Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

In the last two and a half years, the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected millions worldwide. The impact hammers on physical and mental health problems in the post-COVID-19 state1. This phenomenon raises the necessity to investigate the relationship between post-COVID conditions and mental health2. Primarily, the investigation shows that coronavirus has a long-term effect of post-COVID-19 disease on sleep and mental illness, which also opens the door to detecting possible relationships between the severity of COVID-19 at the onset and sleep and mental illness3. Coronavirus affects the brain by bypassing the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in blood or via monocytes which could reach brain tissue via circumventricular organs7. Importantly, research shows a prominent frequency of impaired performance across cognitive domains in post-COVID patients with subjective complaints25. At the same time, the discovery of inflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19 survivors has come into broad light through MRI samples and other means4. One out of five patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was diagnosed with PTSD or subthreshold PTSD at a 3-month follow-up6. Potential contributing factors cause post-COVID-19 patients to suffer from different memory complaints5. Moreover, some psychiatric issues like depression prevail in COVID recovery patients, which causes a 25 times greater risk for suicide than the general population26. A summary of data from last year about the impacts on physical, cognitive, and neurological health disorders in COVID-19 survivors suggests three crucial aspects to manage: nutritional status, neurological disorders, and physical health28. So, the impaired cognitive deficits and emotional distress among COVID-19 patients should be addressed by functional rehabilitation27. Side by side, a brief study is to be analyzed on post-COVID-19 pandemic era mental health issues, vulnerable populations, and risk factors, as well as recommending a universal approach for mental health care and services29. Physiological and Neurological factors have been examined, with 39% classified as Physiological and 61% as Neurological. Neurological factors influence the mind and are connected to a persons mental and emotional state.30. Here anxiety is a major Neurological factor among post-COVID patients with a frequency rating of 8 as shown in Table 2. Anxiety is the most common mental illness in post-COVID1. Physiological factors deal with the functions of a living organism and its parts30. Fatigue is one of the most frequent alterations of post-COVID patients as shown in Table 2. Over the past three years, extensive research has explored physiological and neurological health complications in the aftermath of COVID-19. We reviewed 23 research articles using keywords like mental health, cognitive impairment, and post-COVID trauma. From these studies, we identified 17 health factors associated with COVID infection, including fatigue, forgetfulness, and anxiety. These factors were categorized into two groups: Physiological and Neurological. Notably, 39% are Physiological factors, while 61% are Neurological factors, impacting the mind and emotional well-being30. Here anxiety is a major neurological factor among post-COVID patients with a frequency rating of 8 as shown in the Table 2. Anxiety is the most common mental illness in post-COVID1. Physiological factors deal with the functions of a living organism and its parts30. Fatigue is one of the most frequent alterations of post-COVID patients Table 2.

In this way, all revealed health factors are listed in Table 2 along with references and frequency of presence in those references.

Among the 17 factors we have divided them into two categories, as shown in Table 2;

Physiological factors: Physiological factors deal with the functions of a living organism and its parts30. For example, fatigue is one of the most frequent alterations of post-COVID patients in Table 2. There are 7 physiological factors identified among all post-COVID-19 factors in this study, as shown in Table 2.

Neurological factors: Neurological factors are the one that influences or affects the mind and are related to the mental and emotional state of a person30. For example, anxiety is the most common mental illness in post-COVID1. There are 10 neurological factors identified among all post-COVID-19 factors in this study, as shown in Table 2.

We have given a statistical overview of our data in Fig.2 to make our data more understandable. Data statistics, such as count, min, max, mean, standard deviation, variance, and median, are essential for understanding a dataset. Count shows dataset size, min/max indicates its range, mean reflects central tendencies, standard deviation measures data spread, and variance quantifies overall variability. The median is a robust central measure. These stats form the foundation for data summary, with quartiles, percentiles, skewness, and kurtosis for deeper dataset analysis.

Statistical overview of data.

Feature correlation in Figs.3 and 4 gives a statistical measure that assesses the degree of association or relationship among features (variables) in our dataset. It quantifies how these features tend to vary together, providing insights into their dependencies. The advantages of this feature correlation (pearson) analysis in Fig. 4 (Full information is shown in Fig.5) includes its utility in identifying redundant or highly informative features for best model performance, detection of multicollinearity in regression analysis, simplifying data exploration by revealing hidden patterns and relationships, aiding in model interpretability, and facilitating feature engineering by leveraging the knowledge of feature associations to create new informative variables. Pearson correlation, is a crucial data science tool. It quantifies the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two continuous variables, with values ranging from 1 to 1. This technique is widely employed in statistics and data analysis to uncover connections, patterns, and dependencies within complex datasets.

Pearson correlation value for all to all input features.

Overview of target classanxiety.

TNSE visualization of features for after anxiety.

The chi-square test is one of the methods to find out the association i.e. relationship among the categorical variables. The relationship can be significant or insignificant. The standard P-value is considered as 0.05 and any p-value having less than 0.05 is considered to have a significant association i.e. relationship among variables as shown in Fig.3. In this research, the survey dataset has the responses i.e. level of impact on various physiological & neurological factors. These factors are considered categorical variables. The chi-square test is applyed on all factors and we got P-value for them which is shown in Fig.3. In the Table 3, calculated p-values less than 0.05 are marked with Grey color. These values with corresponding Factors are analysed to possess significant relationships among them.

