Category: Corona Virus Vaccine

Page 55«..1020..54555657..6070..»

Understanding the Effectiveness of the New COVID-19 Vaccine – Medriva

February 2, 2024

Understanding the Effectiveness of the New COVID-19 Vaccine

In the continuous battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, the value of staying updated about the latest developments in vaccine research cannot be overstated. Among these advancements, a new COVID-19 vaccine has shown promising results in a recent randomized controlled trial. The study, which involved a large sample size, indicated the vaccines potential in reducing the incidence of the disease and providing long-term protection. This article aims to delve into the key findings of this research and the implications for disease prevention strategies.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine can restore and enhance protection against the variants currently responsible for most infections and hospitalizations in the United States. The vaccine has proven effective against the XBB lineage and JN.1 variants. Between mid-September and January, vaccination offered 54% protection against COVID-19. The CDC recommends the updated COVID-19 vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older, especially those at higher risk of severe illness. Thanks to various CDC programs and the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, vaccines are freely available to most children through their familys insurance.

Recent reports suggest that the newest COVID-19 vaccines are 54% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in adults. As studies are ongoing to assess the vaccines effectiveness in preventing severe symptoms, the slow uptake of the vaccine has posed challenges for researchers in gathering adequate data. Up until now, only about 22% of U.S. adults and 11% of children have received the new shots.

The most recent COVID-19 vaccine is approximately 54% effective at protecting people from symptoms of COVID-19 and 49% effective at protecting against symptoms from the JN.1 variant. This shows that the vaccine offers good protection against the currently dominant strain of the virus. Detailed insights on the vaccines impact on emergency room visits, urgent care visits, and hospitalizations are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Early CDC data also corroborates that the latest COVID-19 vaccine offers strong protection against symptomatic infection, including from JN.1. The vaccine provided 54% protection against symptomatic infection among immunocompetent adults who were recently vaccinated compared with those who did not receive an updated vaccine. The goal of the US Covid-19 vaccination program is to primarily prevent severe disease. Measuring vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection, however, offers an additional early perspective on how well the vaccines are working.

Despite the promising effectiveness of the updated vaccines against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against JN.1 and XBB viral lineages, there are concerns about their efficacy against the XBB variant. Therefore, the CDC continues to stress the importance of vaccination, especially for people at higher risk of complications from COVID-19. As the situation evolves, so does our understanding of the virus, and with it, our strategies to combat it.

See the article here:

Understanding the Effectiveness of the New COVID-19 Vaccine - Medriva

Lula government rules out universal COVID-19 vaccination, deepening herd immunity policy in Brazil – WSWS

February 2, 2024

Just over a year after Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva took office, the criminal negligence of his Workers Party (PT) government in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been thoroughly exposed.

Daily data on the pandemic was halted in February of last year, while in May the government welcomed the World Health Organizations (WHO) decision to end the Public Health Emergency of International Concern for COVID-19 without any scientific basis. The government has failed to implement educational campaigns on the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the dangers still posed by COVID-19, and, at the end of last year, the Lula government ruled out COVID-19 vaccination for the entire population, even as the pandemic is still raging.

Pfizers bivalent vaccine, covering the original variants and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 variant, began to be administered in February 2023 to people over 60, those over 12 with comorbidities, and other specific groups. At the end of April, with only 17.6 percent of the eligible population receiving the bivalent vaccine, the Lula government authorized it for the entire population over 18, despite claiming it would not bring benefits.

At the end of October, the Lula government announced that the COVID-19 vaccine would be included in the National Immunization Program (PNI) starting this year. However, it will only be applied to children between six months and five years old, older people, and other specific groups. Even if all the people included in the PNI are immunized, this will represent less than a third of the Brazilian population with a new shot of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2024.

Considering what was seen last year, even a reasonable level of immunization of this population is hardly likely. Having abandoned virtually all public health measures that help alert the public to the dangers of COVID-19, while leading the population to believe that the pandemic is over, the Lula governments COVID-19 vaccination campaign has been a fiasco. In mid-December, vaccination coverage of the bivalent was still barely 17 percent.

Since coming to power, the Lula government has followed the strategy of the worlds ruling elite of scrapping all mitigation measures, such as mask-wearing, and insisting that we will still live with COVID-19 and that our great ally is vaccination, according to Health Minister Nsia Trindade. Contrary to claims that it would follow the science in its supposed reconstruction of Brazil, the Lula governments decision to abandon universal COVID-19 vaccination shows that it is continuing and deepening the policy of herd immunity in Brazil initiated by fascistic ex-president Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022), normalizing continuous waves of mass infection, debilitation and death.

