Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

The implications of such speculation are profound. If indeed these incidents are vaccine-related, who then bears the enduring burden of responsibility? Moreover, how can we trust the reliability and objectivity of those tasked with investigating these interconnections? These questions strike at the very core of the urgent need for thorough and transparent research, as well as accountability from all stakeholders involved in the development, distribution, and monitoring of vaccines.

The approval of Covishield for emergency use in early 2021, coupled with the waiver of traditional vaccine trial protocols by drug regulators, has the potential to profoundly affect public confidence in the vaccine. Or for that matter, any vaccine or medicine in the future. Such expedited measures, while aimed at swiftly delivering vital vaccines to the populace during the pandemic, raise citizenry concerns regarding consumer recourse in the event of adverse effects.

During a pandemic, the prevailing sentiment of overwhelming gratitude towards vaccines probably inadvertently overshadowed the need to conduct a fair and comprehensive assessment of potential side effects. It is all too convenient for some to attribute medical conditions solely to familial medical history and genetic predispositions, while disregarding the potential impact of vaccinations.

Any scepticism regarding vaccine safety has been met with resistance or even disdain.While vaccines undoubtedly play a crucial role in mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, including Covid-19, it is essential to maintain a balanced perspective.Acknowledging and thoroughly investigating potential side effects is not an indictment of vaccines themselves but rather a fundamental aspect of ensuring public health and safety. But where does one even start with this fundamental task?

While governments acted out of necessity to address the urgent health crisis, the focus on vaccine deployment must not overshadow the plight of individuals suffering from various side effects.While it may be theoretically untenable to hold governments solely accountable, questions arise regarding the accountability of vaccine manufacturers and distributors, entities with decades of clinical expertise and responsibility in ensuring product safety.

In medico-legal contexts, it is often tempting to dismiss adverse events as isolated incidents. However, in the case of vaccine design, where meticulous testing is paramount, the impact of Covid-19 vaccines on individuals' lives, including ongoing health challenges, cannot be disregarded. Families grappling with potential vaccine-related fatalities deserve answers and support, as do those contending with the enduring consequences of vaccine-related health issues.

In a humanitarian plea, one may ask: Is it too much to expect vaccine makers to acknowledge that testing may have been insufficient? After all, each vial of vaccine, while undoubtedly saving countless lives, may also carry the weight of families mourning lost loved ones or individuals grappling with vaccine-related health issues. But vaccines, as much as any healthcare, is a hard-nosed business. Such an expectation is a flawed contradiction to the principles of justice. At the altar of a legal framework, such expectations would need time and financial resources.

The prospect of pursuing a medico-legal case can feel daunting for families already burdened by the consequences of vaccine-related adverse events. The pharmaceutical industry, with its considerable resources and legal expertise, may seem formidable in comparison. Yet, it is essential to remember that every individual impacted by vaccine-related issues deserves to have their concerns heard and addressed with empathy and fairness. Do we have such fairness in the Indian society?

(Srinath Sridharan is a policy researcher and corporate adviser. X: @ssmumbai.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

View original post here:

Covid-19 | Families grappling with vaccine-related fatalities deserve answers and support - Deccan Herald

The World Health Organization declared an end to the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 5, 2023. In the year since, only two provinces Alberta and Ontario have published proposals for dealing with future health emergencies.

As a public health economist, I have drawn five lessons from these reports that the remaining provinces might learn from COVID-19, and their implications for policies to deal with future pandemics.

COVID-19 killed over 500,000 worldwide within four months of the World Health Organizations declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020, with the disease spreading so quickly that the public health sector was unable to keep pace with the speed at which information evolved.

Policy implication: In short, it may be a mistake to focus attention on how the government should react during the chaos of the first months of a pandemic. The time to conduct extensive research and develop policies based on calm, reasoned judgements is now, when the last pandemic is behind us and the next is yet to come.

