years (OR=1.822, 95% CI 1.0233.246) (P=0.042) and >85years (OR=2.609, 95% CI 1.0016.802) (P=0.050), 34 times of acute exacerbations in the last year (OR=1.693, 95% CI 1.2222.555) (P=0.012), comorbid cardiovascular system diseases (such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, and heart failure) (OR=1.544, 95% CI 1.1852.010) (P=0.001), and comorbid endocrine system diseases (such as diabetes and osteoporosis) (OR=1.762, 95% CI 1.3272.339) (P<0.001), not taking regular medication for COPD (OR=1.357, 95% CI 1.0321.784) (P=0.029), application of non-invasive ventilation machines (OR=1.469, 95% CI 1.0632.029) (P=0.020), perceiving current health condition as deteriorating (OR=1.863, 95% CI 1.2032.886) (P=0.005), perceived current COVID-19 vaccine as unsafe (OR=2.813, 95% CI 1.8544.269) (P<0.001) and very unsafe (OR=2.215, 95% CI 1.0224.802) (P=0.044), medical staff did not provide a clear answer as to whether they recommended COVID-19 vaccination (OR=1.664, 95% CI 1.2422.229) (P=0.001), medical staff did not recommend the COVID-19 vaccine (OR=3.695, 95% CI 2.4495.575) (P<0.001), fear of adverse reactions after vaccination (OR=1.575, 95% CI 1.11962.074) (P=0.001), and exacerbation of COPD (OR=1.811, 95% CI 1.37762.382) (P<0.001).
This summer is not only bringing the heat but a wave of new COVID-19 infections across Tarrant County.
Dr. Razaq Badamosi, chief quality officer with JPS Health Network, said COVID-19 cases were expected to increase in Tarrant County during the summer and they did.
As of July 13, only 2.69% of documented emergency department visits have been associated with COVID-19 in Tarrant County. But the percentage was more than double the number in early June, when COVID-19 accounted for 1.03% of emergency room visits, according to Tarrant County Public Health.
We have actually seen an increase this summer, but fortunately most of the cases we are seeing are quite mild and most have been managed at outpatient locations, he said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the number of COVID-19 infections is growing or likely growing in 42 states, declining or likely declining in zero states, and stable or uncertain in six states. Some states are unreported. The latest data shows Texas current status as growing.
Even with the rising number of documented cases across Tarrant County, the virus is not as prominent as in previous summers, said Badamosi. Tarrant Countyexperienced a COVID-19 spike in the middle of August 2023, when 1,152 new cases were reported in a months span.
Like many other viruses, the coronavirus has evolved and formed into new variants. Experts are linking the most recent COVID-19 cases to the most prominent variants in the state: FLiRT.
The FLiRT variants are subvariants of omicron and accounted for the majority of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. at the beginning of July. FLiRT is made up of a family of variants, including KP.2, JN.1.7 and others starting with KP or JN, according to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Health experts dont know where the variants emerged, but they were first detected in wastewater by the CDC, according to Yale Medicine.
Like other COVID variants, symptoms remain the same for FLiRT: changes in taste and smell, congestion, dry cough, diarrhea, fatigue, fever, runny nose and sore throat.
Health experts urge residents to practice good hygiene to keep themselves and others healthy as the summer continues. Badamosi recommends those age 6 months or older receive the latest COVID-19 vaccine.
It is recommended that people who have a weakened immune system receive a booster vaccine.
Even though no vaccine currently targets FLiRT, the updated COVID-19 vaccine made available in the fall of 2023 still offers protection against new variants. The latest vaccine is expected to become available in the fall, said Badamosi.
If you are in urgent need of a booster, click here to see where you can receive a free vaccine in Tarrant County.
Tarrant County Public Health will be hosting back-to-school immunizations until the end of August. Click here to find an event near you.
Badamosi encourages residents to cover sneezes or coughs, avoid close contact with those who are sick, avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth, and get plenty of rest.
With school back in session next month, it is important that children who are experiencing any COVID-19 symptoms be kept at home. If you are unsure whether your child is experiencing signs of COVID-19 or other illnesses, it is recommended you contact your childs pediatrician.
Badamosi said he understands that some people have become annoyed hearing about COVID-19, but he urges people to stay-up-to-date on the virus.
A lot of people have the luxury of really being tired of (COVID-19), but there are some of us in a society that are not as fortunate, he said. Some are immunocompromised; theyre getting chemotherapy or have chronic health conditions. This is still life-threatening for them. Its really very important for us to still comply with local health guidelines.