Several people concerned about the pandemic have spoken out on X/Twitter, denouncing the Lula governments herd immunity policy. In a lengthy thread from the beginning of November, shortly after the announcement of the inclusion of the COVID-19 vaccine in the PNI, anti-COVID activist Mrcio explained the limitations of the Lula governments vaccination campaign: In making this decision, the federal government claims to be following what is recommended by the WHO. In fact, this is their recommendation. However, we must understand that the WHO is a multilateral organization that uses equity to make its recommendations to member countries. In other words, this WHO suggestion is the minimum a country could offer its population. Therefore, Brazil could offer the maximum or more than the minimum, vaccinating its entire population.

He also drew attention to the fact that the Lula government had not acquired the most up-to-date monovalent vaccines against the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant, which predominated in Brazil throughout most of last year and is being applied to virtually the entire population in the Northern Hemisphere. In the US, it is fully authorized for everyone 12 years or older, with an emergency use authorization for children six months to 11 years old.

In response to the Health Ministrys claim that For other people, including healthy adults, there is no recommendation for annual vaccination, Mrcio declared in another thread at the beginning of December: This attitude of the current federal government denies reality. COVID-19 still represents a danger both in the acute phase and in its chronic phase (Long COVID). Therefore, he added, this claim shows that Brazil has officially become one of the most denialist countries regarding SARS-CoV-2.

Indeed, it is a scientific fact that the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines decreases both over time and depending on the variant used to manufacture them and the variant against which it will act in case of infection, which is why pharmaceutical companies have been updating these vaccines regularly. Numerous studies have also pointed out the need to have the maximum possible vaccination coverage, with vaccines updated against the newest variants and applied periodically as one of the instruments for effectively combating the pandemic.

Moreover, despite reducing the possibility of severe cases, the vaccines do not prevent infection and do not offer significant protection against the various effects of Long COVID, a chronic condition that can affect virtually every organ in the body and develops in 10-20 percent of those infected, according to the WHO. Despite all the danger that long COVID poses to the Brazilian population, this mass debilitating effect is a subject ignored by the Lula government.

Leading neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis, who has closely followed the dynamics of the pandemic in Brazil since its beginning, has also spoken out on X/Twitter. Throughout November, he questioned the justification for not vaccinating the entire population in 2024 with new vaccines developed to combat the new variants derived from Omicron. He went on to demand a Strategic Plan from the Ministry of Health to deal with the tsunami of patients with chronic COVID that will hit the doors of the SUS [Unified Health System] in the coming months and years.

In one of these posts, Nicolelis also charged: Brazil has abandoned any surveillance ... Basically, we are flying blind.

If monitoring the virus was one of the many measures entirely neglected by the Bolsonaro government, making it practically impossible to grasp the true extent of the pandemic in Brazil, this has only worsened under the Lula government. Last year, the number of RT-PCR tests carried out was the lowest since the beginning of the pandemic. By September, only 1.76 million tests had been carried out, compared to 9.5 million in 2020, 21 million in 2021, and 5.9 million in 2022.

Without implementing a nationally coordinated system for monitoring the pandemic or even making wastewater data available, the release of COVID-19 data occurs with significant gaps and underreporting every week, combining the data from the Brazilian states. The latest data shows that in the week between January 14 and 20, Brazil recorded 38,246 cases and 196 deaths from COVID-19. Overall, Brazil has recorded 38 million cases and 709,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, in addition to the millions suffering from Long COVID.

After a wave between last September and November, the positivity rate monitored by Todos pela Sade (All for Health), a non-profit organization that analyzes data from seven private laboratories in Brazil, has increased since the beginning of the year, indicating the start of a new wave. According to the organizations bulletin on Monday, after persisting in the 20 percent range for three months, positivity for COVID-19 rose again after the holiday season, reaching 27 percent.

Mehring Books

COVID, Capitalism, and Class War: A Social and Political Chronology of the Pandemic

A compilation of the World Socialist Web Site's coverage of this global crisis, available in epub and print formats.

This coincides with the unchecked spread of the highly infectious and immune-resistant JN.1 subvariant. Predominant worldwide, it is driving a new wave in the US and other countries. According to the Fiocruz Epidemiological Institute, the prevalence of JN.1 jumped from 18.3 percent in November to 56.8 percent in December.