During the pandemic there was sufficient skepticism concerning mainstream medical and life sciences that the Alberta report recommended that future policymakers should be open to considering and investigating alternative scientific narratives and hypotheses.

Policy implication: Specifically, the report was concerned that some hypotheses might be rejected solely because sufficient evidence was not yet available to evaluate them. Rather, it encouraged policymakers to supplement data analysis with reasoned decision-making that also incorporates elements such as community values and beliefs. Although this approach may not be favoured by the medical community, it does have currency in the general population. The danger is that if alternative narratives are not treated seriously, many citizens will reject mainstream health guidelines and we may not reach the community, or herd, threshold beyond which the spread of disease falls naturally.

Most research concerning communicable diseases is not based on laboratory experiments, but on observational data: investigations of humans going about their daily lives. Unfortunately, analyses of these data are not always reliable as they are subject to a host of statistical problems.

These include: that the individuals in the researchers data set may not be representative of the average citizen, that factors that have important effects on medical outcomes have not been measured, and that the questions put to participants in research projects are not clear and unbiased. Furthermore, questionable research practices are not uncommon in medical and social science research, potentially leading to unreliable results.

Policy implication: Once the government has accumulated an extensive body of research studies, expert statisticians should be employed to check the validity of those studies. And when deficiencies in research have been identified, methods for resolving them must be devised.

Although it is often recommended that decision-makers should conduct cost-benefit analyses of their proposed policies, the effects of health-care decisions are broad and many cannot be measured. For example, science provides no objective methods for measuring the costs of policy proposals such as restrictions on gatherings for religious, recreational, or educational purposes; and it has no metric for measuring all of the potential benefits of policies that would reduce illness or death.

Policy implication: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many commentators called for the government to base policy on science. But this appeal was misdirected. Whereas the design of policy requires the use of both objective and subjective costs and benefits, science can only provide information about factors that can be measured objectively. At best, science can tell us what can be done; it cannot tell us what should be done.

The commonly heard plea that policymakers should act in societys best interests implies that there is one set of social goals that is accepted by all citizens. But if COVID-19 taught us anything it is that we disagree, often intensely, about societys goals.

We often place different values on the same set of outcomes. For example, some citizens are more risk-averse than others. In many cases we may have similar preferences but are affected differently by the same public policy for example, a lockdown may have a greater effect on those whose jobs require a physical presence than on those who can work remotely.

Policy implication: Decision-makers must allow for the possibility that there is no single policy that is best for everyone. There will have to be trade-offs in which each group gives up some portions of its preferred position to gain concessions from the others, perhaps by bringing representatives of interest groups together to negotiate a commonly accepted set of policies.

If the impact of future pandemics are to be minimized, it is not sufficient that we recognize the deficiencies in our responses to COVID-19; we must start to build a set of policies for the next pandemic as soon as possible.

View post:

Lessons from COVID-19: Preparing for future pandemics means looking beyond the health data - The Conversation Indonesia

Although the federal COVID-19 health emergency in the United States ended in May 2023, the disease still remains a threat to the public because of emerging variants. According to the latest data from the CDC, there were over 5600 hospital admissions due to COVID-19 for week ending April 20.1 Vaccines are still the most effective way of preventing COVID-19 and research into their efficacy, safety, and other important measures continues.

Read more:

Slideshow: COVID-19 Vaccines, Booster Immunity and Emerging Variants - Drug Topics

Families of people who died after receiving AstraZenecas Covid-19 vaccine have abandoned plans to sue the manufacturer after being told the presence of a small print warning means their case would probably fail.

Gareth Eve, whose BBC radio presenter wife Lisa Shaw died three weeks after receiving her first dose, is among a number of parties who have pulled out of the High Court legal action.

They were told their claim was unlikely to succeed because a leaflet, handed out at vaccination centres, warned of extremely rare cases of blood clots with low levels of platelets after vaccination with the AstraZeneca shot.