David Moreno is the health reporter at the Fort Worth Report. Contact him at david.moreno@fortworthreport.org or viaTwitter.
At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policyhere.
This article first appeared on Fort Worth Report and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
When the virus that causes COVID-19emerged in 2019, no one had protectiveimmunity. Nearly five years later, most of the United States population has some immunity, either because ofvaccination,infectionor both.Inmost cases, COVID-19illnesses now are less severe than in the early days of the pandemic.
But the coronavirus remains a public health threat, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And on Long Island and statewide,positive tests for COVID-19 have been on the rise since late spring.
The CDC's recommendations from how to prevent getting infected orpassing the viruson to someone else, to symptoms and therapeutic treatments remain largely the same.
The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 isstill transmitted by airborne particles and droplets, according to the CDC. The risk of infection increases with close or prolonged contact with an infected person, especially in indoor or crowded settings.
The CDC has long recommended vaccination against the virusas the best way to prevent serious illness from COVID-19. Vaccination also provides some protection from initial infection.Avoiding close contact with others if infected, masking in crowded indoor spaces and hand washing can also prevent infection, the CDC says.
In most cases, yes, experts say.CDC recommendations call foreveryone 6 months and older to get an updated 2024-2025 COVID-19vaccine to protect against potentially serious complications of the diseasethis fall and winter. Getting an updated version of the vaccine is important because it will be better able to protect against new variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Also, the protection from a vaccine declines over time. The updated COVID-19 vaccines will be available later this year from Moderna, Novavax, and Pfizer, most likely in September or October.
Dr. Bruce Farber, chief of epidemiology and public health with Northwell Health, recommended taking the vaccine as soon as its available.
"Its a long time since weve had a vaccine for many of us, its going to be a year," he said. Because Long Islanders and Americans in general have done a "remarkably poor" job keeping up with vaccinations in recent years, he recommended signing up to take the flu vaccine at the same time as the one against COVID-19.
People with COVID-19 can be infectious from 1 to 2 days before and up to 8 to 10 days after symptoms begin, according to the CDC. The majority of transmission appears to occur during the early periods of infection, particularly in the 1 to 2 days before symptoms start and within the first few days of their onset.
Yes. Symptoms include fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, nasal congestion or rhinorrhea, vomiting, diarrhea and skin rashes. However, not everyone infected experiences these symptoms.
Anyone with symptoms who is planningtoattenda gathering or visitsomeoneespecially vulnerable to illness, like anelderly person or the very young or immunosuppressed, should take a COVID-19 test, experts said.
But test wisely, Farber said. "The rapid tests that we now rely on are no longer particularly good at diagnosing COVID, with these newer variants that are circulating," he said. A positive result still likely means infection, but false negatives are possible with rapid tests, also known as antigen tests. For that reason, especially if you have symptoms but negative results, "if you want to test reliably, you need to do a PCR." The PCR testsare generally administered by a health care professional and results take longer, but they offer what the CDC calls the "gold standard" of accuracy.
Not necessarily. If you have COVID-19 symptoms, you should stay home until they improve, according to the CDC. But since March, the agency has advised that people can return to work and regular activities if their symptoms are mild and improving and its been at least a day since theyve had a fever. "If you go out, think about wearing a mask," said Dr. Sharon Nachman, division chief of pediatric infectious disease at Stony Brook Children's Hospital.
Dr. Aaron Glatt, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau hospital, said "youre probably contagious" if you test positive, even if you feel fine. At a minimum, Glatt said, consider the risk profile of the people you might be around and tell them youve been sick. Consider that "Most people wont want to be around you" if theres a chance you can get them sick too, he said.
Start by exercising common sense, said Nachman. "If you have a fever, you should be home drinking fluids and taking it easy." If you have no fever, see how your body responds to walking up the stairs: "if you are air hungry or getting short of breath then no exercise."
Antiviral treatments like Paxlovid have been shown to reduce hospitalizations and deaths among older people and people with underlying health conditions when taken soon after COVID-19 symptoms start. But "for people who are under 60 and healthy, theres no evidence" to indicate their use, said Glatt.
