Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

Atalay Goshu Muluneh,1 Mehari Woldemariam Merid,1 Kassahun Alemu Gelaye,1 Sewbesew Yitayih Tilahun,2 Nahom Worku Teshager,3 Aklilu Yiheyis Abereha,4 Kalkidan Samuel Sugamo,5 Mulugeta Ayalew Yimer,3 Getahun Molla Kassa1

1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 2Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 3Department of Pediatrics and Child health, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 4Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia; 5Department of Internal medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

Background: Ethiopia was using the ChAdOx1 COV-19 vaccine, and health professionals were targets of the first phase of the vaccination strategy. Evidence on the adverse events following immunization (AEFI) was barely available. The study aimed to assess the magnitude and associated factors of adverse events following ChAdOx1 COV-19 immunization among health professionals of the University of Gondar Specialized and Comprehensive Hospital, 2021.Methods: An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted among health professionals of the University of Gondar Comprehensive and specialized referral hospital. All health professionals who took the ChAdOx1 COV-19 vaccine in the 1st phase were surveyed. A total of 314 health professionals who took the ChAdOx1 COV-19 vaccine were included. The EpiData version 4.6.0.0 and Stata 16 were used for data entry and analysis, respectively. A binary logistic regression was used to identify statistically significant factors associated with AEFI. Chi-square and multicollinearity assumptions were tested. A p-value Results: Among 314 study participants, 263 of them had at least one mild to severe AEFI of ChAdOx1 COV-19 with a prevalence of AEFI of 83.76% (95% CI: 79.23, 87.46). The commonest AEFI observed were injection site tenderness (n=198/263), fatigue (114/263), headache (n=107/263), and muscle pain (n=85/263). Females (AOR=2.75, 95% CI: 1.15, 6.58), and participants who felt the vaccine was unsafe (AOR=2.84, 95% CI: 1.03, 7.85) were having nearly three times more odds of AEFI immunization as compared to males and those who felt the vaccine was safe, respectively.Conclusion: Adverse event following immunization has been a public health problem in Northwest Ethiopia. Being female and having a feeling that the vaccine is unsafe were statistically significantly associated with AEFI.

COVID-19 pandemic remains a global public health threat claiming more than two hundred million cases and 4.7 million deaths until September 19, 2021.1,2 Ethiopia has reported more than three hundred thousand cases, and five thousand deaths.1 The World Health Organization and other local health authorities have design different mitigation strategies such as vaccines, and other non-medical interventions to combat spread of the disease. Still, risk perception and behavioral responses are different among different regions.316 Different types of vaccines have been distributed to different continents including Africa, but the utilization rate has remained low as compared to different targets set by the World Health Organization and regional health institutes.1720 Countries in Africa including Ethiopia have the lowest vaccinated population in the world.20 Concerns related to vaccine safety and efficacy, the difficulty of accessing the vulnerable populations,21 wars, and conflicts, the use of different vaccines, and other access-related constraints are the major concerns of very low vaccine rollout in Africa.20 Other articles also claimed that vaccine hesitancy, distributed misinformation, religious fanaticism, attitude and uptake of vaccine among health care workers, social influences, and environments wherein people looking for trusted icons response and involvement are major obstacles of COVID-19 vaccine roll out to achieve the target.22 According to the vaccines safety profile within the product information, the most common side effects include mild-to-moderate symptoms of one or more of the following: headache (52.6%), fatigue (53.1%), muscle or joint pain (44%), fever (33.6%), chills (31.9%), and nausea (21.9%).23,24 Additionally, symptoms of an allergic reaction including hives, a rash, swelling, and respiratory issues may occur.25

Recent evidence noted that people who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine were faced 10, and 11 times higher risk of hospitalization and death due to COVID-19 than those who have undergone vaccination, respectively.23 Getting vaccinated protects against severe illness and mortality from COVID-19, including the Delta variant. Monitoring COVID-19 incidence by vaccination status might provide early signals of changes in vaccine-related protection that can be confirmed through a well-controlled vaccine effectiveness (VE) study.24 Some of the side effects associated with the use of the COVID-19 vaccine are reported in different countries as mentioned above. However, there is still controversy and evidence gap regarding the magnitude and extent of the adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. As a result, countries are facing challenges in expanding the uptake of the vaccine among citizens. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the common post-COVID-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca) immunization adverse events among the health care workers at the university of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital.

An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from June 1, 2021, to August 21, 2021.

This study was undertaken at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital which is found in the Central Gondar Zone of the Amhara region, Ethiopia. It serves more than 7 million people and is one of the COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment centers in the country. It is also one of the major sites of COVID-19 vaccine delivery for the targeted population, ie health professionals and medical intern doctors.

The study population included all health professionals (medical doctors, medical intern doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychiatrists, midwives, and others) who took at least 1st dose of the ChAdOx1COV-19 vaccine.

We surveyed all health professionals who took the ChAdOx1COV-19 vaccine in the first round.

All health professionals who took at least the first dose of ChAdox1 COV-19 were included while those health professionals on monthly leave were excluded.

Data was collected using a semi-structured self-administered questionnaire (Supplementary Table 4). Data completeness and consistency were checked daily by one general practitioner and three specialist medical doctors. The data was entered using EpiData 4.6.0.0 software and exported to Stata 16 for further cleaning and analysis.

The dependent variable was adverse event following immunization as subjectively reported by the health professionals, ie, if they report at least one of these symptoms following immunization: injection site tenderness, redness or swelling, systemic reaction, seizure, abscess, high-grade fever, anaphylaxis, bleeding, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, chills, joint pain, muscle pain, headache, malaise, flu-like symptom, vomiting, and/or nausea. Independent variables were age, educational status, religion, gender, specialty, comorbidity, number of doses of the vaccine, previous history of COVID-19 infection, and feeling about the vaccine.