From the Fig.3, we can see all comparing factors have an association between them, Some basic features association as follows: a. Chest Pain & Unhappiness b. Unhappiness & Forgetfulness c. Depression & vigilance d. Chest pain & confidence e. Confidence & vigilance f. Energy & confidence g. Sleep & attentiveness h. Attentiveness & vigilance i. Sleep & determination j. Determination & vigilance and k. Fear of COVID & energetic

Pearson correlation coefficient is a unit measuring the strength of the linear relationship between two variables. This is represented as the r-value. R-value results in the range from 1 to 1. +1 represents the positive correlations(direct relationship), 0 shows no relationship & 1 represents the negative correlations(inverse relationship). In the research, the physiological & neurological factors of the dataset are depicted as variables. The Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated for all factors, and we got the R-value for them shown in Fig.3. The R-values above 0.05 are considered for positive/direct relation between the factors. This means an increase in one factor may influence and increase the degree of another factor. R-values below 0(in the -ve range) are considered for Inverse relation between factors. This means a Decrease in one factor may influence and Decrease another factor. The Pearson correlation revealed a strong positive relationship between the two variables, with a correlation coefficient of 0.85, indicating a significant and direct association.

Feature importance analysis shown in Fig.3 using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model is a valuable technique in data analysis and predictive modeling. In this table, we renamed each feature name and labeled it from 1 to 13. In the context of feature importance, OLS can reveal the impact of each independent variable on the dependent variable. Larger coefficient values indicate stronger feature importance, while coefficients near zero suggest less relevance. This analysis aids in feature selection, helping us focus on the most influential variables for building predictive models or understanding the factors that drive specific outcomes in the data. Based the outcome shown in Table 3, the most important feature is 13(with a score of 1.5447) and the less important feature is 1(with a score -1.0443).

Training algorithm for anxiety analysis.

Firstly, the compiled dataset is used for Statistical Analysis to explore whether any impact exists on the factors due to COVID-19 or not. The dataset possesses the info of both the Before and After conditions of the factors. The x-axis shows the categories/responses of people on how much each factor, like anger, depression, etc is affected. Y-Axis shows the percentage of how many persons are acknowledged in each category. In Fig.4b, we present a comparative view of anxiety before and after COVID-19. The blue color represents the degree of impact for the factors before being affected by COVID-19. The red color represents the status after suffering from the disease.

Before COVID-19 state, no people strongly agreed on having Anxiety over their COVID issue, but the percentage jumped to 16.67% who strongly agreed after suffering from it. The graph follows the same pattern in the subsequent remarks. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, a large number of people got the new problem whereas the people having previous Anxiety issues remained the same/more. In Fig. 4a, we present a complete view of anxiety amount before and after COVID-19.

It is such a factor that shows most of the patients are suffering from depression more after COVID. 23.33% and 36.67% patients either strongly agreed or agreed respectively on this matter. This figure has risen from 16.67% and 20.00% before COVID. While 36.67% disagreed on this matter before COVID the figure came down to only 10.00% after COVID. Depression, in human life, has increased after COVID-19

On the factor of unhappiness, 33.33%, and 26.67% people agreed on their unhappy life before and after COVID respectively. However we see an almost inverse trend on the neutral point of view among the patients. Thus comparing the before & after situation, it can be visualized that after suffering from COVID-19, unhappiness has decreased among the patients.

The degree of confidence before and after the COVID-19 era shows a drastic change in peoples mentality. Before COVID-19 state, 56.67% of people agreed on their degree of confidence but COVID had hit hard on their lifestyle shifting down to 20% confidence degree after COVID. The same trend was seen in the disagreement chart. Comparing the before & after situation, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, the majority of the peoples confidence in themselves was shattered.

Regarding forgetfulness, double the number of patients either agreed or strongly agreed that they forgot things now more after suffering from it. Thus, COVID has fatally affected the patients memory, resulting in curbing their brains.

Before suffering from COVID, about 60% people agreed that they were more patient in life, but the percentage abruptly dropped to half who decided to be after suffering from COVID. But none Strongly Disagreed in this regard, neither before nor after. Thus comparing the before & after situation, it can be visualized that after suffering from COVID-19, vigilance has decreased by almost half or beyond among the patients.

Before the COVID-19 state, most people (56.67%) agreed about being more energetic, whereas the percentage increased in favor disagreement (36.67% disagree, 10% strongly disagree) in the post-COVID state. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be depicted that after suffering from COVID-19, people are becoming significantly less energetic.

Before COVID-19 state, no people strongly agreed about having chest pain, but the percentage jumped to 23.33% who strongly agreed after suffering from COVID. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, a large number of people got the new problem, whereas the people having previous chest pain history remained the same/more.

Before COVID-19 state, about 36.67% of people agreed that they experienced more sleep, but the percentage decreased to 33.33% who agreed after suffering from COVID. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, experiencing sound sleep conditions shows a sight-decreasing tendency.

Before COVID-19 state, about 43% of people were NEUTRAL about their anger problem, whereas 40% people agreed about the problem. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, most people agreed that their anger has increased.

Before the COVID-19 state, most people (50%) disagreed about having dizziness problems, but the percentage is rising in favor of strongly agree (16.67%) and agree (36.67) in the post-COVID state. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, dizziness is slowly increasing among people after COVID.

Before the COVID-19 state, a few people (3.33%) strongly agreed that they had been impulsive, but the percentage increased to 20% who strongly agreed after suffering from COVID. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be concluded that after suffering from COVID-19, people show a sight-increasing impulsiveness tendency.

Before suffering from COVID, about 60% of people agreed that they were more vigilant, but the percentage abruptly fell to 16.67% who agreed after suffering from COVID. At the same time, disagreement degrees increased in the post-COVID situation. Comparing the before & after situations, it can be visualized that after suffering from COVID-19, vigilance has decreased dramatically among the patients.

See the article here:

Exploring post-COVID-19 health effects and features with advanced machine learning techniques | Scientific Reports - Nature.com

Actor Shreyas Talpade has spoken about his health and that his recent heart attack could be a side effect of the Covid-19 vaccine. Speaking with Lehren Retro, Shreyas shared that he took care of his health, and despite that, he had a heart attack. Shreyas added that he couldn't "negate the theory" that people have been facing health issues after taking the vaccine. (Also Read | Shreyas Talpades family shares health update after his heart attack: He looked at us and smiled today)

Talking about himself, Shreyas said, "I don't smoke. I'm not really a regular drinker, I drink perhaps once a month. No tobacco, yes, my cholesterol was a little high, which I was told is normal these days. I was taking medication for that, and it had come down reasonably. So, if all the factors--no diabetes, no blood pressure, nothing, then what could be the reason?