The Lula government, a loyal representative of the Brazilian and international capitalist elites, showed in its first year that it has no interest in implementing a scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lula came to power to deepen the austerity policies implemented during his previous governments (2003-2010) in order to prioritize corporate profits over life. Today, this is being expressed in the new fiscal regime approved last year and the zero deficit target for the 2024 budget, both of which have been applauded by the international financial markets, even as they threaten the constitutional right to healthcare.

As the New Years statement published by theWorld Socialist Web Siteanalyzed, eliminating the novel coronavirus, the only scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remains viable and necessary. By the end of 2022, China demonstrated that the combination of several long-known public health measures, such as the use of high-quality masks, a strict surveillance and contact-tracing system, and vaccination, can stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, save lives, and prevent the debilitating effects of Long COVID. However, Chinas elimination strategy has also shown the unfeasibility of any nationally-based program in the epoch of imperialism.

For the elimination strategy to be effective, the declaration emphasized that it must be globally coordinated through the building of a mass movement fighting for the following principles: The fight against the pandemic is a political and revolutionary question which requires a socialist solution; The organization of public health must be on the basis of social need, not corporate profit; The profit motive must be entirely removed from all healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

In Brazil, advancing this program requires a conscious break with the Lula government and the ruling Workers Party, as well as with the unions and the pseudo-left that have helped implement the herd immunity policy. We call on all those fighting for a science-based program in response to the pandemic, principled scientists, and above all the Brazilian working class to carefully study the WSWS New Years statement and organize the fight for the global elimination of COVID-19 as part of an international socialist movement.

Join the fight to end the COVID-19 pandemic

Someone from the Socialist Equality Party or the WSWS in your region will contact you promptly.

Continued here:

Lula government rules out universal COVID-19 vaccination, deepening herd immunity policy in Brazil - WSWS

Latest Covid-19 vaccine offers strong protection against symptomatic infection, including from JN.1, early CDC data … – The Albany Herald

February 2, 2024

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Go here to see the original:

Latest Covid-19 vaccine offers strong protection against symptomatic infection, including from JN.1, early CDC data ... - The Albany Herald

No, Chinese scientists did not create COVID-19 strain that is 100% lethal – KHOU.com

February 2, 2024

Its been four years since the COVID-19 virus first began to spread. The U.S. National Intelligence Council assessed that two theories on the viruss origins are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal or a laboratory-associated incident.

Recent alarming headlines of Chinese experiments involving the virus reignited pandemic-era fears online.

VERIFY reader Karen asked us on Facebook if a story from the Staten Island Advance, a newspaper local to New York Citys Staten Island, titled Chinese scientists create COVID-19 strain that is 100% lethal to humanized mice, report says is true. Similar headlines have appeared on other news sites like the New York Post.

Did Chinese scientists create a COVID-19 strain thats 100% lethal to mice?

No, Chinese scientists did not create a COVID-19 strain thats 100% lethal to mice.

Chinese scientists did recently conduct a study in which they cloned a coronavirus, not a COVID-19 strain, that killed all four mice that were infected with it. However, this is not consistent with past studies, and the researchers say it does not mean it would kill humans.

A group of Chinese scientists, the majority of which are affiliated with the Beijing University of Chemical Technology, recently pre-printed a study meaning theyve published it online before it has been reviewed by peers to confirm its scientifically sound titled Lethal Infection of Human ACE2-Transgenic Mice Caused by SARS-CoV-2-related Pangolin Coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR).

The scientists did not create a mutant COVID-19 strain to conduct this study, as some of the headlines suggest, nor did they use COVID-19 at all. Instead, the scientists studied a different coronavirus using just four mice. Coronaviruses are a family of viruses that include COVID-19, but also strains of the common cold.

The studys authors clarified that the mouse infections in the study do not mean the virus would also kill humans. The exact same virus has been the subject of other studies, including those in which the virus infected similar kinds of mice. The mice in those other studies did not die.

First, well explain why the claim that the scientists created a COVID-19 strain is false. Then well add context to this coronaviruss lethality to mice both in this study and in similar studies.

Chinese scientists did not create a COVID-19 strain

The scientists explain within the text of the study that they worked with a coronavirus, which is a family of viruses that includes COVID-19, but not COVID-19 itself. This coronavirus, which they called GX_P2V, was a sample they found in an animal called a pangolin in 2017, according to the scientists.