Data was analyzed using Stata 16 software. Descriptive findings were reported using proportions, frequencies, and medians. Binary logistic regression was fitted to identify statistically significant factors. Chi-square and multicollinearity assumptions were tested. A P-values less than 0.2 and 0.05 were used as a cut-off value for statistical significance for bi and multivariable logistic regression, respectively. Finally, the Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% CI was reported in the final model.

Of the total 335 self-administered questionnaires, we excluded 21 questionnaires (four were incomplete, and 17 respondents vaccination status was missed). All the data obtained from the 314 participants were included in the final analysis. Of which 71.34% were males and the median age was 25 (inter-quartile range [IQR]: 23, 28) years. About 76.75% were Orthodox Christians and, 56.05% were interning medical doctors while others were health professionals. More than half of the participants reported that they felt the vaccine is safe (54.48%) (Supplementary Table 1).

The overall prevalence of AEFI was 83.76% (95% CI: 79.23, 87.46 (n=263/314)). The commonest AEFI observed were injection site tenderness (n=198/263), fatigue (n=114/263), headache (n=107/263), and muscle pain (n=85/263). There were no seizures, injection site abscesses, shock, or bleeding disorders following the immunization (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Type and frequency of adverse events developed following ChAdOx1 COVID-19 immunization among medical and health care professionals in University of Gondar (n=263).

The majority of the AEFI was developed in the first (n=191/232, 82.33%) and second (n=31/232, 13.36%) days of immunization. The minimum and maximum days of symptom resolution were 1 and 22 days after the onset. Nearly ninety percent of the AEFI resolved within three days (Figure 2A and B).

Figure 2 (A) Number of days the study participants developed AEFI and (B) number of days the AEFI symptom takes to resolve.

Ninety percent (90%, n=235/261), 4.98% (n=13/261), and 4.98% (n=13/261) of all the AEFIs were reported after the first, second, and both doses of the vaccine, respectively. Out of 263 respondents who experienced AEFI 257 scaled the severity of symptoms as follows: mild (n=162/257, 63.04%), moderate (n=73/257, 28.40%), severe (20/257, 7.78%), and difficult to scale (n=2/257, 0.78%). Most of the respondents with AEFI (51.70%) took paracetamol for symptom relief. Other drugs taken were diclofenac (12.50%) and Ibuprofen (5.68%). Above a quarter (28.98%) of those respondents with AEFI reported that they have taken an unspecified drug to relieve the symptoms. Two-thirds of those respondents with AEFI (66.40%) recovered without intervention and one-third (31.60%) recovered with minor intervention. There were four admissions following adverse events, of which three recovered without sequelae, and one developed sequelae.

All participants who were tested positive for COVID-19 had AEFI symptoms. Of those with current AEFI, 3.10% (8/258) had a history of past vaccine-related AEFI for meningitis A, hepatitis B, swine-flu vaccine, and tetanus vaccines). Of those 259 respondents who had had previous COVID-19 test results, 21 (8.11%) had a history of positive results (Supplementary Table 2).

From the descriptive statistics participants sex, religion, highest educational status, number of vaccine doses taken, and feeling towards the vaccine safety satisfied the chi-squared assumption. Bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression models were fitted in the multivariable regression we found participants sex and feelings towards the safety of the vaccine positively associated with the development of AEFI at a p. value of less than 0.05. Females had three times higher odds of AEFI than males had (AOR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.15, 6.58), and those participants who felt the vaccine is not safe had approximately three times (AOR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.03, 7.85) higher odds of AEFI when compared to those who felt the vaccine is safe (Supplementary Table 3).

This study aimed to measure the magnitude and associated factors of adverse events following ChAdOx1 immunization among health professionals working at the University of Gondar. We found that more than three-fourths of the study participants had mild to severe adverse events following immunization. This finding is comparable with other studies conducted in Nepal, and Korea26 where 79.8%, and 81% of health professionals had an adverse event following immunizations, respectively, but higher than studies on Indian health professionals where 57% of the health professionals had adverse events.27,28 It is also higher than findings reported from Saudi Arabia where two-thirds of the study participants reported at least one AEFI.29 Similarly, it was higher than the findings of the studies conducted in the United Kingdom where 58.7% of the study population who took the 1st dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine developed local symptoms,30 and the one conducted in Togo.31 This might be justified by the variations in study population, for the Saudi Arabia, and United Kingdom studies were on the general public that may not report mild symptoms while ours was on health professionals that can report every simple adverse event. While the communities/general public may not report mild symptoms.

On the other side, the magnitude of AEFI was lower than web-based study findings from Korea where more than 90% of the health professionals reported at least one AEFI.32 This might be due to variations of outcome ascertainment techniques. Accordingly, the Korean study was a mobile-based daily report from the participants while we collected the data from the respondents a week after they took the vaccine, which may lead to missing mild symptoms. This might have caused underestimation of the AEFI in our study compared to daily reports of the symptoms in the Saudi Arabian study. It was also lower than the other studys findings in Saudi Arabia, where more than 95% of the participants had at least one AEFI symptom.33

The majority of the adverse events were reported within the first 48 hours. This is comparable with reports findings of a study on Indian health professionals where more than three-fourths of the adverse events were reported within the first 48 hrs.27

The commonly reported adverse events were injection site tenderness, and fatigue as compared to others. This is supported by another study conducted in Korea where the pain, injection site tenderness, and fatigue were the top adverse events of health professionals experienced.32 It is also supported by findings of other studies on health professionals from Togo,31 and Nepal.34 Compared to other brands of COVID-19 vaccines, ChAdOx1 had a lower AEFI than Moderna (94%) but higher AEFI than Pfizer vaccine (53%). Nevertheless, higher number of patients who took ChAdOx1 developed series AEFI compared to patients who took Moderna and Pfizer vaccine.35 Another study finding indicate that among all immunized individuals more than half (58.1%) of the AEFI, and nearly half (49.5%) of severe adverse events were reported following ChAdOx1 vaccination compared to Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.36

Those who felt the vaccine was unsafe had nearly three times higher odds of AEFI as compared to those who felt the vaccine is safe. Unfortunately, we failed to find comparable pieces of evidence that incorporate the participants feelings about vaccine safety. Still, one study reported the association between vaccine perception and adverse events by stating those participants who think the vaccines are useless and with side effects have more chances of developing adverse events.37 Another study reported that students who had fear of side effects reported seven times higher AEFI as compared to those who did not fear the vaccine.38 This might be justified by those individuals who feel the vaccine is unsafe might be very suspicious and report and remember every mild symptom after vaccination.