It is believed the warning, issued on April 7, 2021, could protect AstraZeneca from cases in which relatives died after receiving vaccines beyond that date.

A dozen families have now dropped out of the legal action as a result.

But more than 50 of relatives of people who received the vaccine before the warning was added are continuing with the lawsuit.

AstraZeneca has admitted its vaccines could cause blood clots in extremely rare cases, with a risk estimated to be one in 50,000 of developing the potentially deadly complication.

Ms Shaw, 44, a mother of one who worked for BBC Radio Newcastle, developed a blood clot and received treatment, including cutting away part of her skull to reduce the pressure. But it did not work and she died in May 2021.

A coroner concluded she died due to complications of an AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, due to vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia in August of that year.

The condition results in swelling and bleeding in the brain.

Her husband, Mr Eve, told The Telegraph it was unjust that he and other families of relatives who died after the warning was issued could not continue.

He said was been left feeling utterly bereft.

Its like the government and AstraZeneca have wriggled off the hook on a technicality when you just think, come on, what is the right thing to do here?

In my opinion, there is a battle here that needs to be had, but Im not even able to do that any more.

If I didnt remove my name from the legal action, I wouldnt be covered by the insurance. I could be liable for the drug companys costs, which could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

He and other families were offered 120,000 ($150,700) compensation from the government for the loss of their loved ones.

And he reiterated calls for the government to sit down and have a conversation with families such as his.

AstraZeneca and the government might not have a legal obligation to support us, but they have a moral responsibility, he said.

The World Health Organisation said the vaccine was safe and effective at protecting people from the extremely serious risks of Covid-19, including death, hospitalisation and severe disease.

While acknowledging the very rare risk of blood-clotting complications, WHO said the benefit of inoculation with the shot far outweighs the risks.

The UK taxpayer will have to cover any compensation awarded to victims families under legal indemnity granted to AstraZeneca early in the pandemic.

Father of two Jamie Scott, who suffered a permanent brain injury as a result of a blood clot and bleeding on the brain after receiving the vaccine in April 2021, was the first to lodge a case against the company. He has been unable to work since.

His wife Kate told The Telegraph: This could have been any of us. We will continue fighting to ensure every family regardless of the date the vaccine caused death and injury get justice.

Sarah Moore, a partner at law firm Leigh Day, which is bringing the legal claims, said: We feel desperately sorry for Gareth [Eve] and the other families affected.

These cases should not have to be fought through the courts. If there was a functioning support scheme, then litigation wouldnt be necessary.

AstraZeneca told The Telegraph: Our sympathy goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones or reported health problems. Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines.

From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.

Updated: May 03, 2024, 10:59 AM

Originally posted here:

Families of people who died after receiving AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine drop legal case - The National

The following is a summary of Follow-up SARS-CoV-2 serological study of a health care worker cohort following COVID-19 booster vaccination, published in the April 2024 issue of Infectious Disease by Hnning et al.

Despite vaccination and prior infection, healthcare workers continue to experience breakthrough Omicron infections, highlighting the need to understand immune protection levels against this variant.

Researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels among healthcare workers in a German COVID-19 hospital after the emergence of the Omicron variant.

They conducted the serological survey in January 2022, following previous surveys in 2020 and the introduction of COVID-19 boosters like BNT162b2, ChAdOx1-S, and mRNA-1273. HCWs willingly contributed blood samples and filled out a detailed questionnaire. The study employed an Immunoglobulin G (IgG) ELISA for SARS-CoV-2 serological analyses. Antibody levels were categorized according to HCW demographics, job roles, COVID-19 vaccination status, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multivariate linear regression was used to evaluate these relationships.