The experts say yes. New York State testing data shows that positive tests have been on the rise statewide and Long Islandwide since late spring, though the latest Long Island rate of 16.9 cases per 100,000 people is well below the January high of 72.3. Whats going on? "We are seeing new variants, and its possible that our current variant is more infectious than the prior one," Nachman said. Also, she said, "People have lost some immunity to COVID over the last year, so perhaps theyre a little more susceptible than last year." Changes in behavior like more socializing could also play a role, she said. However, "hospitalization rates and death rates are not up significantly," Farber said. "Most people are recovering very well."
Nicholas Spangler is a general assignment reporter and has worked at Newsday since 2010.
A Guilford County teenager and his mother challenge the argument that a federal law blocks their lawsuit over the teens forced COVID vaccination. They filed a new brief Tuesday with the North Carolina Supreme Court, which agreed in May to hear the case.
Mother Emily Happel and son Tanner Smith sued the Guilford County school board and Old North State Medical Society over the forced vaccination in 2021.
Lower courts have ruled against Happel and Smith. Those courts have determined that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act offered immunity to the school board and medical society.
In the instant case, the particular facts and circumstances do not give rise to the types of liability for which Congress was attempting to provide immunity, wrote David Steven Walker, the mother and teens lawyer. The PREP Acts purpose was to provide for quick action when all the answers may not be readily apparent during a time of emergency. It was to promote that by providing immunity for negligent acts, for unknown side-effects, and for other matters directly related to the countermeasures (such as breakdowns in crowd control).
However, in this case, defendants assert immunity for a willful act the administration of a medical procedure without the required consent of the patient or the patients parent, Walker added. This was not the type of act for which Congress was seeking to provide immunity, and this Court should find that immunity does not exist.
Congress made this clear in the Emergency Use Authorization Act, when it required as a condition for authorization of an unapproved product [a]ppropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, he wrote.
Happel and Smiths brief also highlighted state law.
Just as Congress envisioned individuals to be able to refuse administration of a EUA vaccine, the General Assembly made it crystal clear that parents could also make that decision for their children, Walker wrote. At the time of the vaccine administration to Tanner, the law of the land of North Carolina required parental consent.
Defendants view of the PREP Act is so sweeping that it would sweep this important act of the General Assembly into the dustbin as a statute that states nothing more than an aspirational goal, rather than a concrete and enforceable mandate, Walker added.
The intent of Congress, when reading the Act as a whole, was to limit the liability for adverse effects and promote the quick development and deployment of the countermeasure, not to give carte blanche to medical providers to perform medical procedures without consent, Walker wrote. To hold otherwise would violate the canon against absurdities.
A May 23 order confirmed that the state Supreme Court would take up the case from Happel and Smith, who was 14 when he faced the forced vaccination. Justices signaled that they would consider a single issue: Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred when they determined that the PREP Act provided immunity to the defendants for constitutional violations and pre-empted all state law claims.
The case has attracted attention from eight Republican members of North Carolinas House of Representatives. They filed a brief on April 12 urging the high court to take the case.
They have a special interest in protecting the fundamental rights of the parents they represent and for whom the General Assembly has recently enacted legislation on the very subject embraced by this appeal, wrote Tyler Brooks of the Thomas More Society, who represents the eight legislators.
As members of the General Assembly, they have a unique role in ensuring that local governmental bodies, particularly those charged with public education or who otherwise interact with children, abide by and are governed according to North Carolina state law, Brooks added. In this same vein, they further have a strong interest in ensuring that the enactments of the General Assembly are upheld against erroneous findings of federal preemption, as occurred in the instant case.
The Guilford school board and Old North State Medical Society filed separate documents asking North Carolinas highest court not to take the case.
The school boards court filing asked the court to reject claims from Happel and Smith on the grounds that the alleged constitutional questions are not real and substantial and that the subject matter of this case does not involve legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of this State or raise issues of significant public interest.
[T]he direct issue before the Court of Appeals is not a substantial constitutional question rather, it is a straightforward application of federal statutory immunity, which applies to the same degree to state law claims and state constitutional claims, and which is not at all an issue of first impression, the Guilford schools lawyers wrote. In fact, the idea of federal law overriding contrary state constitutional provisions appears in the U.S. Constitution itself, which expressly states that federal law supersedes both contrary state laws and state constitutions.
Even the specific idea of the PREP Act immunizing against constitutional claims is not a new one, the court filing added. Guilfords brief cited a 2024 decision from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals holding that, through the PREP Act, Congress expressly foreclosed federal constitutional claims related to covered countermeasures.