Female health professionals had more than double the odds of AEFI as compared to male health professionals. This is in line with study findings reported from India where females had two times more odds of AEFI as compared with males.28 Similarly, our finding was comparable with findings from the Vietnamese study where female participants reported more AEFI.39 Another studys finding from Israel also supported this evidence by stating that females had nearly double risks of developing adverse events following 1st and 2nd dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine as compared to males.40 This may give clues for health professionals to give more attention to female vaccinees, and researchers to conduct further investigation on gender differences in terms of adverse events.

We are confident that our study was strong enough to conclude but subjective measurements based on participants reports were used for outcome ascertainment that may bias some specific adverse events.

More than three-fourths of the health professionals taking the ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccine developed minor to severe adverse events following immunization. Of these, nearly one-third of symptomatic participants recovered intervention such as antipain but nearly a tenth of them had severe symptoms. Being female and having a feeling that the vaccine is unsafe were statistically significantly associated with AEFI.

AEFI, adverse event following immunization; AOR, adjusted odds ratio.

The data used for the preparation of this manuscript can be available from the corresponding author with formal request.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethical Review Committee of the University of Gondar. A permission letter was sought from the University of Gondar Hospitals chief executive director. The purpose, the risks and benefits of the study were explained, and written informed consent was taken from all study participants. Anonymity was maintained throughout the whole process. All activities were conducted based on the declaration of Helsinki ethical guidelines.

The authors acknowledge the Institute of Public Health and the School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar. Our thanks also extend to study participants and data collectors.

There is no funding to report.

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest for this work.

1. INSA. Ethiopia Covid-19 monitoring platform; 2020 Available from: https://www.covid19.et/covid-19/. Accessed April 25, 2022.

2. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic; 2020. Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Accessed April 25, 2022.

3. Adalja AA, Toner E, Inglesby TV. Priorities for the US health community responding to COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323:1343. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3413

4. Anderson RM, Heesterbeek H, Klinkenberg D, Hollingsworth TD. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet. 2020;395(10228):931934. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5

5. Atchison CJ, Bowman L, Vrinten C, et al. Perceptions and behavioural responses of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of UK adults. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043577

6. Betsch C, Wieler L, Bosnjak M, et al. Germany COVID-19 Snapshot MOnitoring (COSMO Germany): monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in the current coronavirus outbreak in Germany. 2020.

7. De La Vega R, Barqun RR, Boros S, Szabo A. Could attitudes toward COVID-19 in Spain render men more vulnerable than women? Global Public Health. 2020;15:12781291. doi:10.1080/17441692.2020.1791212

8. Deng SQ, Peng HJ. Characteristics of and public health responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in China. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):575. doi:10.3390/jcm9020575

9. Huynh TLD. The COVID-19 risk perception: a survey on socioeconomics and media attention. Econom Bull. 2020;40(1):758764.

10. Khosravi M. Perceived risk of COVID-19 pandemic: the role of public worry and trust. Electron J Gen Med. 2020;17(4):em203. doi:10.29333/ejgm/7856

11. Kwok KO, Li KK, Chan HH, et al. Community responses during the early phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Hong Kong: risk perception, information exposure and preventive measures. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.02.26.20028217

12. Lohiniva A-L, Sane J, Sibenberg K, Puumalainen T, Salminen M. Understanding coronavirus disease (COVID-19) risk perceptions among the public to enhance risk communication efforts: a practical approach for outbreaks, Finland, February 2020. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(13):2000317. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.13.2000317

13. Qian M, Wu Q, Wu P, et al. Psychological responses, behavioral changes and public perceptions during the early phase of the COVID-19 outbreak in China: a population based cross-sectional survey. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.05.05.20091553

14. Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M, Wang Z, Xie B, Xu Y. A Nationwide Survey of Psychological Distress Among Chinese People in the COVID-19 Epidemic: Implications and Policy Recommendations. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2020.

15. Wise T, Zbozinek TD, Michelini G, Hagan CC. Changes in risk perception and protective behavior during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. 2020.

16. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report 59. 2020.

17. Tagoe ET, Sheikh N, Morton A, et al. COVID-19 vaccination in lower-middle income countries: national stakeholder views on challenges, barriers, and potential solutions. Front Public Health. 2021;9:709127. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.709127

18. Sharma P, Pardeshi G. Rollout of COVID-19 vaccination in India: a SWOT analysis. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2021;2021:14.

19. Sarkar SK, Morshed MM. Spatial priority for COVID-19 vaccine rollout against limited supply. Heliyon. 2021;7(11):e08419. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08419

20. Ayenigbara IO, Adegboro JS, Ayenigbara GO, Adeleke OR, Olofintuyi OO. The challenges to a successful COVID-19 vaccination programme in Africa. Germs. 2021;11(3):427440. doi:10.18683/germs.2021.1280

21. Braganza BB, Capulong HG, Gopez JM, Gozum IE, Galang JR. Prioritizing the marginalized in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. J Public Health. 2021;43(2):e368e9. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdab083

22. Wirsiy FS, Nkfusai CN, Ako-Arrey DE, Dongmo EK, Manjong FT, Cumber SN. Acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine in Africa. Int J MCH AIDS. 2021;10(1):134138. doi:10.21106/ijma.482

23. Scobie HM, Johnson AG, Suthar AB, et al.Monitoring incidence of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, by vaccination status13 US Jurisdictions, April 4July 17, 2021. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1284.

