Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

Page 33«..1020..32333435..4050..»

Professor honored for paper on willingness to get the COVID vaccine – VCU News

April 28, 2024

By VCU News staff

Jeanine Guidry, Ph.D., an affiliate faculty member at the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences in theSchool of Population Healthand at theRichard T. Robertson School of Media and Culturein theCollege of Humanities and Sciencesat Virginia Commonwealth University, is the recipient of the APIC/AJIC Award for Publication Excellence for her study Willingness to Get the COVID Vaccine With and Without Emergency Use Approval.

The award recognizes an author who has published an article in the American Journal of Infection Control which was widely read and cited during the previous year.

Guidry's study, conducted at VCU with colleaguesLinnea Laestadius, Ph.D.;Emily Vraga, Ph.D.;Carrie Miller, Ph.D.;Paul Perrin, Ph.D.;Candace Burton, Ph.D.;Mark Ryan, M.D.;Bernard Fuemmeler, Ph.D.; andKellie Carlyle, Ph.D., involved a July 2020 survey of 788 adults that found that 59.9% of respondents were definitely or probably planning to receive a future coronavirus vaccine, but fewer than half of respondents planned to get it under emergency use authorization. It also found that white people were more likely than Black people to be vaccinated.

With the ongoing presence of COVID-19 in our society, the risk of long COVID and the long-term threat of vaccine hesitancy, continuing to improve our understanding of why people may or may not vaccinate is of great importance, said Guidry, who is now a faculty member atTilburg Universityin the Netherlands.My co-authors and I are grateful for APIC/AJICs support and commitment to deeper understanding in this field.

Subscribe to VCU News at newsletter.vcu.edu and receive a selection of stories, videos, photos, news clips and event listings in your inbox.

Read the original here:

Professor honored for paper on willingness to get the COVID vaccine - VCU News

Disgraced ex-NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo agrees to testify before House COVID-19 panel – New York Post

April 28, 2024

Politics

By Victor Nava

Published April 27, 2024, 1:06 a.m. ET

Disgraced former New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has agreed to appear before a panel of House lawmakers and discuss his administrations controversial handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York nursing homes, the chairman of the committee said Friday.

Governor Cuomo will be appearing before our select Subcommittee on the Pandemic on June 11, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) told CNN host Jake Tapper.

This will be a transcribed interview at 10 a.m., Wenstrup added, indicating that his testimony will take place behind closed doors.

Cuomos agreement to testify comes more than a month after the Republican-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic issued a subpoena for his testimony.

The three-term Democrat resigned in 2021 amid a wave of scandals, including the alleged cover-up of COVID-19 deaths in New York nursing homes.

The ex-gov denies that his administrations March 2020 policy requiring nursing homes to accept COVID-19-positive patients led to additional deaths.

Nearly two years later, New Yorks comptroller found that Cuomo had misled the public in undercounting such deaths by more than 50%.

Cuomos order potentially caused 1,000 additional nursing home deaths, according to an analysis by The Empire Center.

Im trying to learn why he would do something like this, Wenstrup told Tapper. As a doctor who has treated infections, it goes against all medical common sense to take someone who was highly contagious and put them amongst the most vulnerable.

Wenstrup noted that his committee first reached out to Cuomo about nine months ago, but the former governor ignored on many of our requests.

A spokesman for the former governor disputed Wenstrupts claim.

Theres no news here, we agreed to do this months ago, Cuomo rep Rich Azzopardi said in a statement.

This is pure politics and simple fact remains that this issue has been reviewed three times by the Department of Justice under Trump and Biden, as well as Congress and the Manhattan District Attorney who found no there there, he added. Any real review would focus on the 10 other states with similar policies, red and blue alike.

The House panel also announced this week that Dr. Anthony Fauci has agreed to testify on the origins and government response to the pandemic.

His testimony is slated for June 3.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/disgraced-ex-ny-gov-andrew-cuomo-agrees-to-testify-before-house-covid-19-panel/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

See the original post here:

Disgraced ex-NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo agrees to testify before House COVID-19 panel - New York Post

WHO Picks Antigen Composition for Updated COVID-19 Vaccines – Precision Vaccinations

April 28, 2024

Geneva (Precision Vaccinations News)

As of April 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) has determinedthat nearly all circulating SARS-CoV-2variants reported in publicly available databases are JN.1 derived coronavirus variants.

On April 26, 2024, the WHO stated in a media release thatvirus evolution is expected to continue from JN.1, and future formulations of COVID-19 vaccines should aim to induce enhanced neutralizing antibody responses to JN.1 and its descendent lineages.

The WHO says the regular review of the available vaccine effectiveness evidence (VE) is critical to assessing future versions.

Given the neutralizing antibody responses to early JN.1 descendent lineage and the evidence from early Relative VEstudies against JN.1, the continued use of the current monovalent XBB. 1.5 formulation will offer people protection.

Furthermore, byWHO SAGE policy, vaccination programs should continue to use any WHO emergency-use listed or prequalified COVID-19 vaccines, and vaccination should not be delayed in anticipation of access to vaccines with an updated composition.

This is essential news since recent research sayspeople seek COVID-19 vaccine options in 2024.

In the United States, the WHO and the U.S. FDA have authorized Novavax Inc.'s protein-based COVID-19 vaccine.

NuvaxovidXBB.1.5 protein-basedvaccine is currently usedglobally in individuals 12 and older who have previously been vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine and have not already been vaccinated with a recently updated mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

John C. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer of Novavax Inc., shared his perspective with Precision Vaccination News. "Novavax has been developing and manufacturing a monovalent protein-based JN.1 COVID-19 vaccine at-risk to ensure readiness for this fall."

"Today's recommendation by the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition is an important step to help ensure access to a non-mRNA protein-based vaccine option for those at highest risk globally."

Novavax's vaccinesintegratethe company's proprietary nanoparticle technology,Matrix-M, anadjuvantto enhance immune responses and stimulate high levels ofneutralizingantibodies.

As of April 2024, Novavax vaccines are generally available at pharmacies in the U.S.

The U.S. FDA previously announced that the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committeewill hold a public discussion on May 16, 2024, to recommend the selectedstrain(s) to be included in the 2024-2025 formula for COVID-19 vaccines.

The rest is here:

WHO Picks Antigen Composition for Updated COVID-19 Vaccines - Precision Vaccinations

Study suggests lingering coronavirus in tissues may contribute to long COVID symptoms – News-Medical.Net

April 28, 2024

In a recent study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, researchers evaluate the persistence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in tissues and its association with long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms.