He said that despite being careful about his health if this happens, there must be some other reason. Shreyas continued, I would not negate the theory. It was only after the Covid-19 vaccination is when I started experiencing some fatigue and tiredness. There has to be some amount of truth, and we cannot negate the theory. Maybe it is Covid or the vaccine, but there is something associated post that...It is very unfortunate because we genuinely dont know what we have taken inside our bodies. We went with the flow and trusted the companies. I never heard of such incidents before Covid-19."

Shreyas added that he wants to know what the "vaccine has done with us". He also said that he isn't sure whether it is Covid-19 or the vaccine, adding that since he doesn't have "enough proof, it is pointless to make any statements". He concluded that he wants to "explore what it has done to our bodies".

On December 14, last year, Shreyas suffered a heart attack in Mumbai after complaining about discomfort following the shooting of his upcoming film Welcome To The Jungle. He was admitted to Mumbai's Bellevue Hospital, where he underwent angioplasty.

Get more updates from Bollywood, Taylor Swift, Hollywood, Music and Web Series along with Latest Entertainment News at Hindustan Times.

Dedicated professionals who write about cinema and television in all their vibrancy. Expect views, reviews and news.

More:

Shreyas Talpade hints his heart attack could be a side effect of Covid-19 vaccine: I wouldn't negate the theory - Hindustan Times

The US shared gobsmacking evidence with Britain at the height of the Covid pandemic suggesting a high likelihood that the virus had leaked from a Chinese lab, The Telegraph can reveal.

In January 2021, Five Eyes intelligence-sharing nations were convened to discuss the possibility of a lab leak as the US warned that China had covered up research on coronaviruses and military activity at a laboratory in Wuhan.

In a previously unreported phone call that month, Mike Pompeo, the former US secretary of state, presented evidence that supported the lab leak theory to Dominic Raab, then the Foreign Secretary, and representatives from Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Speaking to The Telegraph, two Trump administration officials accused Mr Raab and the UK Government of ignoring the lab leak theory because of resistance from government scientists who supported the explanation that the virus had jumped between animals and humans.

Mr Pompeo presented a summary of classified American intelligence reports collected in the early days of the pandemic and compiled by the State Department. The intelligence reports themselves are understood to have been shared separately with the UK via the Five Eyes network between October and December 2020.

We saw several pieces of information and thought that they were, frankly, gobsmacking, said one former official who worked on the intelligence that informed Mr Pompeos report. They obviously pointed to the high likelihood that this was indeed a lab leak.

In one document, which has since been released by the State Department under Freedom of Information laws, US officials warned of consistent stonewalling by China after the virus was first discovered and accused local officials of gross corruption and ineptitude.

The research revealed for the first time that Chinese military officials had worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the years leading up to the pandemic, and that some researchers at the lab had become ill shortly before the virus was first recorded nearby.

It also showed that Chinese scientists had carried out gain of function research at the institute, which has since become a key piece of evidence for the lab leak theory.

The theory has become a divisive topic among scientists and government officials in the years following the pandemic and has prompted two investigations by the World Health Organisation, which China has been accused of obstructing.

British government ministers including Boris Johnson initially dismissed the possibility that Covid had been created by scientists, arguing in June 2021 that the advice that we have had is that it doesnt look as though this particular disease of zoonotic origin came from a lab.

Two former officials claimed the UK had ignored the evidence presented by the US because ministers saw the lab leak claims as a radioactive American political issue fuelled by public disagreement between government scientists and Donald Trump.

Once the thing became fundamentally political, the ability to pursue it internationally really just collapsed because no one else was interested in touching it, said one of the officials. I think [Five Eyes] were kind of annoyed by the way the issue had become treated in US politics.

Both separately named Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the Governments Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies as one of the leading opponents of the lab leak theory within the British government.

A majority of scientific experts have long said that they believe an animal to human interaction was the most likely cause of the first infection.

However, some Government figures, including Michael Gove, have since said that they believe the virus was man-made.

In November, Mr Gove told the Covid Inquiry that there was a significant body of judgment that believes that the virus itself was man-made and that presents its own set of challenges.

Both the FBI and US Department of Energy have said they believe a lab leak is the most likely cause of Covid, while other agencies have said they think it occurred naturally.

Joe Biden, the US president, has said he does not know where the virus started, while the US National Intelligence Council said last year it probably emerged and infected humans through an initial small-scale exposure.

UK ministers are now facing calls to expand the terms of the Covid Inquiry to include an investigation into the origin of the virus.

The Telegraph understands that the call in Jan 2021 was deliberately held on an open line without security encryption in the hope that Chinese intelligence agencies would hear that Western countries were aware of military activity in Wuhan.

We did that deliberatelywe wanted to put pressure on the bad guys, said a State Department source.

Ten days after the call, in which officials said the UK was unwilling to assist with a US-led lab leak investigation or share its own research, the summary compiled by Mr Pompeos officials was released to the public in a fact sheet.

Those involved in the release said they took care to avoid revealing the sources or methods of US spy agencies, and that it was just the tip of the iceberg of the underlying intelligence that had been gathered.

A UK government spokesman said: There are still questions that need to be answered about the origin and spread of Covid-19, not least so we can ensure we are better prepared for future pandemics.