The results showed that amidst the fourth COVID-19 wave in Germany (January 2022), including the emergence of the Omicron variant, 97.7% of HCWs (1482 out of 1517) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, contrasting with 4.6% during the second wave in December 2020. About 80% had received three COVID-19 vaccine doses, with 15% reporting previous lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 IgG geometric mean titers ranged from 335 (95% CI: 258434) among those double-vaccinated without previous infection to 2204 (95% CI: 19192531) among those triple-vaccinated with prior infection. Heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens, including an mRNA-1273 booster, correlated significantly with the highest IgG antibody levels. Following COVID-19 booster vaccination, 31 HCWs who had reported a SARS-CoV-2 infection (May 2020 and January 2022) experienced an 8 to 10-fold increase in IgG antibody levels.

Investigators concluded that waning immunity from vaccination and prior infection necessitates ongoing booster programs, especially mRNA vaccines, for HCWs facing Omicron variant threats.

Source: bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-024-09338-5

Read more from the original source:

COVID-19 Booster Vaccination: SARS-CoV-2 Serological Follow-Up Study in Healthcare Workers - Physician's Weekly

A first-of-its-kind study led by the University of Oxford has successfully investigated human immunity against COVID-19 in people who already have antibodies against it.

The results suggest that previous infection, together with vaccination, offers strong protection against the original COVID-19 strain.

People who do not have antibodies against a particular infectious agent are seronegative and those who have antibodies are called seropositive. Over 99% of the UK population and 59% of the world's population is seropositive, which means they already have antibodies against COVID-19. This means finding seronegative volunteers for an infection model is increasingly very difficult as most people have been either infected, vaccinated, or both.

For vaccine development, researchers create Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs), where they deliberately infect healthy volunteers under very carefully controlled clinical conditions. These CHIMs can then be used to rapidly test or compare new vaccines or treatments in a controlled environment. For this study, researchers wanted to use a COVID-19 CHIM to measure what kind of immune responses stop people who have been previously infected and/or vaccinated from being infected again.

The data from this COVCHIM01 study showed durable immunity post-infection/vaccination against the original COVID-19 virus. The study compared the immune responses of volunteers who were infected in this study with those who were uninfected and found that antibodies in the lining of the nose, the route the virus enters the body, may be important in preventing mild infections.

A number of participants who were able to avoid developing infection with the original strain of virus used in the study subsequently developed infections in the community with the Omicron variant. The researchers are investigating this further by pursuing the use of newer variants to create a CHIM with a sufficient rate of infection to enable the assessment of new vaccines or COVID-19 treatments.

Such studies are important to find the most efficient and effective way to test new treatments and vaccines so that they can be utilised as soon as possible.

Professor Helen McShane, Professor of Vaccinology at the Department of Paediatrics, Director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and the lead and corresponding author of the COVCHIM01 study, said: This is a really important proof of concept study demonstrating that controlled human infection studies can be safely carried out during a pandemic and importantly provide valuable information that is difficult to obtain in traditional field studies. We hope this provides confidence in the use of human infection studies as a tool both for the development of improved COVID vaccines and therapeutics and for potential future pandemics.

Published in The Lancet Microbe, this was the first study undertaken at the new NIHR Oxford Clinical Research Facility, Churchill Hospital, Oxford and was funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Department for Health and Social Care/UK Health Security Agency and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Link to the paper the Lancet

Originally posted here:

New study to improve vaccines and therapeutics development - University of Oxford

Specialty

Please choose I'm not a medical professional. Allergy and Immunology Anatomy Anesthesiology Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery Cardiology Critical Care Dentistry Dermatology Diabetes and Endocrinology Emergency Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health Family Medicine Forensic Medicine Gastroenterology General Practice Genetics Geriatrics Health Policy Hematology HIV/AIDS Hospital-based Medicine I'm not a medical professional. Infectious Disease Integrative/Complementary Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Medical Education and Simulation Medical Physics Medical Student Nephrology Neurological Surgery Neurology Nuclear Medicine Nutrition Obstetrics and Gynecology Occupational Health Oncology Ophthalmology Optometry Oral Medicine Orthopaedics Osteopathic Medicine Otolaryngology Pain Management Palliative Care Pathology Pediatrics Pediatric Surgery Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Plastic Surgery Podiatry Preventive Medicine Psychiatry Psychology Pulmonology Radiation Oncology Radiology Rheumatology Substance Use and Addiction Surgery Therapeutics Trauma Urology Miscellaneous