24. Skelly DT, Gilbert-Jaramillo J, Knight ML. Two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination induce more robust immune responses to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern than does natural infection. 2021.

25. Agency EM. COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: PRAC investigating cases of thromboembolic events - vaccines benefits currently still outweigh risks - update. 2021.

26. Song JE, Oh GB, Park HK, Lee SS, Kwak YG. Survey of adverse events after the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: a single-center experience in Korea. Infect Chemother. 2021;53(3):557561. doi:10.3947/ic.2021.0044

27. Kamal D, Thakur V, Nath N, Malhotra T, Gupta A, Batlish R. Adverse events following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (COVISHIELD) amongst health care workers: a prospective observational study. Med J. 2021;77:S283s8. doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.06.014

28. Kaur U, Ojha B, Pathak BK, et al. A prospective observational safety study on ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona virus vaccine (recombinant) use in healthcare workers- first results from India. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;38:101038. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101038

29. Adam M, Gameraddin M, Alelyani M, et al. Evaluation of post-vaccination symptoms of two common COVID-19 vaccines used in Abha, Aseer Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:19631970. doi:10.2147/PPA.S330689

30. Menni C, Klaser K, May A, et al. Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(7):939949. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00224-3

31. Konu YR, Gbeasor-Komlanvi FA, Yerima M, et al. Prevalence of severe adverse events among health professionals after receiving the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 coronavirus vaccine (Covishield) in Togo, March 2021. Archiv Public Health. 2021;79(1):207. doi:10.1186/s13690-021-00741-x

32. Jeon M, Kim J, Oh CE, Lee JY. Adverse events following immunization associated with the first and second doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in Korea. Vaccines. 2021;9(10):1096. doi:10.3390/vaccines9101096

33. Abu-Hammad O, Alduraidi H, Abu-Hammad S, et al. Side effects reported by Jordanian healthcare workers who received COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccines. 2021;9(6):577. doi:10.3390/vaccines9060577

34. Subedi P, Yadav GK, Paudel B, Regmi A, Pyakurel P. Adverse events following the first dose of Covishield (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccination among health workers in selected districts of central and western Nepal: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260638. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260638

35. Kant A, Jansen J, van Balveren L, van Hunsel F. Description of frequencies of reported adverse events following immunization among four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. Drug Safety. 2022;45:113. doi:10.1007/s40264-021-01134-3

36. Tobaiqy M, MacLure K, Elkout H, Stewart D. Thrombotic adverse events reported for moderna, Pfizer and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines: comparison of occurrence and clinical outcomes in the EudraVigilance database. Vaccines. 2021;9(11):1326.

37. Santangelo OE, Provenzano S, Grigis D, Migliore CB, Firenze A. Adverse events following immunization and vaccine perception in nursing students. Annali di igiene. 2021;33(2):123130. doi:10.7416/ai.2021.2418

38. Provenzano S, Santangelo OE, Lanza GLM, Raia DD, Alagna E, Firenze A. Factors associated with reporting adverse reactions after immunization, study in a sample of university students. Annali di igiene. 2018;30(5):436442. doi:10.7416/ai.2018.2244

39. Tran VN, Nguyen HA, Le TTA, Truong TT, Nguyen PT, Nguyen TTH. Factors influencing adverse events following immunization with AZD1222 in Vietnamese adults during first half of 2021. Vaccine. 2021;39(44):64856491. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.060

40. Green MS, Peer V, Magid A, Hagani N, Anis E, Nitzan D. Gender differences in adverse events following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines. 2022;10(2):233. doi:10.3390/vaccines10020233

See more here:

More than three-fourths of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccinated | IDR - Dove Medical Press

A recent article published in theMed journal reported that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) booster vaccinations enhance the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineage neutralizations.

In late November 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was detected in Japan. This variant has nearly 36 mutations in the spike (S)protein, which is a target for neutralizing antibodies and can evade vaccine-mediatedprotection.

Numerous studies have shown that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 drop progressively following the second vaccination. A coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination program began primarily focusing on medical professionals and at-risk groups in several nations. Yet, the immunogenicity and safety of the three-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimeagainst Omicron areunclear.

In the present study, the scientists analyzed the immunogenicity and safety of a three-dose regimen of the COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) Pfizer vaccine. The authors assessed 272 healthcare personnel for long-standing Pfizer vaccine immunogenicity and safety. The team constructed a COVID-19 vaccinee panel to determine the vaccine's two- and three-dose immunogenicity and safety against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) such as Omicron. For this, they used a live SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization test.

The authors isolated and analyzed two Omicron sequences harboring R346K mutations in the S receptor-binding domain (RBD), the primary targets for evading neutralizing monoclonal antibodies like AZD1061/cilgavimab, despite being rare within the Omicron lineage. The team contrasted neutralizing titers (NTs) against the SARS-CoV-2 VOCs such as Gamma, Delta, Omicron, and Beta, following the second shot of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine. The researchers analyzed the alterations in NTs and anti-S antibodies against the Omicron sublineages in Japanese medical personnel who received a third shot of the Pfizer vaccination.

The study results were consistent with a recent investigation, which found that NTs for the SARS-CoV-2 Gamma and Beta strains with three-vaccine escape mutations in the S RBD were significantly decreased following two-dose Pfizer vaccination. Further, NTs against Gamma and Delta were marginally lower than those against WK-521, the SARS-CoV-2 parent strain. The researchers noticed a significant decline in NTs against the Omicron variant. Even 1012 days followingthe second vaccination, NTs against Omicron in sera samples from 35% of subjects were beneaththe detection limit, demonstrating poor or no cross-reactivity toward Omicron.

After the second vaccination, NTs against the Omicron, WK-521, and Delta strains dramatically dropped 244 days later. According to the NT monitoring data, the efficacy of the second vaccination shot was not sustained at 243 days or after.