The UK continues to support the World Health Organisation in its expert study of the origins of Covid-19. It is important that China and other countries cooperate fully with the researchers.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Go here to read the rest:

US shared 'gobsmacking' lab leak evidence with UK at height of Covid-19 pandemic - Yahoo! Voices

Image was shared on Instagram. (Image courtesy shreyastalpade27)

Golmaal Again star Shreyas Talpade, who suffered a cardiac arrest last year, in a recent interview taLked about the possibility of the attack being a side effect of COVID-19 vaccine. Speaking with Lehren Retro, Shreyas said, "I don't smoke. I'm not really a regular drinker, I drink perhaps once a month. No tobacco, yes, my cholesterol was a little high, which I was told is normal these days. I was taking medication for that, and it had come down reasonably. So, if all the factors--no diabetes, no blood pressure, nothing, then what could be the reason?

He continued, I would not negate the theory. It was only after the Covid-19 vaccination is when I started experiencing some fatigue and tiredness. There has to be some amount of truth, and we cannot negate the theory. Maybe it is Covid or the vaccine, but there is something associated post that...It is very unfortunate because we genuinely don't know what we have taken inside our bodies. We went with the flow and trusted the companies. I never heard of such incidents before Covid-19."

Last year in December, actor Shreyas Talpade suffered a heart attack. In a chat with ETimes, the actor described his recovery as a second chance at life. Admitting that his revival was nothing short of a miracle, Shreyas shared that he did not see this health setback coming. I was never hospitalised before in my life, not even for a fracture so I didn't see this coming. Don't take your health for granted. Jaan hai toh Jahaan hai. An experience like this changes your perspective towards life. I started doing theatre at 16, became a professional actor at 20. For the past 28 years, I have just been focussing on my career. We take our families for granted. We think we have time. As a nation, we are not high on preventive care," he was quoted as saying.

Speaking about what happened on the fateful day, Shreyas Talpade explained, "We were shooting in Mumbai at the SRPF grounds close to Jogeshwari for Ahmed Khan's Welcome To The Jungle. We were doing army training sequences like swinging on a rope, falling into the water and everything was going smoothlySuddenly, after the last shot, I felt breathless, and my left hand started paining. I could barely walk to my vanity van and change my clothes. I thought it was a muscle pull since we were shooting action sequences. You don't think of the worst-case scenario, right? I had never experienced this kind of fatigue.

Shreyas Talpade played the leading role in Nagesh Kukunoor's 2005 film Iqbal. He is known for his work in hit films such as Om Shanti Om, Dor, Golmaal 3, Kaun Pravin Tambe? and Housefull 2 among others.

Visit link:

Shreyas Talpade Says His Heart Attack Could Be A Side Effect Of COVID-19 Vaccine: "Wouldn't Negate The Theory" - NDTV Movies

Four years ago this week, there was only one subject on Canadians minds: the incipient COVID-19 pandemic. Schools and businesses were locked down in most of the country. The death count was appalling: close to 1,900 in the first full week of the month. In all, about 4,300 Canadians would die that May with far more brutal waves of infection and death to come.

The story is much different today. Thanks to the rapid development, approval and delivery of vaccines an amazing human accomplishment that isnt celebrated enough COVID-19 has been brought to heel and is now largely seen as just one more viral disease, like the flu or common cold. The availability of home testing kits means most people who become infected by the latest variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus can manage the disease at home, and never trouble the health care system.

Thats good, but it hides the troubling fact that it is difficult to discern coherent policies at any level of government for continuing the fight against COVID-19, for dealing with its long-term effects, or for preparing for another pandemic.

First and foremost, the pandemic is still going on. While infection rates are stable, there were still 3,320 new cases and 94 deaths from April 7 to April 20, according to federal data. Thats more than six deaths a day. And the number of cases is undercounted, given that many people wont bother to report a positive home test to the government.

As well, there is a continuing long COVID crisis in Canada, in which symptoms sometimes debilitating ones last months or even years. A Statistics Canada report from last December found that 2.1 million people were experiencing long COVID symptoms as of June, 2023.

Meanwhile, vaccination rates have plunged. Barely one in five people had received the recommended dose for their age group and health status as of the end of February, according to federal data. Even the rates for the vulnerable elderly have fallen. Only 55 per cent of people aged 70-79, and 61 per cent of those over 80, have had the recommended dose.

Equally concerning is that there has never been a public inquiry into the handling of the crisis. That means the public can have little confidence that, in a future epidemic or pandemic, there wont be a repeat of Ontarios infamous snafu, where the provincial government put millions of dollars of personal protection equipment into a warehouse after the 2003 SARS epidemic in Toronto, and then let the contents expire without being replaced, contributing to a shortage of PPE in the COVID crisis.

Ottawa has signed a 10-year agreement with a Montreal company to supply N95 respirators and surgical masks, but that hardly counts as a comprehensive plan to build a national stockpile of PPE available to every province.

On the vaccine-supply front, Moderna, one of the developers of the mRNA COVID vaccine, is opening a plant in Montreal this year that will provide Ottawa with a minimum of 30 million doses a year. The facility will also research emerging viruses and develop new vaccines.

But that bit of good news cant hide the fact that there is no joint federal-provincial planning for handling the next pandemic. Its more accurate to say the provinces and Ottawa are operating in their own silos, making little apparent effort to co-operate on a national scale and instead looking after partisan political concerns.

This may well be the most lasting and damaging legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: the politicization of science and public-health measures. Where most Canadians feel that governments did what they had to do in a fast-moving crisis, some saw the lockdowns and vaccine mandates as infringements of basic rights that silenced scientific inquiry and public debate.

This space has long argued that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau proposed vaccine mandates on truckers as a wedge issue in the 2021 election. The illegal 2022 trucker occupation in Ottawa, and the Trudeau governments use of the Emergencies Act to end it something a court has since ruled was unjustified was the climax of that tension.