View post:

Persistence of COVID-19 Human Milk Antibodies After Maternal COVID-19 Vaccination: Systematic Review and Meta ... - Cureus

Karunya Venugopal, a 20-year-old, died in July 2021 after getting COVID-19 vaccine. Image Courtesy: X/@gvenugopalan

The bereaved parents of a young woman who died in July 2021 are planning to sue AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India (SII). They say their daughter passed away after taking the Covishield jab, manufactured by SII in India.

The development comes after reports surfaced about the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZenecas admission in court documents in the United Kingdom that its COVID-19 vaccine, in rare cases, can cause Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS). AstraZenecas COVID jab was sold as Covishield in India.

Advertisement

TTS is a rare condition that leads to blood clotting and low platelet count.

Lets take a closer look.

What happened?

In July 2021, Karunya Venugopal, a 20-year-old data science student, died a month after getting vaccinated, as per a Scroll report.

After being hospitalised for weeks, she passed away due to multisystem inflammatory syndrome.

She developed severe complications eight days after taking the vaccine and died after a month in spite of three weeks of tertiary care hospitalisation, her father, Venugopalan Govindan, told Economic Times (ET) in late 2022.

She had no pre-existing health conditions and was completely healthy prior to taking the vaccine, he added.

In November 2021, the health ministrys immunisation division, after its inquiry, classified Karunyas death as B1, which meant that the AEFI (adverse event following immunisation) had a temporal relationship with the vaccination, but there was insufficient evidence to prove it was caused by the vaccine.

Govindan approached the Supreme Court, seeking monetary compensation from the government and for creating a protocol for early detection and treatment of AEFIs.

In November 2022, the Centre told the apex court that the government could not be held liable to provide compensation for the deaths due to the administration of COVID-19 vaccines. The government had said it took substantial efforts to ensure a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccination drive, reported The Hindu.

Advertisement

ALSO READ: AstraZeneca vaccines side effects. Why Covishield takers shouldnt worry

Karunyas parents mull suing SII

Now, after AstraZeneca accepted for the first time that its COVID-19 vaccine can cause TTS in rare cases, Karunyas parents are mulling taking SII to court, as per an ET report. Govindan said the pharmaceutical giants admission has come too late after so many lives have been lost.

AstraZeneca and SII should have stopped the manufacture and supply of these vaccines when 15 European countries either suspended or age-limited these due to deaths from blood clots that happened in March 2021, within a couple of months of the rollout of the vaccine itself, he told ET.

Advertisement

Govindan also questioned the government and Covishield maker for not halting the rollout of the vaccine after data about its adverse effects emerged from around the world.

If sufficient remedies arent obtained, for the sake of justice and to prevent recurrence of this atrocity that was perpetrated in the name of public health, we will file fresh cases against any and all of those perpetrators because of whose actions the deaths of our children ensued, he was quoted as saying by ET.

Eight of the victims families have connected and I am echoing the common sentiments of all of us, Govindan said, as per NDTV.

Advertisement

The first reports of a link between AstraZenecas COVID-19 shots and TTS surfaced in early 2021. Several European countries, including Denmark, even stopped the use of the vaccine over these concerns for a while.

Another death after taking Covishield

Rithaika Sri Omtri, 18, got the first dose of Covishield in May 2021 in Hyderabad. As per a Scroll report, within five days of being vaccinated, she experienced a prickling sensation in her fingers and, later, a high fever.

As her fever did not subside for a few days, a doctor suggested her a blood test which revealed her platelets had dropped to a dangerous low of 40,000 per cubic millimetre, compared to a normal range between 1.5 lakh and 4 lakh.