The virus used in the study was first collected in 2018, according to an earlier study by researchers from Hong Kong and Beijing. Its collection date is confirmed by the Bacterial and Viral Bioinformatics Resource Center (BV-BRC), which shows it was one of six related viruses collected from pangolins by researchers at the time.

The virus began adapting, or mutating, after it was first collected, according to a study published in December 2022. The studys researchers, some of whom later worked on the viral lethal mouse study, said the virus rapidly adapted to a kind of animal cell commonly used as a host for viruses studied by scientists.

Lihua Song, Ph.D., one of the scientists who worked on the viral lethal mouse study, explained on ScienceCast, a forum for researchers to discuss studies with other scientists, that the sample they used is a clone of the virus sample that mutated between 2018 and 2022.

Scientists no longer have an original, unmutated version of the virus because the original sample adapted in the animal cell, Song explained. Song suspected that the original pangolin sample mutated because it had difficulty growing in the animal host cells used by scientists

Putting 100% lethal to humanized mice claim in context

The scientists in the viral study used a small sample size of mice: 12 in total, four of which were infected with the virus. All four of the infected mice died, but the researchers noted that the virus did not kill similar mice in other studies.

The mice used in the study were ACE2 humanized mice. These kinds of mice, according to the Jackson Laboratory, are humanized because their cells have human ACE2, the receptor used by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) to gain cellular entry.

While GX_P2V(short_3UTR) proved lethal in our mouse model, it's important to consider that it did not cause disease upon infecting two other distinct ACE2 humanized mouse strains, Song said on ScienceCast.

Song is referring to a January 2023 study that said it infected three groups of mice, two of which were groups of humanized ACE2 mice. The researchers noted that the infected mice presented no obvious clinical symptoms, leading them to believe that GX_P2V may not be very good at causing disease.

Song and the other researchers in the viral study wrote that the reason the virus was so lethal may have been because their mice had abnormally high ACE2.

It is very likely that the high pathogenicity of GX_P2V C7 in our hACE2 mice is due to the strong expression of hACE2 in the mouse brain, the researchers wrote. Under normal circumstances, both human and mouse brains exhibit low expression of ACE2.

The researchers said that because of this mouse infections in this study have no correlation with human infections.

The scientists said the purpose of the study was to assess a potential candidate for use in vaccines or drugs meant to protect against broad groups of coronaviruses.

The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so that you can understand what is true and false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter, text alerts and our YouTube channel. You can also follow us on Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Learn More

Text: 202-410-8808

See more here:

No, Chinese scientists did not create COVID-19 strain that is 100% lethal - KHOU.com

COVID vaccine may have short-term impact on menstrual cycles – study – Euronews

February 2, 2024

A French study found an increased risk of changes to womens menstrual cycles after they received the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, but the risk did not last very long.

Could the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines change womens menstrual cycles?

A new French study has found evidence that they might while some experts caution that other factors could also be at play.

The research provides new arguments in favour of the existence of an increased risk of heavy menstrual bleeding following vaccination against COVID-19 by mRNA vaccine, according to a statementfrom Epi-Phare, an organisation that carries out national health studies for the French government.

The researchers documented the vaccination status of around 4,600 women admitted to hospitals due to significant menstrual bleeding in 2021 and 2022.

They compared their condition to a control group of women who were not treated for this issue.

Their findings suggest that the risk of experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding is marginally higher after a woman receives her first Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, both administered in two consecutive doses.

This increased risk continued for one to three months after vaccination. There was no observed risk of heavy menstrual bleeding after a subsequent booster dose.

It's important to hear what women have to say, Dr Odile Bagot, a gynaecologist who didnt take part in the study, told Euronews Next.

If there is a causal relationship, it's neither very frequent nor very significant in the end, and it's certainly not persistent beyond three months, she added, regarding the studys outcome.

Since initial reports of changes to womens menstruation cycles post-vaccination, several studies have been conducted to determine if thats the case..

A study published in January 2024, which analysed data from users of a period tracker application, concluded that vaccination was associated with a small change in cycle length that resolves quickly within the next cycle.

Another study drew similar conclusions. Conducted on the Swedish population and published in May 2023 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), it stated that the findings do not provide substantial support for a causal association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and menstrual disorders reported to health professionals.

When you have contradictory studies. It doesn't mean that one is lying and the other isn't, it means that the phenomenon is far from certain and not very strong, Bagot said.

Other factors could also have played a part in menstrual changes.