Study:The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in tissues and its association with long COVID symptoms: a cross-sectional cohort study in China. Image Credit: Kateryna Kon / Shutterstock.com

Postmortem examinations of patients who have died due to COVID-19 have revealed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in several organs, thus suggesting that this viral infection may lead to certain systemic diseases. Likewise, residual viral protein and nucleic acids have been identified in different sample types, even after recovering from COVID-19.

Between 6-68% of individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms, including headache, fatigue, dyspnea, diarrhea, or loss of taste/smell, a condition known as long COVID. Previous studies have suggested that some long COVID symptoms may be associated with SARS-CoV-2 persistence in tissues. However, there remains a lack of large-scale studies examining viral persistence in tissues at different time points after COVID-19 recovery.

The present study examines SARS-CoV-2 persistence in tissues after COVID-19 recovery and its association with long COVID symptoms. Patients diagnosed with mild COVID-19 in December 2022 who were scheduled for chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and gastroscopy or hospitalized for other reasons at one, two, or four months following infection were included in the analysis. Samples from 13 tissues were collected at these time points.

RNA was extracted from samples, and digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) was performed with nucleoprotein (N1) and open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab) primers. A quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assay was also performed to measure the levels of transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in tumor/para-tumor samples and compare its sensitivity with dddPCR.

Immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, and RNA in situ hybridization assays were performed to validate ddPCR accuracy. Transcriptome sequencing of lung and vascular tissues was also performed to examine the effects of viral presence on host gene transcription. A multivariate logistic regression analysis explored the associations between SARS-CoV-2 persistence and long COVID symptoms.

Of the 238 enrolled patients, 225 were eligible for sample collection, 213 of whom completed the questionnaire at four months. A total of 72 patients reported experiencing at least one symptom four months following recovery from COVID-19. The average age of these patients was 52.3, whereas those without symptoms had an average age of 55.

Most patients were vaccinated with three doses before being diagnosed with COVID-19. Overall, 317 tissue specimens were obtained, 53, 198, and 66 of which were collected one, two, and four months after recovering from COVID-19, respectively. No association between viral presence in throat swabs and gastric mucosa was observed, thus implying no contamination from oral/nasal sampling during gastroscopy.

The proportion of tissues that tested positive for viral RNA on ddPCR declined over time. Comparatively, viral subgenomic RNA was detected in 8%, 15%, and 2% of solid tissue samples at one, two, and four months, respectively.

N1 and ORF1ab RNA were found in the thyroid, skin, lung, breast, brain, liver, intestine, stomach, blood vessels, and kidney tissues. Subgenomic RNA was also identified in 44% of samples positive for ORF1ab or N1.

The viral RNA detection rate was not significantly different between tumor and para-tumor tissues. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in transcript levels of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 between these tissues.

Seventy-four tissue samples were subject to qRT-PCR; only one with the highest copy number on ddPCR tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Viral sequencing classified the variant as BA.5.2, the dominant circulating strain when the study was conducted.

Moreover, ddPCR was found to be about 100 times more sensitive than qRT-PCR with the N1 primer. DdPCR is also more sensitive and reliable than immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, and RNA in situ hybridization.

Long COVID-19 symptoms at four months included fatigue, palpitations, chest pain, sleeping difficulties, dyspnea, diarrhea, nausea, joint pain, abdominal pain, myalgia, dizziness, and reduced appetite, among others. Viral persistence at any time after recovering from infection was significantly associated with these symptoms.

Transcriptome sequencing was performed on 24 lung and 11 blood vessel specimens. In lung specimens, innate/adaptive immunity and zinc finger protein-related genes were downregulated. In contrast, genes involved in cholesterol metabolism and the complement and coagulation pathways were downregulated in blood vessel samples.

The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in tissues from multiple organs was observed at several time points following COVID-19 recovery. Nevertheless, viral detection was markedly lower at four months, thus suggesting a slow but adequate viral clearance.

Journal reference:

The rest is here:

Study suggests lingering coronavirus in tissues may contribute to long COVID symptoms - News-Medical.Net

Antibiotic neomycin may protect against the flu, COVID-19 – Medical News Today

April 28, 2024

The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on viral respiratory infections and how they can be prevented and treated.

With effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 the virus that causes COVID-19 severe disease is less common than it was at the start of the pandemic, but there are still few effective treatments for this and other viral respiratory infections.

Currently, doctors use antivirals to try and prevent progression of these infections, with monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma for combating severe disease.

Now, a study led by researchers from Yale has found that a cheap, widely available antibiotic might reduce the risk of severe disease from viral respiratory infections.

The study found that neomycin, applied inside the nose, caused a strong immune response in mice and hamsters which protected against infection with both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A.

And a small group of healthy people treated with a common nasal ointment containing neomycin Neosporin showed a similar immune response.

The study is published in PNAS.

William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine in the Department of Health Policy, and professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, not involved in the study, commented on the findings for Medical News Today:

This is a very provocative study. Clearly, there is an urgent need for better ways both to prevent and to treat serious respiratory infections. This series of early studies suggests that non-specific immune stimulation by an over-the-counter antibiotic ointment could protect the mucus membranes of the nose from viral infection. This is a fascinating counter-intuitive concept that is worth pursuing further.

Antibiotics are drugs that kill bacteria and/or prevent them from multiplying. They are used to treat bacterial infections inside the body and also as topical treatments for infections of the skin.

Neomycin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic. People take it orally for infections in the digestive tract, or can use it as a topical ointment, neosporin.

Neosporin ointment, which contains neomycin and two other antibiotics, is used to prevent infection in minor cuts and burns, for bacterial infections of the nose, and for management of nosebleeds.

The researchers in this study investigated whether intranasal application of neomycin evoked antiviral protection against SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A in the upper respiratory tract of mice and whether it prevented transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in hamsters.

Jonathan Stoye, PhD, virologist and principal group leader at the Francis Crick Institute in London, United Kingdom, not involved in this research, explained to MNT:

The concept of preventing virus infection by stimulating natural antiviral immunity has enormous appeal.

First, the researchers treated mice with a single dose of 2 milligrams (mg) neomycin sulfate as 10 microliters (L) of neomycin solution per nostril. They euthanized mice on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 after neomycin treatment and collected nasal tissue for analysis.

From day 1, the neomycin-treated mice had significantly increased levels of interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) expression an immune response that is effective against viruses compared with controls.

The researchers then infected neomycin-treated transgenic (genetically engineered) mice with different strains of SARS-CoV-2.