Advertisement

Over 10 days later, Rithaika started vomiting and could not walk. An MRI scan of her brain showed that she had multiple blood clots and a haemorrhage in the right frontal region, Scroll reported.

Despite efforts to save her, she was declared brain dead, two weeks after her vaccination.

As per Scroll, Rithaika had suffered a vaccine-induced (immune) thrombotic thrombocytopenia or VITT, a rare adverse effect that leads to blood clots and low platelet count.

VITT was reported in some people who got adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccines such as AstraZenecas Vaxzevria (marketed as Covishield in India) and Johnson & Johnsons Janssen shots.

A probe by the AEFI committee categorised Rithaikas death under the A1 cetagory, meaning a vaccine product related reaction, reported ET.

Rithaikas mother, Rachana Gangu, was the second petitioner, who along with Govindan, had moved the apex court in late 2021, alleging her child died due to severe complications after getting the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

In her writ petition, she had demanded compensation and the establishment of an expert medical board to inquire and probe her daughters death.

The cases in UK

AstraZeneca is being sued in a class action in the UK High Court over claims that its COVID-19 vaccine, developed with the University of Oxford, caused death and serious harm in 51 cases.

Victims and grieving relatives are seeking damages estimated to be valued up to 100 million pounds.

The first case against the pharmaceutical giant was filed last year by Jamie Scott, who was left with a permanent brain injury after suffering from a blood clot and a bleed on the brain. This happened after he got the vaccine in April 2021 and Scott has been unable to work since then, The Daily Telegraph reported.

While AstraZeneca is contesting the claims, it has accepted, in a legal document submitted to the High Court in February that its COVID vaccine can, in very rare cases, cause TTS, the report added.

With inputs from agencies

Find us on YouTube

Originally posted here:

AstraZeneca, Serum Institute to be sued by parents of woman who died after Covishield jab: What happened? - Firstpost

2 May 2024

Ulster Unionist leader Doug Beattie wants to meet the head of the NI Civil Service to discuss revelations about a "radical" idea to replace Robin Swann during the Covid crisis.

The detail was contained in documents published by the UK Covid Inquiry which is currently sitting in Belfast.

It was suggested that Mr Swann could be moved to give the larger Stormont parties control over the health brief.

Doug Beattie described the idea as "incredibly bizarre".

He also said it called into question the impartiality of the civil service.

The civil servant who floated the idea was Hugh Widdis who at the time was senior legal advisor to the Executive. He is now permanent secretary at the Department of Justice.

The idea - which he recognised was "radical" and may not be "palatable" - was to ask Mr Swann to take on a different ministry during the pandemic to allow a DUP or Sinn Fin politician to take on the key role in health.

The context was an email exchange between civil servants in the early days of the pandemic, at the end of March 2020, when ministers were working out how best to deal with the developing public health crisis.

An email from the then head of the civil service, David Sterling, to fellow officials quoted the then deputy first minister Michelle O'Neill telling him "we need to be driving this crisis, we need to be in control".

Image source, Liam McBurney/PA

Doug Beattie told BBC News: "The fact it was even considered. The fact it was even talked about is quite bizarre.

"But it tells you what is the mentality. And remember this as well, the same senior civil servant was part of the workstreams for getting government up and running again. The same civil servant is part of the budget negotiations that are going through now. They can all be linked so for us to get confidence in where we are with the civil service it is really important I speak to the head of the civil service."

At the time Mr Sterling wrote: "She [Michelle O'Neill] is clearly frustrated with being a first minister but actually having little power or influence over the health service.

"FM [Arlene Foster] is more circumspect, recognising the 'operational independence' of the health minister.

"Though she too is frustrated at the lack of information coming out of DoH (Department of Health) coupled with frequent surprises eg today's announcement that hospital visits are to end."