The handling of the COVID-19 crisis remains a bitterly divisive issue in Canada, but no politician at any level seems interested in reconciling the different sides. That, along with the collapse of an effective vaccination strategy and the lack of future-proofing, demonstrate that Canadians and their leaders arent heeding the lessons of the pandemic.

Visit link:

Globe editorial: The unlearned lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic - The Globe and Mail

Indeed, some public health officials exaggerated the benefits and underplayed some of the risks. Thrombosis caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine and myocarditis caused by the messenger-RNA vaccines of BioNTech and Pfizer have emerged as rare but serious side effects.

The pandemics legacy now seems to include greater public mistrust of vaccines in general. Measles is on the rise. More people are refusing the MMR jab. A recent Unicef survey found that vaccine confidence had fallen in 52 out of 55 countries.

Who is responsible? Public health officials tend to blame antivaxx campaigners with lurid conspiracy theories about Bill Gates, and they are partly right. But perhaps they should also look in the mirror. Misinformation came from both sides, and by overpromising what the vaccines could do, and demanding vaccine mandates, many scientists and government officials contributed to scepticism.

For example, the US government tried to reassure people about messenger-RNA vaccines by implicitly criticising live vaccines like those used for measles: The mRNA vaccines do not contain any live virus. Instead, they work by teaching our cells to make a harmless piece of a spike protein. So, live vaccines are not harmless?

Americas leading infectious-disease expert, Anthony Fauci, said in May 2021 that vaccination makes it extremely unlikely not impossible, but very, very low likelihood that theyre going to transmit it In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. That turned out to be wrong, as he later admitted, with the jab doing little to prevent reinfection and transmission.

Preventing transmission was the excuse used for vaccinating children, yet when that excuse evaporated, the policy continued. For young age groups, wrote a clutch of doctors in the BMJ in December 2021, the harms of taking a vaccine are almost certain to outweigh the benefits.

Authoritarianism made the problem worse. France criminalised criticism of vaccine mandates; Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers for protesting against them. Part of the reason governments were so reckless in forcing vaccines was probably that they wanted an exit from lockdowns, which were imposed for longer and more often than promised.

Some of us urged ministers not to claim too much for vaccines or pretend there would be no side effects as that would backfire. But the Government pressed ahead with mandates to prevent care-home workers going to work unless vaccinated. A study by doctors concluded: Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution.

This was compounded by a baffling refusal to acknowledge that natural immunity from Covid itself had a role in protecting people. In 2020 a paper in The Lancet stated that there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection. Yet we now know that it lasts longer and is more effective than the protection provided by a jab.

The backlash against vaccines will go too far. Italys former health minister Roberto Speranza, who imposed vaccine mandates, can no longer walk in a street without angry Italians calling him a murderer. But public health officials worldwide must concede that overblown claims and underestimated risks of the vaccines developed during Covid have hurt the reputation of a valuable medical technology.

To hear more on this story, listen to Episode 6 of The Lockdown Files podcast, The Forgotten Victims, using the audio player in this article, or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Follow this link:

The true tragedy of the Covid-19 vaccines - The Telegraph

The latest NSW Health respiratory surveillance report released on Thursday shows the JN.1 variant now accounts for almost all COVID-19 cases in NSW.

The World Health Organisation reported last week that nearly all circulating COVID variants were derived from JN.1, and recommended future vaccine formulations should target the variant that has rapidly displaced all others since it was first declared a variant of interest in December.

While those updated vaccines may be available for the northern-hemisphere winter, Deakin University epidemiologist Professor Catherine Bennett said it was more likely to be the vaccine Australians get next year or in six months time.

The point is, dont wait for this next magic booster, she said. Its good to see weve got this capacity now to keep monitoring whats happening with the virus [variants] but ... for now, the main focus is to try and get ahead of a wave with your vaccination to give yourself time before your exposure risk goes up in the community.

Bennett said current vaccines still worked well but a monovalent immunisation () would be more effective at creating an antibody response to the virus and any future variants that evolve from it.

It becomes more like the annual flu shot where we try and build our vaccines to be closest to the circulating strains, Bennett said. You just want to try and get the greatest effectiveness you can from your vaccines particularly for people who are really still relying on vaccine-induced immunity as their main protection.

Associate Professor Stuart Turville, a virologist at Sydneys Kirby Institute, said the pace at which JN.1 had spread and evolved to better evade the bodys immune system showed it would be difficult to predict what future variants should be targeted by new vaccines.

By the time we get it [a monovalent JN.1 vaccine], theres going to be another variant, and that will be a bit different again, he said.

Turville said older vaccines shouldnt be ignored when updated versions come out as its important we build a broad response across multiple variants.

I agree with the approach, we should change it over time but I think sometimes the vaccine thats available to you still does a pretty good job, he said. Just because one vaccine is the new beaut thing on the market, it doesnt always turn out that its the one that reacts best to the thing thats circulating in the future.

Overall COVID cases remain well down on the mid-January peak, falling by 9 per cent in NSW in the past week. The trend is reflected in emergency department visits and NSW Healths sewage surveillance program.

Cases of the flu rose by 24 per cent over the past week, while there was a 15 per cent decrease in RSV.

Start the day with a summary of the days most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. .

See original here:

The COVID variant that now accounts for almost every case in NSW - Sydney Morning Herald

UK-headquartered pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca has admitted that in "very rare cases" its COVID vaccine can cause a blood clot related side effect in a recent court filing in London. The AstraZeneca vaccine, also manufactured by the Serum Institute of India, was marketed in India as Covishield. The rare side effect linked to the vaccine is known as Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome or TTS. TTS is a rare but serious condition characterised by blood clotting or thrombosis, combined with low levels of platelets or thrombocytopenia.TTS seems to occur because the body's immune system reacts to the vaccine by making antibodies that attack a protein involved in blood clotting.