NTs and anti-S antibodies against Omicron, Delta,and WK-521were significantly as well as rapidly elevated after three doses of Pfizervaccination. NTs against the Delta variant following the booster dose were superior to those against the WK-521 variant post-second vaccine dose. After the booster shot, the NTs against Omicronwere equivalent to those against WK-521 following the second dose. These findings show that three-dose COVID-19 Pfizervaccinations against both the original strain and contemporary variants will have equal vaccine efficacy.

The researchers discovered that a three-dose vaccination boosts neutralizing antibodies against theOmicron subvariants, with no significant changes in neutralization capabilities between the sublineages. A phase 2/3 trial found that the booster shot does not affect the rate of adverse events or particular adverse effects in a short-term review. Healthy subjects or those who had fatigue, headache, injection site pain, or fever did not demonstrate abnormal or sustained cytokine generation one to two weeks following the third vaccination shot.

Only eotaxin levels rose followingthe third vaccine shot relativeto the period following the second dose. Eotaxin was a chemokine ligand for C-C Motif Chemokine Receptor 3 (CCR3) secreted by epithelial and endothelial cells and was a basophil and eosinophil chemoattractant. During persistent inflammatory reactions, eotaxin attracts eosinophils to the inflammatory site and produces reactive oxygen species, rendering tissue damage.

After the third vaccination dosage, eotaxin levels may be linked to adverse effects such as injection site redness and pain. Damage-associated inflammatory cytokine concentrations triggered by eosinophils, and major eotaxin pathways, including interleukin-4 and interferon-gamma, were unaltered in the current samples. These findings imply that eotaxin on its own was not a predictor of serious adverse outcomes.

The study findings demonstrated that the anti-S antibodies and NTs against the SARS-CoV-2 ancestor strain (WK-521) were robust following the COVID-19 Pfizer two-dose vaccination, whereas NTs against VOCs were much lower. NTs against Omicron were completely eradicated in approximately 80% of the vaccinee panel between 93247 days of the vaccine's second shot.

Anti-S antibodies and NTs against the SARS-CoV-2 WK-521, Omicron, and Delta variants increased significantly after the booster vaccination. Between the Omicron subvariants BA.1.1, BA.2, and BA. 1.1, there were no substantial changes in the neutralizing ability of sera from booster-vaccinatedpeople. The authors observed that booster vaccination broadened cross-reactivity and humoral immunity with the Omicron variant without affecting cytokine profiles or the rate of adverse events.

Overall, the study findings show that a third COVID-19 vaccine dose was safe and increased neutralization against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

Go here to read the rest:

Safety and immunogenicity of three-dose vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine - News-Medical.Net

By Julie M. Posted Apr 29, 2022 at 03:00

The entire world is facing an unprecedented health crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are more than 4,833,31055 cases of coronavirus worldwide and 6,199,842 deaths. Find out the results of countries and the evolution of the world in relation to the coronavirus pandemic on Friday, April 29, 2022.

at Thursday 28 April 2022The virus COVID-19 touch. Contact. Link 483,331,055 (-213,819) confirmed cases And I did in total 6,199,842 (+642) dead In the Globalism. We now use open data provided by Google.

to main:

Hipster-friendly coffee fanatic. Subtly charming bacon advocate. Friend of animals everywhere.

See more here:

Corona virus in the world Friday, April 29, 2022: new cases and deaths within 24 hours - Valley Post

In Uganda the corona virus situation has rapidly improved and this shown with low levels of infection as evidenced with the statics released by Ministry of Health .

The rapid improvement in the corona virus situation has been basically due to the vaccination policy

Though the vaccination campaign is moving on well they are still challenges that prevent Uganda as a country from having a fully vaccinated population and this is due to things like religious beliefs and misinformation spread on social media and the arguments presented in this article show why most people in Uganda should support vaccination as a way of building a road to a new normal.

Currently am of the belief that vaccination is important in the day to day setting of the new normal and this is due to the fact that Covid vaccination is important in that it reduces the risk of infection and its clearly seen when once the body is inoculated with a corona virus vaccine the body immediately begins producing antibodies to fight coronavirus . The antibodies help the immune system to fight the corona virus in case a person has been exposed to the disease. Herd immunity is gained when people are vaccinated against Covid 19. Herd immunity refers to a population being protected against an infectious disease. Thus this suggests covid 19 vaccination reduces the chances of people getting infected and this in turn contributes to community protection reducing the likelihood of virus transmission.

After receiving the corona virus jab am certain that it also protects against severe illness and this clearly depicted with the exceptional studies of three vaccines Johnson and Johnson , AstraZeneca and Pfizer which have been medically proven to be effective in enabling the body to fight against severe illness that are caused by the Covid 19.

Inoculation against covid 19 has made me and many others have the confidence that its a safer way for people to build protection against covid ,and this is evidently seen when the body easily develops anti bodies that can respond to Covid 19 without somebody having to experience sickness.

I would strongly encourage Ugandans to watch and listen to the short adverts and plays on television and radio stations that talk about covid and this in the long run provides enlightenment to people and thus it encourages people to get inoculated against covid 19.

Social media is one of the greatest tools of influence in Uganda currently and this basically due to the persuasive and informative covid vaccination messages that can be used to influence people in Uganda to go and get inoculated against covid 19 with the vaccines available like Pfizer AstraZeneca , and Sinovac.

Self groups are one of the ways to encourage covid 19 vaccination and in this opinion leaders in the community can further more elaborate the dangers of covid 19 and also inform the masses about covid vaccines available in the country and this in turn will encourage people to take up vaccination in order to develop herd immunity that will help mitigate the spread of covid.

The path leading to a new normal with a world of covid 19 might be tough ,but in order for this transition to be smooth its important for you and me to support the vaccination programme to create a world that is free of the nuisance known as covid 19.

Mr Timothy Nsubuga is a Uganda Christian University Intern with the Public relations department.