The mice did not show the usual signs of infection, such as weight loss, and most survived the infection, whereas the control mice did not. Nasal cells from the neomycin-treated mice showed significantly lower levels of viral replication than those of control mice.

Neomycin-treated mice had a similar increase in resistance to influenza A infection.

The researchers treated Syrian hamsters with intranasal neomycin (5 mg) then housed them with hamsters that had been infected 24 hours earlier with SARS-CoV-2. One day later, only half of the neomycin-treated hamsters had any signs of infection.

This early-stage research in several rodent models identifies one compound, neomycin, that appears to have [antiviral] activity, Stoye told MNT.

However, Schaffner cautioned that findings in rodents might not be applicable to people. It is a long jump from animal studies to use in humans. This study represents the first steps in a long journey, he said.

The researchers then conducted a small, double-blind pilot study in people. A group of 12 healthy volunteers was treated with Neosporin ointment, which contains neomycin sulfate, bacitracin, and polymyxin B as its active ingredients.

They applied the ointment inside their nostrils using a cotton swab twice a day. Control volunteers applied petroleum jelly (Vaseline) in the same way.

When their immune responses were tested on days 4, 8 and 12 of the trial, the Neosporin-treated group had a much higher ISG response rate than the controls.

Although an immune response in human volunteers was elicited by the intranasal application of Neosporin ointment, whether this would prevent or treat viral infections in people will have to be demonstrated in a prospective, double-blind trial in a large group of volunteers, cautioned Schaffner.

Early results always are exciting, but much more work is needed before we can consider this for clinical application, Schaffner noted.

Using antivirals to treat infections can drive the development of resistant strains as respiratory viruses mutate rapidly, so the researchers suggest that stimulating the innate immune response using antibiotics could be an effective alternative treatment.

The researchers also point out that neomycin is cheap, readily available, and easy to administer intranasally.

However, both Schaffner and Stoye had concerns about using neomycin in this way.

Schaffner told us:

In order to prevent SARS-CoV-2 or any respiratory viral infection, patients likely would have to apply the Neosporin ointment to the nose for very long periods of time. Whether persons would be compliant with such a regimen would have to be determined. Also, the safety of such prolonged application of the ointment to the nasal mucus membranes would have to be established.

He also highlighted the risks of using any antibiotic for prolonged periods: In addition, there is the concern that the widespread and prolonged use of the antibiotic ointment could provoke the development of antibiotic resistance of the usual bacterial population of the nose and throat. If so, this would be a notable limitation.

While welcoming the study, Stoye called for further research into the treatment. Much more work will be required to determine how it works, whether it is protective in humans and whether it would be safe to use on the population level, he noted.

More here:

Antibiotic neomycin may protect against the flu, COVID-19 - Medical News Today

Current evidence shows COVID-19 vaccination doesnt increase risk of sudden cardiac death – Health Feedback

April 28, 2024

CLAIM

COVID-19 vaccinations affect your risk of sudden cardiac death

DETAILS

Inadequate support: Current evidence doesnt indicate a causal relationship between risk of sudden cardiac death and COVID-19 vaccination.

KEY TAKE AWAY

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) occurs when the heart loses functionality due to changes in the hearts electrical signaling. There is no current evidence supporting a link between sudden cardiac death and COVID-19 vaccination. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle and is typically caused by infections like viruses. Studies have found a rare risk of myocarditis in young and adolescent males after the second dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Not all cases of myocarditis lead to SCD.

This isnt the first time this policy appeared in social media posts. Some of these posts date back to July 2022, when the policy was shared in a local Facebook group. Outlets including PolitiFact and New Jersey radio station 101.5 also previously fact-checked these posts.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is an unexpected death that occurs in response to loss of heart function, typically within one hour of the onset of symptoms. Cardiac arrest causes the heart to stop pumping blood and can lead to SCD if not treated immediately with emergency interventions like cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation.

Because the symptoms of cardiac arrest can begin suddenly and without warning in some people, its sometimes referred to as sudden cardiac arrest. According to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC):

Most sudden cardiac arrests occur in the community and in individuals not previously known to have increased risk. A cardiac arrhythmia, called ventricular fibrillation, causes the heart to cease pumping and blood flow stops. If blood flow is not restored in time, the individual passes out and dies within 10 to 20 minutes.

The Myocarditis Foundation and the ESC both say that sudden cardiac arrest generally cant be reliably predicted. However, some health screenings, such as stress tests or electrocardiograms, may help to identify increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Vaccines must adhere to strict safety standards. Different phases of clinical trials are required before vaccines are licensed and distributed for public use. Vaccines are also continuously monitored for risk of side effects and adverse events after theyve been approved by the FDA.

Current evidence indicates that SCD isnt a risk of COVID-19 vaccination.

In April 2024, the CDC published a study evaluating immediate or contributing causes of death via death certificates of young adults aged 16 to 30 in Oregon[1]. The aim of the study was to determine risk of SCD among adolescents and young adults after COVID-19 vaccination.

To do this, they examined deaths that werent caused by COVID-19 and could potentially be cardiac-related. They further narrowed down the deaths of interest by looking at only deaths that had occurred within 100 days of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. The researchers chose this time period given evidence that adverse events associated with vaccination tend to occur within 42 days of vaccination.

From these remaining death certificates, just three deaths occurred within 100 days of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

The researchers determined that death in all three cases was due to natural causes. More specifically:

The first [male] death was recorded as having occurred in a natural manner 21 days after COVID-19 vaccination. The immediate cause of death noted on the death certificate was congestive heart failure attributed to hypertension [] The second decedent had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose 45 days before the date of death; the cause of death was recorded as undetermined natural cause. [] Only one of these [female] deaths occurred within 100 days of having received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose; the decedent died 4 days after COVID-19 vaccination. The manner of death was recorded as natural, and the immediate cause was listed as undetermined but as a consequence of chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia attributed to mitral stenosis.[1]

A December 2023 study of Italian autopsy records also found no evidence to indicate an association between increased risk of SCD after COVID-19 vaccination[2]:

Causes of SCD in young people, including those who experienced SCD within 30 days of their COVID-19 vaccination, were consistent with prepandemic causes as established by rigorous autopsy.[2]

In 2021, Morris Sussex Direct Family Practice, a private general practitioner in Lake Hopatcong, New Jersey, instituted a new policy regarding sports physical clearance for student athletes. In the policy, the practice shared it wouldnt clear student athletes to participate in sports without additional testing if they had received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The policy claimed this was a precautionary measure due to worldwide experience and vaccine adverse event monitoring. The practice still lists this policy on its website.