Happel and Smith filed a petition on April 5 asking the states highest court to take their case.
The pandemic that occurred from 2020-2022 caused a seismic shift in the social, medical, political, and legal landscape of not only the State of North Carolina, not only the United States, but the world as a whole, Walker wrote. How the government chose to deal with the pandemic, especially concerning the administration of vaccines that had been granted emergency use authorizations, was and is a hotly contested issue, one that is certainly of significant public interest.
This public interest is even more significant when the issue revolves around the vaccination of a minor and the allegation that neither the minor nor the minors parent consented to the administration of the vaccine, Walker added.
The case deals with the interplay between duty of the courts of North Carolina to remedy constitutional and other legal violations and a federal law that defendants purport forecloses that opportunity, Walker wrote.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals interpreted the PREP Act so broadly as to shield nearly every act, no matter how egregious, from any legal consequence, according to the petition. Further, the Court of Appeals and the trial courts decision rendered totally useless N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.5(a1) which prohibited the very acts committed by defendants. It is now a law of aspiration, with no consequence for its blatant violation.
The quoted state law NCGS 90-21.5(a1) says, Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a health care provider shall obtain written consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering any vaccine that has been granted emergency use authorization and is not yet fully approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration to an individual under 18 years of age.
The Appeals Court issued a unanimous March 5 decision against the mother and son despite labeling the forced vaccination egregious.
Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in determining that the PREP Act is applicable to this case and provides immunity to both Defendants, Judge April Wood wrote. Due to the sweeping breadth of the federal liability immunity provision in the PREP Act, we are constrained to disagree.
Bound by the broad scope of immunity provided by the PREP Act, we are constrained to hold it shields Defendants, under the facts of this case, from Plaintiffs claims relating to the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine, Wood added.
In August 2021, Smith was a 14-year-old Western Guilford High School football player. His family learned in a letter from the Guilford schools that Smith might have been affected by a COVID-19 cluster involving the team. He would not be allowed to return to practice until getting a COVID test.
Free testing would be provided at Northwest Guilford High School. The letter indicated ONS Medical Society would conduct the testing and consent for testing is required, Wood wrote.
Smiths stepfather drove him to the testing site and waited outside the building. The teenager was asked to fill out a form while a clinic worker tried unsuccessfully to contact his mother. Smith and his family didnt know the clinic also provided COVID-19 vaccine shots.
After failing to make contact with Tanners mother, one of the workers instructed the other worker to give it to him anyway. Tanner stated he did not want a vaccine and was only expecting a test, but one of the workers administered a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to him, Wood wrote.
Happel and Smith filed suit in August 2022. A trial judge dismissed the case in March 2023.
Appellate judges ruled that both the school board and medical society were covered by the federal PREP Act. A declaration from the secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services in March 2020 offered protection related to the COVID-19 vaccine.
[W]e hold ONS Medical Society is a covered person as a program planner that administered a vaccine clinic, and individually administered vaccines to individuals. The declaration clearly provides that a program planner may be a private sector employer or community group when it carries out the described activities including administration of a covered countermeasure, Wood wrote.
The same law also applied to the Guilford school board. We are convinced by the Secretarys interpretation in the declaration that a covered person under the PREP Act includes a state or local government . . . [that] provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure. We hold this language includes the Board, which provided a facility Northwest Guilford High School for the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines, Wood wrote.
Wisely or not, the plain language of the PREP Act includes claims of battery and violations of state constitutional rights within the scope of its immunity, and it therefore shields Defendants from liability for Plaintiffs claims, Wood added.
The Appeals Court noted that North Carolinas General Assembly amended state law in 2021 to require parental consent before a vaccine granted emergency use authorization may be administered to a minor.
Its intent is to prevent the egregious conduct alleged in the case before us, and to safeguard the constitutional rights at issue Emilys parental right to the care and control of her child, and Tanners right to individual liberty, Wood wrote. Notwithstanding, the statute remains explicitly subject to any other provision of law to the contrary under the broad provision preempting state law in the PREP Act.
The PREP Act provides only one exception for a Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct. Because Plaintiffs have not made any such allegations in their complaint, we are constrained to conclude the PREP Act preempts the protections provided by state law, Wood wrote.
Judges Allegra Collins and Jeff Carpenter joined Woods decision.