See the rest here:

AstraZeneca Covid 19 Vaccine Side Effects | What Is TTS, A Rare Condition Caused By Covishield - NDTV

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus in late 2019 precipitated a global health emergency that contributed to more than 7 million reported deaths globally as of 19 January 2024 (ref. 1) and an estimated 18.2 million excess deaths between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 (ref. 2). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, requiring urgent international intervention, led to an accelerated pace of research and development of multiple safe, effective COVID-19 vaccines, which were first authorized for emergency use in December 20203. The expeditious vaccine development and limited availability resulted in serious challenges in the equitable global distribution of vaccines, coupled with vaccine-related misinformation and mistrust of the science behind vaccine safety4.

Vaccine hesitancy5, pandemic fatigue6 and vaccine fatigue, defined as the inertia or inaction toward vaccine information or instruction due to perceived burden and burnout7, continue to present challenges to vaccine uptake in 2023. Although COVID-19 has been deprioritized as a substantial public health threat since 2023, the virus strains continue to circulate and, in some settings, lead to new increases in hospitalization and intensive care unit admission1. The potential impact of vaccine hesitancy on confidence in booster doses remains substantial8. In addition, documented spillover effects on routine immunization pose a threat for the reemergence of some childhood and adult vaccine-preventable diseases9,10.

In this Brief Communication, the fourth study in a series of annual global surveys across 23 countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Trkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States)11,12,13, we report perspectives of adults in the general public on COVID-19 and routine immunization in late 2023, trust in pandemic information sources and collective preparedness to address any possible future pandemic. We also compare COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in 2023 to that in previous years to promote a better understanding of the current and future challenges public health authorities may face in encouraging vaccine uptake.

The reported uptake of at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose rose to 87.8% in 2023 across the 23 countries (Fig. 1a), as compared with 36.9% in 2021 (P<0.001) and 70.4% in 2022 (P=0.002). The reported uptake of at least one COVID-19 vaccine was similar in middle-income countries (MICs; 86.9%) and high-income countries (HICs; 87.5%) (P=0.381). COVID-19 vaccine booster acceptance among those vaccinated decreased from 87.9% in 2022 to 71.6% in 2023 (P<0.001) (Fig. 1b). This decrease was most profound in HICs (from 85.1% to 63.3%, P<0.001), compared with MICs (from 90.5% to 78.9%, P=0.010). The perspectives on willingness to get vaccinated against diseases other than COVID-19 (for example, influenza, measles and hepatitis B) indicate that 60.8% of respondents may be more and 23.1% less willing to get vaccinated in 2023, following their experience during the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1c). Individual country analyses on vaccine acceptance are available in Extended Data Fig. 1.

a, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among 23 countries, HICs and MICs. b, COVID-19 booster vaccine acceptance among 23 countries, HICs and MICs. c, Reported pandemic influence toward routine immunization. Four countries (Ghana, Kenya, Peru and Trkiye) were not included in the 2020 global survey. HICs: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Routine immunization referrs to other diseases (for example, flu, measles and viral hepatitis B) in the survey item.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread disruptions in routine immunization services globally, including for childhood doses, resulting in delayed and reduced vaccine uptake10. The results of this study demonstrate that 23.1% of respondents are less likely to accept vaccines for diseases other than COVID-19. Experience from the diversion of healthcare resources during the pandemic, along with lockdown measures and concerns about infection, highlights the need for resilient primary care systems, especially in maintaining access to crucial prevention interventions, such as routine childhood and adult vaccination. Other challenges, including disruptions to vaccine supply chains, underscore the importance of strengthening immunization systems and services to prevent future outbreaks14,15. Moreover, the extension of COVID-19 vaccine skepticism to other vaccines, including among parents who make vaccination decisions for their children10, signals a crucial need for ongoing efforts in vaccine education and trust building. Looking ahead, these insights should inform strategies to fortify healthcare systems against similar challenges to minimize disruptions and ensure continuity of essential health services, including routine vaccinations. Meanwhile, many communities are facing increased vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases10, highlighting the need for innovative strategies to ensure the continuity of routine immunization and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns to improve vaccine confidence.

The survey responses on trust in sources that provide information or guidance on pandemic interventions revealed generally high levels of trust in those close to the individual, although all 11 studied sources averaged less than seven points on a ten-point scale. For example, my doctor or nurse ranked highest at 6.9 and my family and friends ranked at 6.4 (Extended Data Fig. 2d). Similarly, established health institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) (6.5) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (6.4) ranked high. Social media platforms (5.0) and religious leaders (5.0) each ranked neutrally (Extended Data Fig. 2d). There was variability across countries, for example, religious leaders ranked 3.16 in Sweden and 3.19 in Germany but 6.57 in Nigeria and 6.72 in India, whereas my doctor or nurse ranked 4.95 in Russia and 7.70 in Kenya (Extended Data Fig. 2e). Trust in health authorities that recommended COVID-19 vaccination was higher than trust in governments management of the COVID-19 pandemic at 65.4% and 56.4%, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 3). General trust in health authorities was 66.8% and 63.9% in MICs and HICs, respectively (P=0.542), while general trust in government was 60.7% and 51.7% in MICs and HICs, respectively (P=0.073). A decrease in perceived trust in science as a result of COVID-19 vaccine development was reported by 13.9% of respondents (MICs 13.4% and HICs 14.3%, P=0.674). A decrease in perceived trust in the pharmaceutical industry as a result of COVID-19 vaccine development was reported by 18.7% of respondents (MICs 18.4% and HICs 19.1%, respectively, P=0.772) (Extended Data Fig. 3). Trust in the science behind available COVID-19 vaccines was reported by 71.6% of respondents on average, with this value being 74.5% and 68.4% among MICs and HICs, respectively (P=0.115) (Extended Data Fig. 3). The unprecedented speed of development, the novel application of mRNA technology and the proliferation of misinformation, particularly on social media, raised concerns among some about the thoroughness of testing and long-term safety of COVID-19 vaccines and contributed to increased skepticism regarding science generally, as well as its application to preventive and therapeutic applications in particular16,17,18. Moreover, factors such as prepandemic vaccine-related controversies and mistrust in pharmaceutical companies, governments and health institutions, sometimes the result of cultural beliefs or past negative experiences, have further complicated public health communication16,19.