The policy may stem from concerns about the alleged link between myocarditis, COVID-19 vaccination, and sudden death. Science Feedback addressed this alleged link in previous claim reviews. As we explained, COVID-19 is a higher risk factor for myocarditis than COVID-19 vaccination.

Science Feedback reached out to Anthony Lucatorto, the physician who runs the practice, to verify the reasons for putting the new sports physical policy into place. His office confirmed that the policy was put into place in 2021, but did not provide specific reasons for instituting it. We will update this review if new information becomes available.

Claims that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of SCD may be due to a conflation of SCD with myocarditis, a known side effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle. Its a rare condition generally caused by viruses or infections, including COVID-19. While myocarditis often resolves with treatments such as rest and medication, it can sometimes permanently damage the heart muscle. This damage can introduce complications in the hearts ability to pump blood and in some cases may lead to cardiac arrest and SCD.

Concerns regarding the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination initially arose in April 2021 after reports of myocarditis surfaced in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS data is used to identify potential patterns and safety problems with vaccines approved for use in the U.S.

As indicated in Figure 1 below, males aged 12 to 24 most commonly reported an incident of myocarditis to VAERS following COVID-19 vaccination. Reports of myocarditis among individuals within these age- and sex-stratified groups were highest after receiving a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Figure 1 VAERS data of reported rates of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination as of 26 May 2022. Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The CDCfurther shared:

Though cases of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare, when cases have occurred, they have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Several published studies have since shown there is indeed a rare risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in young and adolescent males[3-7]. However, this association doesnt automatically mean that vaccinated people also run a higher risk of SCD. As explained earlier in this claim review, current evidence doesnt indicate a risk of SCD following COVID-19 vaccination.

Social media posts implying that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause SCD, based on a clinics policy of screening athletes heart health post-COVID vaccination, are unsubstantiated and misleading. Current evidence doesnt support an association between an increased risk of SCD and COVID-19 vaccination. While myocarditis is a known risk factor of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among young and adolescent men, conflating myocarditis risk and SCD, or assuming that all cases of myocarditis lead to SCD, is misleading.

Read this article:

Current evidence shows COVID-19 vaccination doesnt increase risk of sudden cardiac death - Health Feedback

COVID-19 pandemic alters view that doctors are obligated to provide care: Study – Medical Xpress

April 28, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

close

The unique circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic altered a long-held convention that doctors provide care regardless of personal risk.

In a study assessing doctors' tolerance for refusing care to COVID-19 patients, Duke Health researchers identified a growing acceptance to withhold care because of safety concerns.

"All the papers throughout history have shown that physicians broadly believed they should treat infectious disease patients," said the study's lead author, Braylee Grisel, a fourth-year student at Duke University School of Medicine.

"We figured our study would show the same thing, so we were really surprised when we found that COVID-19 was so different than all these other outbreaks," Grisel said.

In a study published on April 24 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, the researchers analyzed 187 published studies culled from thousands of sources, including academic papers, opinion pieces, policy statements, legal briefings and news stories. Those selected for review met criteria for addressing the ethical dilemma posed by treating a novel infectious disease outbreak over the past 40 years.

Most articlesabout 75%advocated for the obligation to treat. But COVID-19 had the highest number of papers suggesting it was ethically acceptable to refuse care, at 60%, while HIV had the least number endorsing refusal of care at 13.3%.

The trendline stayed relatively stable across outbreaks occurring from the 1980s until the COVID-19 pandemic hitwith just 9% to 16% of articles arguing that refusing care was acceptable.

What changed with COVID? The authors found that labor rights and workers' protections were the chief reasons cited in 40% of articles during COVID, compared with only about 17%19% for other diseases. Labor rights were cited the least often for HIV care, at 6.2%.

Another significant issue cited during the COVID pandemic was the risk of infection posed to doctors and their families, with nearly 27% of papers discussing this risk, compared to 8.3% with influenza and 6.3% for SARS.

"Some of these results may be because we had the unique opportunity to evaluate changing ethics while the pandemic was actively ongoing, as COVID-19 was the first modern outbreak to put a significant number of frontline providers at personal risk in the United States due to its respiratory transmission," said senior author Krista Haines, D.O., assistant professor in the departments of Surgery and Population Health Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine.

The authors noted that the COVID pandemic had several unique characteristics that collectively altered the social contract between doctors and patients, potentially driving changes in treatment expectations. Such factors included:

The authors note the ongoing debate over whether vaccination status should be considered in the decision to treat a patient.

"There was a great deal of discussion among frontline providers and ethicists on how best to allocate scarce resources," the authors wrote. "Patients who refused vaccination were at a higher risk of complications while also putting other patients and providers at risk. Arguments were made based on reciprocity, medical triage, and personal responsibility to exclude patients who refused vaccines from consideration when ventilators and other resources were limited."

Grisel said the study's finding provides insight regarding how care should be provided in future pandemics. What had been a fairly solid expectation that physicians were obligated to provide care despite the risks to themselves now appears to have softened. It is unclear how these results may change in the future when the pandemic is less of an active threat.

"This study really shows how outside pressures in the sociopolitical sphere influence and affect doctors and care providers," Grisel said. "In future pandemics, we may need to become more aware of how the risks and outside pressures of an active pandemic influence willingness to provide care. Health care systems can learn how to mitigate these influences to ensure that hospitals are adequately staffed to meet patient needs."

More information: Krista Haines et al, The Ethical Obligation to Treat Infectious Patients - A Systematic Review of Reasons, (2024). DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciae162

Journal information: Clinical Infectious Diseases

Read the original:

COVID-19 pandemic alters view that doctors are obligated to provide care: Study - Medical Xpress

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous – The Associated Press

April 28, 2024

BEIJING (AP) The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

The investigation drew on thousands of pages of undisclosed emails and documents and dozens of interviews that showed the freeze began far earlier than previously known and involved political and scientific infighting in China as much as international finger-pointing.

As early as Jan. 6, 2020, health officials in Beijing closed the lab of a Chinese scientist who sequenced the virus and barred researchers from working with him.

Scientists warn the willful blindness over coronavirus origins leaves the world vulnerable to another outbreak, potentially undermining pandemic treaty talks coordinated by the World Health Organization set to culminate in May.

At the heart of the question is whether the virus jumped from an animal or came from a laboratory accident. A U.S. intelligence analysis says there is insufficient evidence to prove either theory, but the debate has further tainted relations between the U.S. and China.