Study population
The primary cohort was established by combining the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) databases, which comprised the healthcare data of >99% of the entire Korean population and their COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination profiles. In total, 9,258,803 individuals who had received at least one dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine were included (Fig.1). As COVID-19 vaccines have been administered nationwide in South Korea, the proportion of unvaccinated individuals was minimal13. Therefore, the use of unvaccinated individuals as comparators could have resulted in improper cohort selection and potential selection bias. We consequently established a historical control cohort within mRNA-vaccinated individuals, but the observational period was shifted back 2 years from the date of the first dose of mRNA vaccination of the historical control cohort. In total, 4,445,333 and 4,444,932 patients were included in the vaccination and historical control cohorts, respectively, and all were observed for 1 year. The baseline demographic and general health characteristics of each cohort are summarised in Table1. The covariates were well-balanced after the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The COVID-19 vaccination profiles, such as the type of mRNA vaccine or history of non-mRNA vaccination, are summarised in Supplementary Table1. The mean follow-up times for the vaccination and historical control cohorts were 471.2466.16 days and 471.2866.15 days, respectively.
This nationwide population-based cohort study combined data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) and the COVID-19 National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) cohort (K-COV-N cohort). The study included approximately 20% of the total South Korean population. This primary cohort comprised all individuals vaccinated with at least one dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; mRNA-1273, Moderna) until 31 December 2022. Subsequently, half of the primary cohort was extracted to establish the vaccination cohort, and the study index was defined as the date of the first dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. A historical control cohort was established by extracting the other half of the primary cohort as the control, and its study index was assigned as the date of the first dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine minus 2 years. A total of 4,445,333 vaccination and 4,444,932 control cohorts were selected and observed until 31 December 2022 and 31 December 2020, respectively. Abbreviations: COVID-19, Coronavirus 2019 disease.
Cumulative incidence plots for the AI-CTDs are shown in Fig.2, with Supplementary Fig.1 providing additional details, including cumulative incidence for positive and negative control outcomes, as well as the cumulative number of events for each time point. The risks of developing incident AI-CTDs in the vaccination and historical control cohorts are shown in Fig.3. To mitigate the risk of type I error induced by multiple comparisons, we employed a Bonferroni correction for 27 predefined outcomes and used an adjusted 99.81% confidence interval (99% CI) to determine statistical significance. Individuals who had the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine did not incur higher risks of developing most AI-CTDs such as alopecia areata (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.00; 99% CI, 0.961.04), alopecia totalis (aHR, 0.79; 99% CI, 0.680.93), psoriasis (aHR, 0.80; 99% CI, 0.770.84), vitiligo (aHR, 0.95; 99% CI, 0.881.02), anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (aHR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.721.66), sarcoidosis (aHR, 1.06; 99% CI, 0.781.44), Behcet disease (aHR, 0.69; 99% CI, 0.580.82), Crohns disease (aHR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.771.09), ulcerative colitis (aHR, 0.97; 99% CI, 0.871.08), rheumatoid arthritis (aHR, 0.86; 99% CI, 0.840.89), systemic sclerosis (aHR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.731.38), Sjogrens syndrome (aHR, 1.07; 99% CI, 0.961.18), ankylosing spondylitis (aHR, 0.95; 99% CI, 0.871.04), dermato/polymyositis (aHR, 1.02; 99% CI, 0.771.35), and bullous pemphigoid (BP) (aHR, 1.53; 99% CI, 0.902.60). However, individuals in the mRNA vaccination cohort were at considerably higher risk of developing systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (aHR, 1.16; 99% CI, 1.021.32) than those in the historical control cohort.
The cumulative incidence plot shows the cumulative incidences of autoimmune connective tissue diseases in mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination cohort and historical control cohort. The shaded area shows a 95% confidence interval for the cumulative incidences. Additional information, including cumulative incidence for positive and negative control outcomes, as well as the cumulative number of events for each time point, was presented in Supplementary Fig.1. Abbreviation: ANCA, anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
To minimise the differences in baseline characteristics between the vaccination and historical control cohorts, predefined covariates, including demographics, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Subsequently, the incidence in the vaccination cohort compared to that in the historical control cohort was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis after adjusting for all predefined covariates. The forest plot depicts adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) in individuals with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination compared with historical controls, with the confidence interval (CI) adjusted to 99.81% for Bonferroni correction but presented as 99% CI for simplicity. The point estimate (centre) represents the aHR, and the horizontal line (error bar) shows the range of the 99% CI. The incidence rate was calculated as the number of events divided by 10,000 person-years, with the population at risk also presented. Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; ANCA, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; HR, hazard ratio.