The rest is here:

Covid vaccination is key to a new normal - Monitor

Our analysis revealed six main categories of reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination. Reasons include low perceived benefits of getting vaccinated, a low subjective risk, concerns of potential adverse effects from the vaccine, poor health literacy, mistrust and spiritual and religious beliefs (see Table 1).

Several posts show that social media users did not trust the newly developed mRNA-based vaccines or had some reservations about gene-based vaccines in general. According to these posts, users thought that vaccination with mRNA-vaccines had not yet been sufficiently investigated or that they were not as effective as attenuated or inactivated vaccines, which is why they did not consider vaccination with the existing vaccines to be necessary or sensible.

"Pfizer's vaccines and other vaccines against COVID-19 are experiments, not vaccines. These are novel genetic technologies that have never been used on humans before. An mRNA molecule can never stimulate the immune system the way a vaccination can." [User 33]

Furthermore, the analysis shows that users viewed their personal risk of getting infected with COVID-19, suffering from a severe course of the disease and developing serious complications from an infection as low. Therefore, vaccination was not regarded necessary. Mild symptoms, a young age and a good subjective health status were reported as relevant factors leading to that evaluation.

"I already had Corona, I only had a slight cough for two days, it didn't bother me at all. I'd rather get Corona than have anything injected into my blood. Everyone as they like." [User 140]

In addition, some users emphasized that their own immune system was strong enough to deal with a possible infection and therefore they did not need vaccination. According to their own statements, some of the users relied on preventive and supportive measures like a balanced diet or taking supplemental vitamins to bolster up their immune system, rendering vaccination, in their opinion, unnecessary.

"I am asthmatic, but I would never be vaccinated against Corona. I don't have to weigh that. We have an immune system. I live a healthy life with lots of vitamins. I don't deny Corona, but I'm not afraid of it." [User 47]

Moreover, some users on social media stated that prior infections with COVID-19 made them immune to reinfection, including immunity to mutations of the virus, and therefore a vaccination was not necessary. In line with that, some users believed that a prior infection offered more natural protection than the vaccines.

"No one needs this vaccination, because once you have Corona you are immune." [User 4]

Another reason to refuse vaccination were users' concerns about various potential side effects and possible vaccine-related damage. Some users justified rejecting vaccination citing the lack of long-term studies and insufficient reliable information about side effects and consequential damages. Among others, these fears were related to the risk of getting cancer, changes and damages to their genetic makeup, infertility and death. These concerns were often associated with past vaccine and drug scandals.

"I don't get vaccinated, I'm afraid of side effects. Thalidomide, for example, should not be ignored either. There are no long-term studies, but everyone should do what they want." [User 121]

Users emphasized their objection especially regarding the possible approval of vaccine use for women during pregnancy. This was based on the lack of data supporting safe use in these cases and concerns about the effects of vaccination on the unborn child.

"Who does that?! I'm sorry, that's irresponsible. No one knows what happens to the unborn child, no one can take that responsibility on themselves! It's a pure human experiment." [User 296]

Our analysis also showed that vaccination was refused due to other pre-existing health conditions and allergies, as only little information was available on possible interactions between existing health impairments and COVID-19 vaccines. Personal experiences with physical reactions or vaccine damages from past vaccinations were further reported reasons that led to rejection of the vaccines.

"I am chronically ill and take a lot of medication, I have very great respect for vaccination. There is no data on the side effects and interactions in connection with the medication. That is too meagre for me." [User 160]

Another reason for users refusing vaccination was that some did not feel sufficiently informed about the vaccination and that the available information was perceived as incomprehensible.

No, I don't feel informed enough because the text is too difficult to understand." [User 124]

This lack of transparent and user-oriented information in some cases resulted in the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. The lack of knowledge led to a general mistrust and a negative attitude towards information on the disease itself and vaccines among some of the users. These beliefs, which were mostly based on misinformation or conspiracy theories, led to strong downplaying or denial of COVID-19 among users and a subsequent lack of willingness to get vaccinated.

"Corona vaccination is seen as protection. However, these vaccinations have the opposite effect. They are killings with the intention of reducing the world's population. Survive or die together? Which would also be romantic." [User 261]

Mistrust in authorities, political stakeholders or in representatives of the pharmaceutical industry also played an important role. There weredoubts about the reliability and integrity of information and the intentions of certain groups, organizations or institutions in promoting vaccination, which users attributed to previous misconduct. For example, users were convinced that the pharmaceutical industry had a mere financial interest in promoting vaccination against COVID-19.

"Unfortunately, I cannot trust the pharmaceutical industry, as much as I would like to. I would get vaccinated, but my mistrust is far too great. I have also not yet received anything that would build my trust. In the past, the pharmaceutical industry has acted unethically and immorally and knowingly harmed people. They have put their sales first, for example with the Duogynon scandal. [...]" [User 140]

Furthermore, the rapid development and approval of the vaccines compared to previous vaccines against other diseases was another reason given by users for refusing vaccination. They expressed concern that the vaccines were not sufficiently tested and that long-term negative physical consequences could not be ruled out. The partial emergency approval of the vaccines also led to concerns.

"I'm not going to have it injected. Normally a vaccine is researched for years. And now I'm supposed to get injected with something that was mixed together in a very short time?" [User 186]

In addition, vaccines from specific manufacturers were sometimes rejected. Users justified this with differences in perceived effectiveness and suspected side effects of vaccines from certain manufacturers. The respective country of development or production also played a role in rejecting these vaccines.

"I'd rather die before I get vaccinated with the Russian or Chinese vaccine." [User 70].

Spiritual or religious beliefs, such as the protection by God or the protective effect of precious stones, also led to a refusal of vaccination against COVID-19 by some users.

"I don't believe in this vaccination and this vaccination will not help us, I believe in God, in Jesus Christ and only he can help us, save us and protect us from this virus." [User 219]

Here is the original post:

What are the reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine? A qualitative analysis of social media in Germany - BMC Public Health - BMC Public Health

Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Another way to prevent getting this page in the future is to use Privacy Pass. You may need to download version 2.0 now from the Firefox Add-ons Store.