Unlike in the U.S., there is virtually no public debate in China about whether the virus came from nature or from a lab leak. In fact, there is little public discussion at all about the source of the disease, first detected in the central city of Wuhan.

Crucial initial efforts were hampered by bureaucrats in Wuhan trying to avoid blame who misled the central government; the central government, which muzzled Chinese scientists and subjected visiting WHO officials to stage-managed tours; and the U.N. health agency itself, which may have compromised early opportunities to gather critical information in hopes that by placating China, scientists could gain more access, according to internal materials obtained by AP.

In a faxed statement, Chinas Foreign Ministry defended Chinas handling of research into the origins, saying the country is open and transparent, shared data and research, and made the greatest contribution to global origins research. The National Health Commission, Chinas top medical authority, said the country invested huge manpower, material and financial resources and has not stopped looking for the origins of the coronavirus.

It could have played out differently, as shown by the outbreak of SARS, a genetic relative of COVID-19, nearly 20 years ago. China initially hid infections then, but WHO complained swiftly and publicly. Ultimately, Beijing fired officials and made reforms. The U.N. agency soon found SARS likely jumped to humans from civet cats in southern China and international scientists later collaborated with their Chinese counterparts to pin down bats as SARS natural reservoir.

But different leaders of both China and WHO, Chinas quest for control of its researchers, and global tensions have all led to silence when it comes to searching for COVID-19s origins. Governments in Asia are pressuring scientists not to look for the virus for fear it could be traced inside their borders.

Even without those complications, experts say identifying how outbreaks begin is incredibly challenging and that its rare to know with certainty how some viruses begin spreading.

Its disturbing how quickly the search for the origins of (COVID-19) escalated into politics, said Mark Woolhouse, a University of Edinburgh outbreak expert. Now this question may never be definitively answered.

A security person moves journalists away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology after a World Health Organization team arrived for a field visit in Wuhan in Chinas Hubei province on Feb. 3, 2021. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

Secrecy clouds the beginning of the outbreak. Even the date when Chinese authorities first started searching for the origins is unclear.

The first publicly known search for the virus took place on Dec. 31, 2019, when Chinese Center for Disease Control scientists visited the Wuhan market where many early COVID-19 cases surfaced.

However, WHO officials heard of an earlier inspection of the market on Dec. 25, 2019, according to a recording of a confidential WHO meeting provided to AP by an attendee. Such a probe has never been mentioned publicly by either Chinese authorities or WHO.

In the recording, WHOs top animal virus expert, Peter Ben Embarek, mentioned the earlier date, describing it as an interesting detail. He told colleagues that officials were looking at what was on sale in the market, whether all the vendors have licenses (and) if there was any illegal (wildlife) trade happening in the market.

A colleague asked Ben Embarek, who is no longer with WHO, if that seemed unusual. He responded that it was not routine, and that the Chinese must have had some reason to investigate the market. Well try to figure out what happened and why they did that.

Ben Embarek declined to comment. Another WHO staffer at the Geneva meeting in late January 2020 confirmed Ben Embareks comments.

The Associated Press could not confirm the search independently. It remains a mystery if it took place, what inspectors discovered, or whether they sampled live animals that might point to how COVID-19 emerged.

Peter Ben Embarek of a World Health Organization team attends a joint press conference at the end of their mission to investigate the origins of the coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan in Chinas Hubei on Feb. 9, 2021. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

A Dec. 25, 2019, inspection would have come when Wuhan authorities were aware of the mysterious disease. The day before, a local doctor sent a sample from an ill market vendor to get sequenced that turned out to contain COVID-19. Chatter about the unknown pneumonia was spreading in Wuhans medical circles, according to one doctor and a relative of another who declined to be identified, fearing repercussions.

A scientist in China when the outbreak occurred said they heard of a Dec. 25 inspection from collaborating virologists in the country. They declined to be named out of fear of retribution.

WHO said in an email that it was not aware of the Dec. 25 investigation. It is not included in the U.N. health agencys official COVID-19 timeline.

When China CDC researchers from Beijing arrived on Jan. 1 to collect samples at the market, it had been ordered shut and was already being disinfected, destroying critical information about the virus. Gao Fu, then head of the China CDC, mentioned it to an American collaborator.

His complaint when I met him was that all the animals were gone, said Columbia University epidemiologist Ian Lipkin.

Marion Koopmans, right, and Peter Ben Embarek, center, of the World Health Organization team say farewell to their Chinese counterpart Liang Wannian, left, after a WHO-China Joint Study Press Conference at the end of the WHO mission in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 9, 2021. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

Robert Garry, who studies viruses at Tulane University, said a Dec. 25 probe would be hugely significant, given what is known about the virus and its spread.

Being able to swab it directly from the animal itself would be pretty convincing and nobody would be arguing about the origins of COVID-19, he said.

But perhaps local officials simply feared for their jobs, with memories of firings after the 2003 SARS outbreak still vivid, said Ray Yip, the founding head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outpost in China.

They were trying to save their skin, hide the evidence, Yip said.

The Wuhan government did not respond to a faxed request for comment.

Another early victim was Zhang Yongzhen, the first scientist to publish a sequence of the virus. A day after he wrote a memo urging health authorities to action, Chinas top health official ordered Zhangs lab closed.

They used their official power against me and our colleagues, Zhang wrote in an email provided to AP by Edward Holmes, an Australian virologist.

On Jan. 20, 2020, a WHO delegation arrived in Wuhan for a two-day mission. China did not approve a visit to the market, but they stopped by a China CDC lab to examine infection prevention and controlprocedures, according to an internal WHO travel report. WHOs then-China representative, Dr. Gauden Galea, told colleagues in a private meeting that inquiries about COVID-19s origins went unanswered.

By then, many Chinese were angry at their government. Among Chinese doctors and scientists, the sense grew that Beijing was hunting for someone to blame.

There are a few cadres who have performed poorly, Chinese leader Xi Jinping said in unusually harsh comments in February. Some dare not take responsibility, wait timidly for orders from above, and dont move without being pushed.

The government opened investigations into top health officials, according to two former and current China CDC staff and three others familiar with the matter. Health officials were encouraged to report colleagues who mishandled the outbreak to Communist Party disciplinary bodies, according to two of the people.

Some people both inside and outside China speculated about a laboratory leak. Those suspicious included right-wing American politicians, but also researchers close to WHO.

The focus turned to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a high-level lab that experimented with some of the worlds most dangerous viruses.

In early February 2020, some of the Wests leading scientists, headed by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, then at Britains Wellcome Trust, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, banded together to assess the origins of the virus in calls, a Slack channel and emails.