Perspectives on future pandemic preparedness reveal a mixed picture of confidence and trust among global populations. Approximately three-quarters (74.9%) of respondents are confident that society collectively will manage the next health crisis better than the COVID-19 pandemic, yet only 63.3% reported trusting a hypothetical WHO recommendation to vaccinate if such a crisis was announced (Fig. 2). Approximately a quarter of respondents in Russia (26.6%) and the United States (25.5%) express low trust in the WHO as a reliable source of information to announce a new pandemic threat (Extended Data Fig. 2a). Approximately half of respondents in Ghana (51.5%), India (51.3%) and Kenya (49.2%) report a high level of confidence in our collective ability to better manage the next potential health crisis (Extended Data Fig. 2c). A 2023 analysis in Kenya reporting 49.6% of respondents rating their own governments management of the pandemic as very good or excellent may inform public confidence in future management capabilities20. Confidence in Ghana may be attributable to the governments approach in preparing early readiness assessments, strategic and substantial investments in response planning and the effective use of surveillance technology21. Indias confidence in pandemic preparedness might be higher due to vaccine production capacity and public health investments in massive awareness campaigns and the rapid expansion of testing and contact tracing capabilities, despite having a large population and fragmented health system22. By contrast, 30.2% of respondents to our survey in France and 28.9% of respondents in Poland are not at all confident in our collective ability, the highest percentages among the countries studied. These findings are comparable to panel data in France and Poland demonstrating low and decreasing trust in scientists among these populations during COVID-1923. Trust in the collective scientific and health communities to respond effectively to pandemic threats will require country-specific approaches that consider relevant sociocultural factors. How much individuals trust scientists and governments, respectively, has been observed as weakly related in Brazil and the United States, suggesting populations in these countries distinguish between these two health communicator groups, whereas the relationship was stronger in France, and populations view them as more closely aligned23. For example, in the United States and Brazil, a trend toward privatization and the erosion of the governments role in mitigating public health threats exacerbated racial inequities and contributed to a fragmented response to the COVID-19 pandemic24,25. Ongoing global efforts to prepare for future global health threats promote a comprehensive vaccines plus approach that incorporates social and behavioral preventive measures alongside rigorous testing and treatment26. Heightened vaccine hesitancy relative to COVID-19, pandemic fatigue and concerted disinformation campaigns have strong implications for plans to prevent or manage future pandemics, as well as a degree of spillover effect on our collective ability to control other vaccine-preventable diseases27. This may be particularly important as it pertains to routine childhood immunizations.

MICs: Brazil, China, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Russia, South Africa and Trkiye. Four countries (Ghana, Kenya, Peru and Trkiye) were not included in the 2020 global survey. HICs: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

A vocal minority of vaccine-resistant populations continue to believe inaccurate and disproven claims, such as the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 and some conspiracy theories, that drive resistance to vaccination28,29. Disinformation aiming to influence public opinion poses major challenges for communication campaigns that require heterogeneous data-driven precision public health approaches30,31. These strategies should focus on delivering clear, accurate and culturally sensitive information to specific communities through their preferred information channels and via trusted sources and on exposing the motivation of those behind disinformation. It is important to acknowledge that individuals often show a preference for information that aligns with their existing beliefs and perceive such information as more credible32. This biased selection and perception is more pronounced among those with higher health literacy32, which is a factor that health communication professionals must consider.

The critical need to catch up on routine immunizations and prepare for potential new pandemic threats, coupled with the continued spread of COVID-19, requires maintaining vigilance in addressing vaccine hesitancy globally. The varying degrees of hesitancy observed across different demographic groups and countries emphasize the importance of culturally and contextually relevant strategies that include the selection of welcomed credible sources as primary conduits of information to address and mitigate vaccine hesitancy. The findings of this study demonstrate that the WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the respondents personal doctor, were more highly trusted as sources of pandemic information. The communication of accurate and timely information, as well as countering misinformation, are pivotal in guiding public perception and behavior toward COVID-19 vaccination acceptance.

Furthermore, whole-of-society action has been recommended by pandemic researchers to address the thus far fragmented approaches seen in relation to pandemic preparedness and response33,34. Such an approach involves various sectors and actors in decision-making processes to build resilient systems and takes life risks other than health, such as employment, housing and food security status, into consideration. A proposed pandemic agreement is currently being debated in advance of the May 2024 World Health Assembly. It aims to strengthen global collaboration between countries and global health organizations, including the WHO, around improving One Health data monitoring and sharing, toward ensuring equitable access to preventive and therapeutic measures and strengthening health systems35. The intent of such an agreement would signal to Member States and their populations that pandemic preparedness to address the shortcomings of the COVID-19 pandemic response is being taken seriously, including the rapid, real-time country collaboration on surveillance and the equitable distribution of vaccines and other mitigation and elimination efforts.

Limitations to interpreting these data include the recognition of a fundamental discrepancy that may exist between the respondents reported willingness to receive the vaccine and their actual vaccination behavior. What people express in surveys can differ meaningfully from their actions27. Therefore, the findings regarding vaccine acceptance and hesitancy should not be directly equated with actual vaccine uptake; rather, the reported responses reflect attitudes and opinions at a specific point in time. As public perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination evolves, so too might their willingness to be vaccinated. This temporal aspect suggests that the acceptance levels reported in our study are subject to change due to a variety of factors, including new information about the virus and the vaccine, changes in public health recommendations and shifts in societal norms and attitudes toward vaccination. While our study assessed individuals perceptions of trust in sources of pandemic information, including governments and health authorities, we did not investigate the quality of country responses to the pandemic, which may be an important determinant of such trust, given its independent association with COVID-19 vaccination20. Our studys design did not allow for a detailed analysis of the nuanced relationship between language, trust and cultural context, while early research on the impact of health communication language on vaccine hesitancy in bilingual settings may be mediated by cultural factors regarding trust in health and governing institutions36. We permitted participants to respond using their preferred language within their country.