Both the stress of vaccination and the inflammatory and immune phenomena that necessarily follow vaccination can influence the cycle, added Bagot.

Continued here:

COVID vaccine may have short-term impact on menstrual cycles - study - Euronews

COVID shots: newest ones are 54% effective, says CDC – CTV News

February 2, 2024

NEW YORK -

The latest versions of COVID-19 vaccines were 54% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in adults, according to the first U.S. study to assess how well the shots work.

The shots became available last year and were designed to better protect against more recent coronavirus variants.

In Thursday's study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 9,000 people who got tested for COVID-19 at CVS and Walgreens pharmacies, checking who tested positive and whether they had gotten a new shot or not.

The 54% finding is similar to what's been reported in other countries, and it's also about what was reported for an earlier vaccine version, said the Ruth Link-Gelles of the CDC, the study's lead author.

Studies coming out later this year will assess how effective the shot was at preventing symptoms severe enough to send patients to a doctor's office or hospital, she said.

The CDC recommends the new shots for everyone 6 months and older, but most Americans haven't gotten them. The latest CDC data suggests only about 22% of U.S. adults have gotten the shots, and only 11% of children. The slow uptake meant that it took longer for researchers to gather enough data to assess how well the shots work, Link-Gelles said.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content

Read the original post:

COVID shots: newest ones are 54% effective, says CDC - CTV News

Adelaide father to get compensation after developing heart condition from COVID-19 vaccine – 9News

February 1, 2024

An Adelaide public servant is set to receive compensation for a heart condition he developed from a reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Daniel Shepherd, 44, developed pericarditis after a rare reaction to his third Pfizer COVID-19 jab, which he was required to have before beginning a job with the Department of Child Protection.

Shepherd told 9News he now has the heart of a 90-year-old.

READ MORE: Parents 'distraught' over private school's decision to enrol girls

He was vaccinated against COVID-19 twice.

Both jabs made him unwell but he chose to get a third dose because of the government mandate.

The day after his booster shot he was rushed to hospital.

Shepherd said it felt like someone was holding a knee down on his chest.

"Even today with just mild exertion [I get] chest pains and then it's followed by fatigue, like severe fatigue," Shepard said.

The father of a five-year-old now finds it difficult to keep up with his son.

"It's heartbreaking to have to say 'sorry buddy, daddy's tired'," Shepard said.

READ MORE: Major bank to close dozens of branches across Australia

After he was unable to work, Shepard launched a workers compensation claim against the government.

In a landmark ruling in mid-January, the South Australian Employment Tribunal agreed to pay weekly compensation and medical bills to Shepherd.

Doctors were unanimous in his case that the vaccine was the cause but the government argued emergency directions trumped the laws around workplace injury.

Pericarditis is meant to clear within a few months but Shepherd's symptoms have plagued him for almost two years.

The condition affects two in every 100,000 people.

See the original post:

Adelaide father to get compensation after developing heart condition from COVID-19 vaccine - 9News

End of Covid-19 booster programme is alarming, says former actress – BBC.com

February 1, 2024

31 January 2024

Image source, Laura Foster/BBC

Sarah Steven became clinically vulnerable six months into the pandemic after being diagnosed with breast cancer

A woman classed as clinically vulnerable has said she is concerned about the end to the Covid-19 booster vaccination programme.

Sarah Steven, from Buckinghamshire, believes people "need vaccines to protect them all year round because there are no mitigations in place".

The former actress was shielding between October 2020 and March 2022 while being treated for breast cancer.

The Department of Health and Social Care was approached for a comment.

People who develop new health conditions or start treatments that weaken their immune system may be able to receive a vaccine earlier.

Image source, Laura Foster/BBC

Sarah Steven said the clinically vulnerable "need vaccines"

"It is pretty alarming that we are going to put Covid vaccination into the annual booster pot like flu," said Ms Steven, who has appeared in ITV's Grantchester and in theatre, but is also an advocate for Clinically Vulnerable Families.

"There is no clean air policy in schools, there's no mask policy in healthcare and work offices are a free-for-all.

"Learning to live with the virus does not mean just pretend it has gone away."

Image source, Laura Foster/BBC

Stephen Griffin from the Independent SAGE group is concerned stopping the vaccine programme will put vulnerable people at risk

Prof Stephen Griffin, co-chair of the Independent SAGE group which provides the UK government with scientific advice, also criticised the decision to end the programme.