See the rest here:

EXPLAINED: What are Austria's plans to bring back the vaccine mandate? - The Local Austria

WASHINGTON A federal judge in Florida struck down the mask requirement on airplanes, trains, buses and other public transportation on Monday, less than a week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had extended it through May 3.

The ruling left it up to individual airlines and local transit agencies to decide what to do, and by late Monday, the nations largest airlines had dropped their mask requirements for domestic flights. The Amtrak rail system said passengers and employees would no longer need to wear masks.

In a 59-page decision, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, voided the mandate which also applies to airports, train stations and other transportation hubs nationwide on several grounds, including that the agency had exceeded its legal authority under the Public Health Services Act of 1944. Because of the ruling, the masking order was not in effect for the time being, and the Transportation Security Administration would not enforce it, a Biden administration official said on Monday evening.

The official said that the administration was still reviewing the decision and assessing whether to appeal it, and that the C.D.C. still recommended that people wear masks in enclosed public transportation settings.

It remained unclear to what extent local transportation agencies would seek to keep their mandates in place. Earlier in the day, before the administration official said the T.S.A. would not enforce the mandate, several state and local transit agencies across the country suggested they would keep their mask requirements for now.

Still, governments and businesses across the nation have largely loosened precautions, and now new known coronavirus cases are sharply rising again. When the C.D.C. extended its mask rule last week, it cited a desire to assess the potential severity of the Omicron subvariant known as BA.2, which recently became the dominant version among new U.S. cases. (On Monday, the city of Philadelphia reinstated a mask mandate in response, becoming the first major city to do so.)

President Biden had called on the C.D.C. to impose a mask mandate for travelers shortly after his inauguration, and the agency did so starting on Feb. 2, 2021. It extended that mandate several times. In July 2021, the Health Freedom Defense Fund, a Wyoming-based advocacy group, filed a lawsuit challenging its legality.

In a statement, the group called the ruling a victory for basic American liberty and the rule of law, and quoted its president, Leslie Manookian, as adding: Unelected officials cannot do whatever they like to our personal freedoms just because they claim good motives and a desirable goal.

In her ruling, Judge Mizelle adopted a narrow interpretation of the authority Congress granted to the C.D.C. to issue rules aimed at preventing the interstate spread of communicable diseases.

The law says the agency may take such measures as it deems necessary, and provides a list of examples, like sanitation. The judge wrote that this power was limited to things like cleaning property not requiring people to take hygienic steps.

If Congress intended this definition, the power bestowed on the C.D.C. would be breathtaking, she wrote. And it certainly would not be limited to modest measures of sanitation like masks.

If the governments broader interpretation of the agencys powers were accurate, she added, the C.D.C. could require businesses to install air filtration systems, mandate that people take vaccines, or even require coughing into elbows and daily multivitamins.

The ruling joins a tangle of litigation over various mandates attempting to curb the pandemic, most of which have centered on requirements, issued under various legal authorities, that different categories of people get vaccinated.

The outcomes of legal challenges to those mandates have varied. For example, a Federal District Court judge in Texas blocked an administration requirement that federal workers be vaccinated, but this month, an appeals court reversed that ruling.

In January, the Supreme Court blocked a Biden administration edict that large employers require workers to get vaccinated or submit to regular testing. But the Supreme Court has permitted military officials to take vaccination status into account when deciding where service members should be assigned or deployed and on Monday, it allowed the Pentagon to take disciplinary action against a reservist who refused to get vaccinated.

After the C.D.C. and T.S.A. issued their guidance Monday evening, the nations four largest airlines United, Delta, Southwest and American said they were dropping their mask requirements, as did JetBlue, Alaska, Spirit and Frontier.

Amtrak also said Monday night that passengers and employees were no longer required to wear masks on its trains or in stations.

Masks are welcome and remain an important preventive measure against Covid-19, said Kimberly Woods, a spokeswoman for the agency. Anyone needing or choosing to wear one is encouraged to do so.

In the hours after the ruling, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York City said it would keep its mask mandate in place. However, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority in the District of Columbia and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia said that masks would be optional for passengers and employees.

President Trump appointed Judge Mizelle to the bench in November 2020, after he had lost re-election. A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, she was 33 at the time, making her the youngest person Mr. Trump had appointed to a life-tenured judgeship. The American Bar Association declared her not qualified because of her lack of experience, but Republican senators confirmed her in a party-line vote.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, said the Biden administration would have to appeal the decision if it wanted the mandate to continue. He also defended the agencys authority to issue the mask requirement.

If there were ever an instance where the C.D.C. has authority to act, the classic case is to prevent the interstate transmission of a dangerous infectious disease, he said.

In La Guardia Airport on Monday, passengers had mixed reactions to the ruling.

Patricia and Brendan Kennedy, who had just arrived on a Delta flight from Orlando, said the flight crew had reminded everyone to wear a mask on board.

Both said they would be happy not to have to wear masks in airports anymore, but they were divided about whether they wanted the requirement to remain in planes.

Ms. Kennedy said it made her feel better about flying. Mr. Kennedy said he was ready to be done with mask rules.

I wish the whole thing would just go away, he said.

At Terminal B, United employees checking in passengers were all wearing masks. A counter agent was surprised to hear that her employer was no longer requiring passengers to wear face coverings. That had not yet been communicated to her, she said.

Some in the airline industry greeted Judge Mizelles decision with relief.

David Neeleman, who has founded several airlines including JetBlue Airways and Breeze Airways, which started flying last year, said he welcomed the end of a mask mandate for passengers. Crew members at Breeze, where Mr. Neeleman is the chief executive, have been frustrated by having to police passengers, creating unnecessary tension in flight, he said.

If the government can decide they can have the State of the Union address without masks, then we certainly should be able to let people have that choice on an airplane, he said.