To validate these findings, we evaluated the risks of positive and negative control outcomes associated with mRNA vaccination. For the positive control outcomes, the risk of myocarditis (aHR, 7.20; 99% CI, 4.3711.86), pericarditis (aHR, 2.75; 99% CI, 1.953.88), and GuillainBarre syndrome (aHR, 1.62; 99% CI, 1.162.25) were considerably higher in the vaccination cohort than in the historical control cohort (Fig.3). Conversely, the risk of having negative control outcomes was not considerably higher in the vaccination cohort than in the historical control cohort (benign skin tumour (aHR, 1.02; 99% CI, 1.001.05), melanoma in situ (aHR, 1.21; 99% CI, 0.642.29), and tympanic membrane perforation (aHR, 0.84; 99% CI, 0.770.91)).
In subgroup analyses, we compared the vaccination and historical control cohorts stratified by sex, age (<40 vs. 40), type of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2, PfizerBioNTech vs. mRNA-1273, Moderna), cross-vaccination status with any history of non-mRNA COVID vaccination (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AZD1222], OxfordAstraZeneca or Ad26.COV2.S, JanssenJohnson & Johnson, or others) prior to mRNA vaccination, and any history of COVID-19 diagnosis. In general, there were no significant differences between the two cohorts in the subgroup analyses for most outcomes (Figs.45), with Supplementary Figs.211 providing additional details for each stratified analysis. However, women who had received the mRNA vaccine had a significantly higher risk of developing BP (aHR, 2.67; 99% CI, 1.116.42) (Fig.4a, b). In addition, aged 40 years who had undergone mRNA vaccination tended to have a higher risk of developing BP (aHR, 1.53; 99% CI, 0.902.61) (Fig.4c, d). In the stratified analysis based on the type of mRNA vaccine received, individuals who received the BNT162b2 vaccine had a significantly higher risk of developing SLE (aHR, 1.18; 99% CI, 1.021.36) (Fig.5a, b). In addition, cross-vaccination with non-mRNA vaccines did not independently affect the incident risk of any AI-CTDs (Fig.5c, d). In analyses according to the status of COVID-19 diagnosis, the incidence was not higher for almost all AI-CTDs, except SLE in individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR, 1.23; 99% CI, 1.051.44) (Supplementary Figs.6 and 7).
The forest plot depicts adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) in individuals with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination compared with historical controls. The point estimate (centre) represents the aHR, and the horizontal line (error bar) shows the range of the 99% CI. The incident risks of autoimmune disorder outcomes were stratified by sex ((a) Male or (b) Female) and age ((c) <40 years or (d) 40 years). Additional details, including unadjusted HRs and population at risk, were provided in Supplementary Figures.; Male subgroup (Supplementary Fig.2), female subgroup (Supplementary Fig.3), subgroup aged <40 years (Supplementary Fig.4), and subgroup aged 40 years (Supplementary Fig.5). Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; ANCA, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
The forest plot depicts adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) in individuals with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination compared with historical controls. The point estimate (centre) represents the aHR, and the horizontal line (error bar) shows the range of the 99% CI. The incident risks of autoimmune disorder outcomes were stratified by the type of mRNA vaccine ((a) BNT162b2 or (b) mRNA-1273) and the history of cross-vaccination ((c) Only mRNA vaccination or (d) Cross-vaccination with non-mRNA vaccination (AZD12222 or Ad26.COV2.S)). Additional details, including unadjusted HRs and population at risk, were provided in Supplementary Figures.; Subgroup who received the BNT162b2 vaccine (Supplementary Fig.8), subgroup who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Supplementary Fig.9), subgroup who received only mRNA-based vaccines (Supplementary Fig.10), and subgroup who had a history of cross-vaccination with any non-mRNA vaccines (Supplementary Fig.11). Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; ANCA, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.
In total, 2,284,342 individuals had the booster mRNA vaccination (3rd dose of mRNA vaccination) among the vaccination cohort. In extended Cox proportional hazard analyses treating booster vaccination as time-varying covariate, the risk of alopecia areata (aHR, 1.12; 99% CI, 1.051.19), psoriasis (aHR, 1.16; 99% CI, 1.061.27), and rheumatoid arthritis (aHR, 1.14; 99% CI, 1.081.21) were greater in individuals who had booster vaccination compared to those who had not (Fig.6).