They drafted a paper suggesting a natural evolution, but even among themselves, they could not agree on the likeliest scenario. Some were alarmed by features they thought might indicate tinkering.

There have (been) suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, Holmes, the Australian virologist, who believed the virus originated in nature, wrote in a Feb. 7, 2020, email. I do a lot of work in China, and I can (assure) you that a lot of people there believe they are being lied to.

American scientists close to researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology warned counterparts there to prepare.

James LeDuc, head of a Texas lab, emailed his Wuhan colleague on Feb. 9, 2020, saying hed already been approached by U.S. officials. Clearly addressing this will be essential, with any kind of documentation you might have, he wrote.

The Chinese government was conducting its own secret investigation into the Wuhan Institute. Gao, the then-head of the China CDC, and another Chinese health expert revealed its existence in interviews months and years later. Both said the investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, which Holmes, the Australian virologist, also heard from another contact in China. But Gao said even he hadnt seen further details, and some experts suspect they may never be released.

WHO started negotiations with China for a further visit with the virus origins in mind, but it was Chinas Foreign Ministry that decided the terms.

Scientists were sidelined and politicians took control. China refused a visa for Ben Embarek, then WHOs top animal virus expert. The itinerary dropped nearly all items linked to an origins search, according to draft agendas for the trip obtained by the AP. And Gao, the then-head of the China CDC who is also a respected scientist tasked with investigating the origins, was left off the schedule.

Instead, Liang Wannian, a politician in the Communist Party hierarchy, took charge of the international delegation. Liang is an epidemiologist close to top Chinese officials and Chinas Foreign Ministry who is widely seen as pushing the party line, not science-backed policies, according to nine people familiar with the situation who declined to be identified to speak on a sensitive subject.

Liang ruled in favor of shutting the Wuhan market at the beginning of the outbreak, according to a Chinese media interview with a top China CDC official that was later deleted. Significantly, it was Liang who promoted an implausible theory that the virus came from contaminated frozen food imported into China. Liang did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Most of the WHO delegation was not allowed to go to Wuhan, which was under lockdown. The few who did learned little. They again had no access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the wildlife market and obtained only scant details about China CDC efforts to trace the coronavirus there.

On the train, Liang lobbied the visiting WHO scientists to praise Chinas health response in their public report. Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior adviser to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saw it as the best way to meet Chinas need for a strong assessment of its response.

The new section was so flattering that colleagues emailed Aylward to suggest he dial it back a bit.

It is remarkable how much knowledge about a new virus has been gained in such a short time, read the final report, which was reviewed by Chinas top health official before it went to Tedros.

As criticism of China grew, the Chinese government deflected blame. Instead of firing health officials, they declared their virus response a success and closed investigations into the officials with few job losses.

There were no real reforms, because doing reforms means admitting fault, said a public health expert in contact with Chinese health officials who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

In late February 2020, the internationally respected doctor Zhong Nanshan appeared at a news conference and said that the epidemic first appeared in China, but it did not necessarily originate in China.

A policeman moves journalists back from a farewell event held for the last group of medical workers who came from outside Wuhan to help the city during the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan in central Chinas Hubei province on April 15, 2020. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File)

Days later, Chinese leader Xi ordered new controls on virus research. A leaked directive from Chinas Publicity Department ordered media not to report on the virus origins without permission, and a public WeChat account reposted an essay claiming the U.S. military created COVID-19 at a Fort Detrick lab and spread it to China during a 2019 athletic competition in Wuhan. Days later, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson repeated the accusation.

The false claims enraged U.S. President Donald Trump, who began publicly blaming China for the outbreak, calling COVID-19 the China virus and the kung-flu.

Chinese officials told WHO that blood tests on lab workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were negative, suggesting COVID-19 wasnt the result of a lab accident there. But when WHO pressed for an independent audit, Chinese officials balked and demanded WHO investigate the U.S. and other countries as well.

By blaming the U.S., Beijing diverted blame. It was effective in China, where many Chinese were upset by racially charged criticism. But outside China, it fueled speculation of a lab leak coverup.

By the time WHO led another visit to Wuhan in January 2021, a year into the pandemic, the atmosphere was toxic.

Liang, the Chinese health official in charge of two earlier WHO visits, continued to promote the questionable theory that the virus was shipped into China on frozen food. He suppressed information suggesting it could have come from animals at the Wuhan market, organizing market workers to tell WHO experts no live wildlife was sold and cutting recent photos of wildlife at the market from the final report. There was heavy political scrutiny, with numerous Chinese officials who werent scientists or health officers present at meetings.

Despite a lack of direct access, the WHO team concluded that a lab leak was extremely unlikely. So it was infuriating to Chinese officials when WHO chief Tedros said it was premature to rule out the lab leak theory, saying such lab accidents were common, and pressed China to be more transparent.

China told WHO any future missions to find COVID-19 origins should be elsewhere, according to a letter obtained by AP. Since then, global cooperation on the issue has ground to a halt; an independent group convened by WHO to investigate the origins of COVID-19 in 2021 has been stymied by the lack of cooperation from China and other issues.

Chinese scientists are still under heavy pressure, according to 10 researchers and healthofficials. Researchers who published papers on the coronavirus ran into trouble with Chinese authorities. Others were barred from travel abroad for conferences and WHO meetings. Gao, the then-director of the China CDC, was investigated after U.S. President Joe Biden ordered a review of COVID-19 data, and again after giving interviews on the virus origins.

New evidence is treated with suspicion. In March 2023, scientists announced that genetic material collected from the market showed raccoon dog DNA mixed with COVID-19 in early 2020, data that WHO said should have been publicly shared years before. The findings were posted, then removed by Chinese researchers with little explanation.

The head of the China CDC Institute of Viral Disease was forced to retire over the release of the market data, according to a former China CDC official who declined to be named to speak on a sensitive topic.

It has to do with the origins, so theyre still worried, the former official said. If you try and get to the bottom of it, what if it turns out to be from China?

Other scientists note that any animal from which the virus may have originally jumped has long since disappeared.

There was a chance for China to cooperate with WHO and do some animal sampling studies that might have answered the question, said Tulane Universitys Garry. The trail to find the source has now gone cold.

Cheng reported from Geneva.