In her ruling, Judge Mizelle also faulted the agency for issuing the mandate under emergency procedures without delaying for public comment rejecting the idea that there was no time for that since the pandemic was then already a year old.

The C.D.C. issued the mandate in February 2021, almost two weeks after the president called for a mandate, 11 months after the president had declared Covid-19 a national emergency, and almost 13 months since the secretary of health and human services had declared a public health emergency, she noted. This history suggests that the C.D.C. itself did not find the passage of time particularly serious.

In stressing that 11 months had passed between when the president declared a national emergency and when the agency imposed the mandate, Judge Mizelle did not address the fact that there had been a change of administration in that time.

As of Sunday, there was an average of more than 37,000 new cases a day, an increase of 39 percent from two weeks ago, according to a New York Times database.

Though the figure remains far lower than the peak of the winter surge driven by an Omicron variant, experts believe that new cases are increasingly undercounted with the rise of at-home testing. Also, many people who are vaccinated and have received booster shots have not experienced serious illness from contracting the Omicron variant.

Pulling back on the travel mask requirement at this moment is very, very concerning, Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease epidemiologist and assistant professor at George Mason University, said.

Were definitely starting to see a trend up in cases, she said. My concern is that we may see what happened in the U.K., where they drastically pulled back restrictions and saw a significant surge, and this will contribute to rising numbers.

Charlie Savage reported from Washington, and Heather Murphy from New York. Reporting was contributed by Madeleine Ngo and Noah Weiland from Washington, and Niraj Chokshi, Adeel Hassan, Ana Ley and Roni Caryn Rabin from New York.

Here is the original post:

Covid-19 Mask Mandates, Cases and More News: Live Updates - The New York Times

Written by Julie M. Posted on Apr 18, 2022 at 03:00

The entire world is facing an unprecedented health crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There are more than 476,252,151 cases of coronavirus worldwide and 6,162,631 deaths. Find out the results of countries and the development in the world regarding the Corona virus epidemic on Monday, April 18, 2022.

at Sunday 17 April 2022The virus COVID-19 touch. Contact. Link 476,252,151 (+123,838) confirmed cases And I did in total 6,162,631 (+339) dead In the Globalism. We now use open data provided by Google.

to main:

Hipster-friendly coffee fanatic. Subtly charming bacon advocate. Friend of animals everywhere.

Original post:

Corona virus in the world Monday, April 18, 2022: new cases and deaths within 24 hours - Valley Post

In a recent study posted to the medRxiv* preprint server, researchers reported that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfections could occur within 60 days of the initial infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs) have been detected in every country. The VOCs exhibit considerable antigen diversity relative to the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, which appeared in November 2021, has shown high antigenic drift and transmissibility, decreasing the antibody efficacy of sera from convalescent individuals and vaccinees. This waning of immunity has resulted in a significantly increased number of vaccine breakthrough infections and reinfections globally compared to previous COVID-19 waves.

The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) defines reinfections as two positive COVID-19 tests at least 60 days apart. However, many countries recommend against retesting within six months of an initial positive test. Therefore, there is a need to revise the guidelines and establish a consensus on retesting policies.

In the present study, researchers examined a COVID-19-positive patient, previously infected in December 2021 with SARS-CoV-2 Delta sub-lineage AY.43. One parent and a sibling of the patient were also infected. All three patients developed mild symptoms of COVID-19. The other parent was COVID-19-negative twice and received a booster vaccine onemonth ago.

The patient was admitted to a hospital two weeks later for surgery due to an unrelated condition. Systematic screening at the time of admission revealed a low SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the patient. This observation was interpreted as remnants from a previous infection (16 days ago). The patient tested positive during a preprocedural screening for readmission for the second-stage surgery. This time, i.e., 39 days post-Delta infection, the viral load was high, and the infection was due to the Omicron BA.1 variant. The patient was paucisymptomatic, and contact screening identified the patients sibling as positive with a low viral load. The boys mother tested negative, and the father was not (re)tested.

Next, early reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant after Delta infection and Omicron BA.2 after BA.1 infection were estimated in Flemish Brabant, Belgium. About 56,831 SARS-CoV-2-positive cases were recorded between December 2021 and February 7, 2021, a period in which the Omicron BA.1 variant replaced the previously predominant Delta variant. Of these, 91 (0.16%) had the spike (S)-gene detected in the first sample suggesting Delta infection. In contrast, the second sample (in the same period) showed S-gene target failure (SGTF) indicative of reinfection with the Omicron variant.

Similarly, between January 1, 2022, and March 7, 2022, a period during which SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 replaced the BA.1 variant, over 48,820 positive cases were detected. Five patients demonstrated SGTF in the first sample, but S-gene was detected in the second sample. These observations, given the epidemiology, were suspected as Omicron BA.2 reinfection after BA.1 infection. The research team noted that the highest and lowest risks for early COVID-19 reinfections were among the non-vaccinated younger population (aged below 12 years) and among the boosted population, respectively.

The researchers reported early SARS-CoV-2 reinfections, classed as less than 60 days from initial infection, particularly among non-vaccinated, younger people. They confirmed early reinfection with Omicron BA.1 after Delta infection and reinfection with BA.2 post-BA.1 infection.

Moreover, in the older age group, non-vaccinated and vaccinated (non-boosted) individuals were at an increased risk of reinfections compared to boosted individuals. Based on these findings, the authors suggested a reconsideration of the duration of immunity offered by past SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially when a shift occurs between two sequential SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Further, the authors believed that retesting within 60 days of an initial positive test should not be deemed unnecessary, especially for young people.

medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.

Journal reference:

View original post here:

Early COVID-19 reinfections possible within 60 days of initial infection - News-Medical.Net

From Saturday 9 April, we will update the figures on the coronadashboard on working days, and no longer on weekends and public holidays. This is in line with the current situation regarding the coronavirus. We will continue to closely monitor the development of the virus.

Here is the original post:

Coronavirus Dashboard | COVID-19 | Government.nl