This study reveals that a substantial proportion of individuals express resistance to vaccination and that concerns about COVID-19 vaccination appear to have spilled over to affect other vaccine-preventable diseases. This underscores the increasingly urgent necessity for sustained vaccine education and trust-building efforts. Moreover, although we found that people were generally confident that society will handle future health crises better, there remains a notable lack of trust and potential adherence to the recommendations of public health authorities. Health system preparedness for future outbreaks and global health threats should include improving vaccine accessibility and vaccine demand through effective, culturally and contextually relevant public communication strategies and innovative use of digital and social media in health education employing infodemic countermeasures.

Excerpt from:

Influence of COVID-19 on trust in routine immunization, health information sources and pandemic preparedness in 23 ... - Nature.com

Covid-19 epidemic and vaccination campaign

At the end of the study period (July 2, 2022), 14,981,425 (95%) out of 15,740,549 Chileans aged 16 years or older had received at least one dose, 14,761,706 (94%) had received at least two doses, 13,510,471 (86%) had received at least three doses and 9,393,909 (60%) had received four doses. Vaccine doses were initially administered to healthcare workers starting on December 20, 2020, and the mass vaccination campaign began in early February 2021, prioritizing the elderly and individuals with comorbidities (Fig.2). At the end of August 2021, the first-booster (third-dose) vaccination campaign began, which continued to prioritize older individuals and vulnerable groups. The second-booster (fourth-dose) campaign commenced at the beginning of January, 2022, coinciding with the start of the Omicron wave in Chile.The second analysis modifies the assumptions by substituting the age pyramid from the 2021 census for the two-to-one combination of 2021 and 2022 census data used in the baseline scenario.

Cumulative proportion of the population vaccinated by age and each week in Chile

We estimated that 1,030,648 cases (95% ConfidenceInterval: 1,016,975-1,044,321), 268,784 (95% CI:264,524-273,045) hospitalizations, 85,830 (95% CI:83,466-88,194) ICU admissions, and 75,968 (95% CI:73,909-78,028) deaths related to COVID-19 were directly averted by vaccination among individuals aged 16 years or older between December 20, 2020 and July 2, 2022. It represents a reduction of 26% of cases, 66% of hospitalizations, 70% of ICU admissions and 67% of deaths with respect to a scenario without vaccination. Figure 3 shows a three-stage time series of the averted events. The first increase in the cumulative number of averted events between March and July 2021 corresponds to the administration of the second dose during the mass vaccination campaign and a wave of new cases due to the Lambda and Gamma variants. A second rise starting from October 2021 coincides with the booster-dose vaccination campaign and the Delta-variant wave while the third increase starting from January 2022 corresponds to the wave caused by the Omicron-variant.

Cumulative averted events in individuals 16 years of age and older in Chile. Each plot represents respectively the cumulative number of cases, hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths related to COVID-19 averted between December 20, 2020, and July 2, 2022, due to vaccination against COVID-19

Most preventions of severe outcomes were observed in individuals vaccinated with two doses: 125,472 (95% CI:123,453-127,491) hospitalizations, 43,113 (95% CI:41,955-44,272) ICU admissions and 40,036 (95% CI:38,806-41,267) deaths related to COVID-19 (Figure S1). Individuals 55 years old or older represented 30% of the Chilean population over 16 years old, but accounted for 42% of cases, 67% of hospitalizations, 73% of ICU admissions and 89% of deaths related to COVID-19 prevented (Table 1).

The first sensitivity analysis assumed a scenario in which the entire population remains susceptible to reinfection and severe outcomes over time (see counterfactual scenario A in Section 1.2 of the Supplementary Material 1 for more details). Under this assumption, we estimated that a total of 1,124,060 (95% CI:1,108,627-1,139,492) cases, 290,142 (95% CI:285,460-294,824) hospitalizations, 92,065 (95% CI:89,485-94,645) ICU admissions, and 80,979 (95% CI:78,745-83,214) deaths related to COVID-19 were prevented (Table S1). These estimates represent an increase of 9% for cases, 8% for hospitalizations, 7% for ICU admissions and 7% for deaths averted relative to the baseline scenario where infections detected over time were excluded. Thus, the results are fairly robust with respect to the population assumed to be susceptible.

The second analysis modifies the assumptions by substituting the age pyramid from the 2021 census for the two-to-one combination of 2021 and 2022 census data used in the baseline scenario. This adjustment yields a slightly different count of averted events spanning the study period (Figure S2), but the difference becomes much more pronounced with the onset of the Omicron wave in January 2022.

At the end of the study period, we estimate that 1,281,719 (95% CI:1,264,750-1,298,689) cases were averted, 329,941 (95 % CI:324,111-335,770) hospitalizations, 106,553 (95% CI:103,236-109,870) ICU admissions and 95,571 (95% CI:92,753-98,389) deaths were directly averted by vaccination. This connotes an importantincrease of 24% in cases, 23% in hospitalizations, 24% in ICU admissions and 26% in deaths averted with respect to the baseline scenario.

The substantial difference is due to the continuing reduction in the unvaccinated population as the vaccination campaign progresses. Consequently, the impact of the choice of census estimate used to compute this population becomes increasingly important over time.

Read the original here:

Direct impact of COVID-19 vaccination in Chile: averted cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths - BMC ... - BMC Infectious Diseases