See the article here:

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous - The Associated Press

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage World Health Organization African Region, 20212023 | MMWR – CDC

April 14, 2024

Despite the improved supply of COVID-19 vaccine starting by late 2021, coverage in the African Region increased slowly. Regional coverage with a primary series reached 32% in 2023, with 38% of the population receiving 1 dose. Among the subset of countries that reported coverage for high-risk groups, 48% of health care workers and 52% of older adults received a primary series. Variation in coverage among countries was substantial. Four (9%) of the 47 countries in the region achieved the WHO target of 70% primary series coverage in the total population in 2022 (Liberia, Mauritius, Rwanda, and Seychelles); 29 (62%) countries reported primary series total population coverage <40%. Eritrea has not introduced COVID-19 vaccines, and Burundi delayed introduction in the general population and focused on vaccination of health care workers.

Several reasons likely account for low coverage with COVID-19 vaccines, including limited political commitment, logistical challenges, low perceived risk of COVID-19 illness, and variation in vaccine confidence and demand (3). Country immunization program capacity varies widely across the African Region. Challenges include weak public health infrastructure, limited number of trained personnel, and lack of sustainable funding to implement vaccination programs, exacerbated by competing priorities, including other disease outbreaks and endemic diseases as well as economic and political instability. The total population for each country was used as the denominator for vaccination coverage calculations. However, the eligible population for COVID-19 vaccination differed among countries; most countries targeted persons aged 16 or 18 years, but some countries vaccinated persons aged 5 years. In countries with large populations aged <18 years, meeting coverage targets was not possible (7).

Vaccination of high-priority groups remains critical for optimizing the impact of COVID-19 vaccines (4). Morbidity and mortality are highest among older adults and those with comorbidities (5), yet only two countries in the African Region have achieved >70% coverage among older age groups. The low coverage emphasizes the importance of targeted approaches to generate demand and address population concerns and of new delivery strategies to reach high-priority groups.

In May 2023, the public health emergency of international concern was officially declared over by WHO (8). In October 2023, SAGE recommended using a simplified primary vaccination series of a single dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and updated recommendations on revaccination for high-priority groups (5). SAGE recommended the continued prioritization of high-risk groups as described in the updated SAGE roadmap (5). The recommendations also reinforced the need for sustainable programs and COVID-19 vaccination integration into primary health care and other relevant services. The aim was to optimize resources and build sustainable immunization delivery platforms throughout the life course in alignment with the Immunization Agenda 2030 goals (9).

In November 2023, the Regional Immunization Technical Advisory Group for the African Region endorsed the SAGE recommendations, encouraging countries to continue COVID-19 vaccination as aligned with national priorities (10). Many countries in the African Region are integrating COVID-19 vaccination into their routine health services and exploring new entry points for vaccinating high-priority populations as part of primary care and other relevant services, including through multiantigen periodic intensified routine immunization activities.

The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, immunization coverage estimates are based primarily on administrative data, which might contain inaccuracies resulting from errors in recording doses administered or in population estimates. Second, although reporting is highly encouraged, in 2023, many countries stopped reporting COVID-19 vaccination data because of competing priorities. In addition, fewer than one half of the countries are reporting doses administered among high-priority groups, including doses for health care workers and older persons. Finally, population estimates for high-priority groups are available only in some countries in the African Region, making assessing coverage challenging.

The African Region has low COVID-19 vaccination coverage. Community engagement is needed to better understand drivers of vaccine confidence and develop more targeted strategies to improve vaccine demand (4). Integration of COVID-19 vaccination into routine immunization and primary health care services would help build sustainability and support recovery of routine immunization services (9). Strengthening adult immunization platforms would contribute to pandemic preparedness and global disease prevention goals (4). To protect vulnerable populations and prevent additional COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in the African Region, progress must continue to be made in vaccination of priority populations at highest risk for disease.

Follow this link:

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage World Health Organization African Region, 20212023 | MMWR - CDC

COVID-19 in India | What is the current scenario and how are we tackling it? – The Hindu

April 12, 2024

Story so far: During this poll season, mentions of the COVID-19 pandemic are still doing the rounds. Countering the Modi governments claims of providing free novel Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) vaccines to citizens, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said the BJP was dragged into the act by the Opposition and the Supreme Court. He added that it was hard to forget the extent of the mismanagement that occurred during the pandemic.

(For top health news of the day,subscribeto our newsletter Health Matters)

More than four years ago, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, sending countries across the world into shutdowns to stop the spread. While the WHO declared an end to the global health emergency due to COVID-19 last year, new cases and deaths are still being recorded across the world, even in India one of the nations worst-hit by the virus. Since March 2020, India lost over 5.3 lakh citizens to the virus.

While cases are at an ebb, further concerns have arisen about long Covid and vaccine hesitancy. We take stock of where we stand today with regard to COVID-19, and take a brief look at the nations battle with the virus.

As COVID-19 cases which were first reported in Chinas Wuhan province began cropping up across the world, countries employed different approaches to deal with the rise in infections, deaths and threat due to the virus, employing varying levels of lockdowns. In India, the Centre evoked the Disaster Management Act, enforcing one of the worlds strictest lockdowns from March 24, 2020, shutting all commercial and private organisations, transport and hospitality services excluding those catering to essential services and goods like food, electricity, medicine and water, media houses, banks, petrol pumps, and security organisations.

File photo: A group of migrant workers from Madhya Pradesh, who started their journey back home from Hyderabad, walk along the railway line near Gimma in Telanganas Adilabad district on April 24, 2020. | Photo Credit: S. HARPALSINGH

Faced with job losses and the sudden onset of a total lockdown, migrants across India began their slow journey on foot to their home States mainly Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal leading to the biggest migration India had witnessed since the 1947 Partition. The total lockdown lasted till May 1, 2020, as cases and deaths due to the virus rose rapidly. By May 2020, India had crossed over 1 lakh cases and 5000 deaths.

To tackle the resulting economic downturn, migration, stranding of Indians abroad and the spread of the virus, the Centre began to gradually unlock the nation in phases. Running special trains, aircrafts and naval ships in phases, the Centre facilitated the return of over 52 lakh Indians stranded abroad by March 2021 and ferried 63.15 lakh migrants across 23 states by August 2020. Simultaneously, the Centre also rolled out a special economic package of over 10 lakh crores and a slew of reforms across sectors to kickstart the economy.

File photo: Medics collect swab samples of staff and students of Gauhati Medical College and Hospital for COVID-19 test after a PG student was tested positive for coronavirus, in Guwahati, Friday, May 8, 2020. | Photo Credit: PTI

As the Centre began slowly permitting the nation to open up from lockdown, COVID-19 cases and deaths began to steadily rise as more and more people were exposed to the virus. By September, daily cases had hit a peak of 96,000 new infections while total deaths rose to 1 lakh before the rate of increase fell. Simultaneously, trials for the newly-developed COVID-19 vaccines Covishield and Covaxin progressed and the government began to roll them out from January 16, 2021. Trials for other vaccines like Sputnik V, Corbevax, Covovax, iNCOVACC, and GEMCOVAC were also launched.