The forest plot depicts adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) in individuals within the vaccination cohort according to prior history of booster vaccination, defined by the administration of 3rd additional dose of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine following the completion of the two-dose primary series of the same mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. The point estimate (centre) represents the aHR, and the horizontal line (error bar) shows the range of the 99% CI. Among the vaccination cohort, 2,284,342 individuals were vaccinated with a booster dose and the extended Cox proportional hazard analyses treating booster vaccination as a time-varying covariate were conducted for the variability of vaccination status during the observation period. The numbers of events of autoimmune disorder outcomes and population at risk were presented for each group divided based on booster vaccination status, with the number of events specifically shown before and after the booster vaccination in the individuals with booster vaccination group. Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; ANCA, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; HR, hazard ratio.
SARS-COV-2 virus infection has been described to have significant impact on nearly all organs in the human body, primarily because of the direct influence of the virus and the extensive inflammatory response it triggers2. Many ophthalmic complications associated with viral infection have been recorded, including conjunctivitis, keratoconjunctivitis, dry eye disease, episcleritis, acute macular neuroretinopathy, venous and arterial retinal vascular occlusion, optic neuritis, intraretinal hemorrhages, uveitis, and endogenous endophthalmitis20,21,22,23. Several studies have reported neurological manifestations associated with COVID-19, including effects on the peripheral nervous system. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been shown to potentially affect nerves and cause various neurological symptoms24,25,26.
Previous authors reported increased corneal DC density and altered nerve fiber morphology in patients with and without long COVID-19. The difference was more pronounced in post-COVID patients with neurological symptoms at 4weeks7. Our previous study demonstrated peripheral small nerve fiber damage in the cornea associated with inflammatory DCs even after mild COVID-19 disease6.
To date, there is no direct evidence to support the theory that COVID-19 vaccines have neuroprotective effects. However, the vaccines may indirectly provide some neuroprotective benefits by reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection and its potential neurological complications. While the direct neuroprotective effects of COVID-19 vaccines are not yet fully understood, there is some evidence to suggest that vaccination may be associated with a lower risk of cognitive decline and dementia. A study published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease found that individuals who received the influenza vaccine had a lower risk of developing dementia compared to those who did not receive the vaccine. It is important to note that the COVID-19 vaccines are a new development, and long-term studies on their potential neuroprotective effects are still ongoing27. However, based on the available evidence, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is an important step in reducing the risk of infection and potentially reducing the risk of neurological complications.
Besides the benefits of vaccines, several studies reported corneal complications following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine including corneal graft rejection, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, herpes simplex keratitis, keratolysis and peripheral ulcerative keratitis28. Authors explained their findings with the vaccine-induced immunomodulation and that the increased vascular permeability following vaccination impairs the corneal immune privilege29,30. Significantly higher DC density of DC was observed in the non-vaccinated group compared to the control group. We observed a statistically significant difference in the size of mature DCs but the size of immature DCs did not differ significantly among the 3 groups. The area of mature DCs was the greatest in the non-vaccinated group followed by the vaccinated COVID-19 group, and the difference between the three groups was statistically significant. A previous case report demonstrated a highly elevated mature DC density during COVID-19 infection (237.532.13 cells/mm2) and activated DC clumps around corneal infiltrates as a result of an immune-mediated mechanism31.
The present investigation has certain limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the outcomes. First, due to the low number of cases, we were unable to examine the differences between the vaccinations, and most of the study participants received not only mRNA-based vaccines but also vector-based and attenuated pathogen-containing vaccines or a combination of them. While a larger study population would always be advantageous, our numbers are similar to previously published cross-sectional comparative investigations3,5,6,7. Similarly powered studies support the relevance of our results. Second, since the SARS-CoV-2 virus changes over time causing various disease types with different severities, the included patients might have been affected by multiple virus variants. It should be emphasized that the vaccine is not neuroprotective in the absence of COVID-19 infection. However, in our study, a reduction in neurodegenerative complications was observed in vaccinated patients compared to unvaccinated patients, possibly due to a milder course of infection. Third, while our study identified statistically significant differences in corneal nerve fiber morphology between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals after COVID-19, it is crucial to acknowledge the substantial overlap on the graphs. This overlap suggests that despite the observed differences, the distributions of the nerve plexus parameters in the study groups largely coincide. Consequently, the clinical significance of these findings may be limited, as the overlapping spread indicates that individual variations within each group are considerable.