It was in response to this email that Mr Widdis, made his reshuffle suggestion, amid a range of different proposals.

He wrote: "There would be more radical options but I presume that they aren't palatable eg: asking Robin to take a different portfolio for the duration (they would have to make a tempting offer) and putting a SF or DUP Minister in?

"Or causing dHondt to be run again."

The Executive Office has been approached for comment.

Mr Widdis also had other less radical suggestions, like developing an emergency programme for government, or creating "an all-Exec overarching Covid strategy" which the first and deputy first ministers "can lead and own".

Mr Swann remained as health minister during the pandemic, and recently returned to the job when devolution was restored earlier this year.

As part of the same exchange of emails between civil servants, Karen Pearson, from the Executive Office, pointed out that ministers were still finding their feet after the recent resumption of devolution.

Among her observations were that "ministers are just back a new ministerial team a real crisis which they can not control and it is scaring them".

In his email at the end of March, Sir David raised another issue.

He said the deputy first minister "revealed what has been increasingly clear with Sinn Fin ministers in recent days is a growing fear of being held corporately responsible, or liable, if things go badly wrong".

He added: "We need to find a way to get them off this hook.

"If it becomes clear that their main priority is to lay out an audit trail and avoid any future blame then everyone else will do the same thing.

"And we'll be paralysed."

The email was sent just after 21:00 on Thursday, 26 March, 2020.

He ended the note saying: "Need to sleep on these two challenges."

Read the original here:

Covid-19 Inquiry: Idea to replace Swann during pandemic 'bizarre' - BBC.com

In a large study, remdesivir (RDV) use was associated with a reduction of mortality in seniors 65 years of age and older who were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 during the period when the Omicron variant was the dominant strain of the virus. The results were shared as late-breaking research at the ongoing ESCMID Global Congress.

Unadjusted mortality rates were 9.9% vs. 13.0% at 14-days and 13.3% vs. 16.9% at 28-days for RDV vs. non-RDV, respectively, the investigators wrote. RDV was associated with a significantly lower 14-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.74[0.70-0.79]) and 28-day mortality (0.77[0.73-0.81]) as compared to non-RDV in the overall study cohort.

Jason Okulicz, MD, executive director, Global Medical Affairs, COVID-19 and Emerging Viruses, reiterates the severity and toll of COVID-19 within this patient population.

The elderly populations are a very important population to [consider] for treatment, Okulicz said. In the US in 2023, almost two thirds of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were over the age 65. And among those who were hospitalized, nearly 90% of deaths that occurred in the hospital due to COVID-19 were in this population.

Study Parameters and Methods Using the PINC AI Healthcare database, the investigators examined patients 65 years of age and older who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec 2021 to April 2023. Their analysis was broken into 3 different groups including: no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc); low-flow oxygen (LFO); and high-flow oxygen/non-invasive ventilation (HFO/NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)/ECMO, as well as by age groups.

Patients were either in a cohort that included administration of remdesivir in the first 2 days of admission or those not initiating the treatment during their hospitalization, and were matched using 1:1 preferential within-hospital propensity matching (PS) with replacement. They examined the time to 14- and 28-day in-hospital mortality. Okulicz said that over 45,000 patients were given remdesivir to over 20,000, patients who were not given remdesivir.

Oxygen Requirements vs Nonrequirements One of the important findings was that there was a consistent result across baseline supplemental oxygen requirements and different age groups.

"Even among the elderly, with different types of oxygen requirements or nonrequirements, they were shown to have reduced mortality with the use of remdesivir, Okulicz said.

Reference Mozaffari E, et al. Remdesivir reduces mortality in elderly patients 65+ years hospitalised for COVID-19 during Omicron.Late-breaking abstract. Presented at ESCMID. April 27-30, 2024. Barcelona, Spain.

Go here to see the original:

Remdesivir Shows Reduction in Mortality in Seniors Hospitalized With COVID-19 - Contagionlive.com