Prioritising essential workers including healthcare workers, police, paramilitary forces, sanitation workers, frontline volunteers, the Centre vaccinated 1.4 crore people with the first dose of either Covishield and Covaxin by March 2021. Later, in phases, the Centre allowed citizens above 60 years, 45-60 years, 18- 44 years, 15-18 years and later 12-14 years to receive both vaccine doses and subsequently the additional booster dose free of cost at government centres and at capped prices at private centres.

Family members of COVID-19 patients wait outside an oxygen-filling centre to refill empty cylinders in New Delhi on May 5, 2021. | Photo Credit: PTI

As the vaccination rate picked up pace, India also witnessed its deadliest wave of COVID-19 infections. By March 2021, cases rose to 1.1 crore cases and deaths to 1.6 lakhs, forcing states like Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh to reimpose stringent lockdown measures. Despite scaling up its health facilities, India also witnessed acute shortage of oxygen cylinders, beds and vaccines, as newer variants like Beta, Gamma, and Delta, as well as allied infections caused by black fungus, yellow fungus, and pink fungus emerged with higher severity than the virus spread in the first wave (Alpha). Between March and September 2021, cases rose sharply from 1.1 crores to 3.3 crores, claiming up to 4.5 lakh lives till then.

Several crowded events like the Kumbh Mela and election rallies for State polls in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and West Bengal gained criticism from experts, courts and politicians as cases spiked across India. With several States grappling to procure vaccine doses and oxygen supply, hundreds of dead bodies appeared washed up on the banks of the river Ganges as crematoria across India were overflowing. Faced with a burdening number of infections,the Centre accelerated the vaccination drive touching almost 50 crore doses by August end. Despite high domestic demand, the Centre also began exportingvaccines to countries in Africa, North and South America, Ukraine and Asia under its Vaccine Maitri programme.

File photo: Devotees gather to offer prayers during the third Shahi Snan of the Kumbh Mela 2021, at Har ki Pauri Ghat in Haridwar, Wednesday, April 14, 2021. | Photo Credit: PTI

Cases continued to rise but at a slower rate after September 2021 and by January 2022, the severity reduced, with most reported cases being asymptomatic. A third, less-intense wave of infection spread in India from December 2021 as India recorded its first case for the new Omicron variant which carried a higher risk of re-infection. The rise in cases continued till February 2022, after which the daily cases recorded dropped to 10,000, with total fatalities also remaining constant at 5.2 lakhs. In March, the Centre revoked the Disaster Management Act orders imposed for containing COVID-19 and bolstered the vaccination drive. By July 2022, the nation had administered 200 crore doses including first, second and booster doses.

In March 2023, India once again witnessed a small spike in daily infections recording over 1000 cases mostly asymptomatic and three deaths. However, active cases remained low, comprising 0.01% of the total infections, and recovery rate stood at 98.8% while fatality rate remained at 1.19%.

On May 5, 2023, WHO chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared an end to the public emergency which had arisen due to COVID-19. However, he said that the risk of new emerging variants causing a surge in cases and deaths remained. While the pandemics effects had waned due to increased immunity caused by mass vaccination, he warned nations of post-COVID conditions i.e. long COVID.

As of April 11, 2024, India has only 640 active COVID-19 cases while the total fatalities are at 5,33,570. Around 4.45 crore people have been discharged till date, clocking a recovery rate of 98.81%.

File photo: CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU,17/08/2021: Healthcare workers collects the swab sample of a International Air passenger for the RT-PCR test during Covid-19 screening at Chennai International Airport on August 17, 2021. | Photo Credit: VELANKANNI RAJ B

While there are few active cases, symptoms of long COVID are prevalent among Indians.

A study by the Lancet COVID-19 Commission India Task Force, found that women were more likely to develop long COVID issues compared to men. The study, which was conducted on 2205 subjects from three districts in Haryana Rohtak, Gurugram, and Jhajjar, found that only cough remained as the significant persistent symptom while other illnesses like depression, fever, tiredness, and influenza-like issues were found to be statistically insignificant.

However, another Lancet study found that COVID-19 had replaced stroke to become the second-leading cause of death globally in 2021. In India, COVID-19 had slashed the life expectancy by 1.9 years, reducing the net gain of life expectancy between 1990 and 2021 to 7.9 years.

Currently, only 14 private and public centres are offering COVID-19 vaccinations, as 92.66% of Indians are fully vaccinated. As of date, India has administered 220 crore doses of COVID-19 vaccines, of which 102 crores are first dose, 95.19 crores are second dose and 22.74 crores are precaution doses (booster dose).

Number of COVID-19 doses administered in last 30 days

Among States, Uttar Pradesh ranks the highest, vaccinating 39.2 crore citizens of which 17.7 crores are partially vaccinated (only 1 dose), 16.9 crore are fully vaccinated while 4.6 crore have also received the precaution dose. The second-highest vaccine coverage is in Maharashtra (17.8 crores), followed by Bihar (15.73 crores), West Bengal (15.61 crores) and Madhya Pradesh (13.4 crores).

In the last two weeks (28 March 8 April), the total vaccinations done across all 14 centres range between 9 and 133, mostly precaution doses for citizens between ages 18- 44. Despite COVID-19 vaccine doses available for children above 12 years (Covovax, Corbevax and Covaxin), the total number of doses administered to children between ages 12-18 is only 18.97 crores; this includes both doses. While India approximately has 43 crore children below the age of 18, as per UNICEF, COVID-19 innoculation among them is very poor (21%).

Vaccination as April 9, 2024

Moreover, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which has been spearheading the COVID-19 strategy in India, has not issued any guidelines allowing vaccination of children below the age of 12. Four vaccines approved by ICMR Covaxin, Corbevax, Covovax and the ZyCoV-D are available for paediatric usage. A 2023 study has found that parental hesitancy, lack of guidelines and adverse effects of immunisation were causing hurdles in innoculating children for COVID-19. It concluded that a school-based vaccination program like Mission Indradhanush would be most effective in covering majority of Indias children.

With India only reporting few COVID-19 cases everyday (mostly asymptomatic) and the vaccination drive slowed down drastically, Indias fight against Coronavirus-19 has been reduced to screening and studying new variants.

See the original post:

COVID-19 in India | What is the current scenario and how are we tackling it? - The Hindu

Page 33«..1020..32333435..4050..»