Our study investigated the role of the vaccine against COVID-19 in terms of the subbasal nerve fibers of the cornea, thus indirectly the peripheral nervous system. Our findings showed that corneal nerve fiber density, nerve branch density, nerve fiber length, nerve fiber total branch density, nerve fiber area and width was increased among the vaccinated subjects compared to the unvaccinated COVID-19 group. Corneal dendritic cell density and area were elevated in the unvaccinated group compared to the vaccinated patients within six months after the infection. In summary, our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may have a protective effect against the complications of COVID-19 disease on the corneal subbasal nerve fibers.
A new study adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating the safety of COVID-19 vaccine use in pregnant women. The study, published in BMJ, showed no connection between COVID vaccination or infection in the first trimester of pregnancy and congenital birth defects.
The study is based on outcomes seen among 343,066 live-born single infants in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway with an estimated first trimester of pregnancy occurring from March 1, 2020, to February 14, 2022. The infants were followed up for at least 9 months after birth.
In the entire cohort, 17,704 infants (5.2%) had a major congenital anomaly, or 516 per 10,000 live births. Congenital anomalies included congenital heart defects; nervous system anomalies; eye anomalies; ear, face and neck anomalies; respiratory anomalies; oro-facial clefts; gastrointestinal anomalies; abdominal-wall defects; congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract; genital anomalies; and limb anomalies.
A total of 10,229 infants (3% of the total) were exposed to COVID-19 infections during the first trimester of pregnancy. There was no increased risk for congenital defects associated with infection, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.05).
In general, first-trimester infections with COVID-19 were associated with mothers who had more children, lower educational level, and lower household income level, and were born in the Middle East or Africa.
The authors found that 29,135 of 152,261 infants (19%) included in a vaccination analysis were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination during the first trimester. All vaccines were two-dose mRNA vaccines.
"Mothers vaccinated against COVID-19 during the first trimester had higher education and household income, were more likely to have an underlying chronic disease, and were more likely to be overweight or obese," the authors said.
The authors found no significant increased risk of any major congenital anomaly among infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during the first trimester, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.03 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.0).
Overall, our findings support the current recommendations to vaccinate pregnant women against COVID-19.
"We add to the current evidence with our results showing that there appears to be no robust evidence of an increased risk of any of the subgroups of congenital anomalies," the authors concluded. "Overall, our findings support the current recommendations to vaccinate pregnant women against COVID-19."
Unlike influenza, RSV and other common respiratory illnesses, COVID-19 is not sitting out the summer season.
In many areas of the U.S., COVID cases, emergency department visits and hospitalizations are increasing. And adults 65 and older are especially feeling the impact of the summer surge, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At the end of June, hospitalization rates for this age group were roughly 14 times higher than for adults under 50.
While COVID continues its summer spread, fueled by highly contagious variants, infectious disease experts say older adults can do some things to protect themselves from falling ill from an infection.
If the last time you rolled up your sleeve for a COVID vaccine was last fall, you may be eligible for another shot this summer.
The CDC in February recommended that all adults 65 and older receive one additional dose of the vaccine that was updated and introduced in September. (People who are immunocompromised were already eligible for additional doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.) And William Schaffner, M.D., professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said its not too late to take advantage of this recommendation now if you didn't back in the spring.
Protection wanes over time, Schaffner says. And for [older people], who are frail, who have chronic underlying conditions, people who are immune compromised, by now their protection has diminished. So you can get another [shot] now, and then this fall, you can get the updated vaccine also.
Indeed, vaccine manufacturers are working on a new version of the coronavirus vaccine for 2024-2025 that targets the variants of the virus currently circulating and causing a significant share of infections in the U.S. The updated vaccines are expected in early fall around the same time the annual flu shot becomes available.
The COVID-19 vaccine currently available in pharmacies and clinics targets a coronavirus variant that is no longer circulating widely. Nevertheless, the vaccine still looks pretty good in protecting against severe disease, even when up against the newer variants, Schaffner says. Fortunately, these variants are all part of the omicron family, he adds, meaning they share similar traits. Omicron burst onto the scene in late 2021, and its descendants have been circulating ever since.
Wondering if its better to go ahead and get a shot now or wait until fall? Talk to your doctor, who can help you weigh your personal risks. You should also talk to your doctor if you are under 65 and worried about complications from COVID.