The academic, who lectures in cancer virology at Leeds University of Medicine, said the policy to live with Covid was discriminatory to vulnerable people who "are being put [at a] disadvantage".

Mr Griffin explained there was a "dangerous narrative where it is acceptable to be infected [in order to] become immune to the thing that just infected them".

"We are unfortunately relying on population-scale infection to promote short-lasting immunity [which] involves more harm than a wider scale vaccine programme," he said.

Read more:

End of Covid-19 booster programme is alarming, says former actress - BBC.com

Analysis of related factors of plasma antibody levels in patients with severe and critical COVID-19 | Scientific Reports – Nature.com

February 1, 2024

With the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 had gradually diminished, China declared the end of its containment measures at the end of 2022. Owing to stringent domestic controls, there had been no widespread infections nationwide in China. Following the removal of relevant containment measures, numerous individuals infected with the current circulating strain emerged. Due to its weakened virulence, the majority of infected individuals experienced mild symptoms and could recover within one to two weeks after infection, but for older infected people, they might develop severe or critical illness. In this study, we found the plasma antibody level of the severe/critical group was significantly lower than that of the mild group. We thought this difference may be caused by the age of the participants and found there was indeed an association between plasma antibody levels and age in SARS-CoV-2 infectors. Previous reports suggest that older patients exhibit a reduced humoral immune response to vaccination, lower peak antibody titers, and a more rapid decline compared to younger patients8,9,10,11. Clemens A. Schmitt et al.6 reported COVID-19 brought bigger influence in the elderly based on cellular senescence. Furthermore, Parker et al.'s investigation revealed that individuals aged 4160years exhibited higher plasma antibody levels than other age groups12. Our finding was consistent with these reported studies. It was a negative correlation between age and plasma antibody levels in our severe/critical group. That means in severe and critical patients, older age is associated with an increased risk. Besides, age was positive correlated with antibody levels in the mild group in this study. Combining the results of the two groups, there may be an age interval where the correlation between age and antibody levels changes from positive to negative as patients age.

Strong epidemiological evidence exists that sex is an important biologic variable in immunity7. Some data demonstrate female immune system may generate stronger antibody responses13,14,15,16. Whether gender differences in the humoral immune response occur in COVID-19 remains unanswered. In our study, it seemed that plasma antibody levels were not associated with gender. But it could be observed from Table1 that the proportion of female patients was lower than that of male patients. More studies with larger sample sizes are needed to explore this association.

In addition to the factors above, we also found there existed a strong correlation between vaccination status and antibody levels in severe/critical patients. This suggests vaccination is meaningful for improving antibody levels and combating COVID-19.

There are several limitations to our study. These include the relatively small sample size, the lack of data on patients at younger ages, and the lack of clinical testing data. Besides, most patients in the mild group doesnt have basic disease, expect two individuals, which may influence the analysis results of this part. The host immune response is complex, and factors such as vaccine type, vaccination time, sample collection time, genetic factors, therapeutic intervention, and others may affect antibody levels. Most of the participants were vaccinated with inactivated virus vaccines (see Tables1, S1, and S2). Unfortunately, due to the difficulties in the actual information collection process, the data of vaccination type and vaccination time of all participants could not be obtained. The severe and critical patients in this study were older, the complications were common and the treatment situation was very complex and unavoidable. Thus, we regret that we were unable to deduct the impact of these factors. However, all the data were collected based on the reality. And the current study design allows for a preliminary assessment of the factors in the severe and critical COVID-19 patients. During the study period, there were no second infections among the included individuals. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. We are also focusing on genetic factors and will conduct studies to discuss the correlation of antibody levels in patients with their immune profiles and genes.

Originally posted here:

Analysis of related factors of plasma antibody levels in patients with severe and critical COVID-19 | Scientific Reports - Nature.com

Study Finds No Link Between COVID-19 Vaccination, Preterm Birth – Drug Topics

February 1, 2024

There is not a significant association between COVID-19 vaccination and preterm birth, according to a recent study published in Vaccines.1

Pregnant women have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as physiological changes during pregnancy often impact immune responses. Compared to non-pregnant women, pregnant women have a significantly increased risk of severe illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth.

COVID-19 infection has been associated with a 50% increased risk of preterm birth. COVID-19 vaccination during postpartum has also been greatly evaluated, with data indicating the vaccine does not increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. As the vaccine reduces COVID-19 infection risk, it may decrease preterm birth incidence.

To determine the association between COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and preterm birth, investigators conducted a systematic review. The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus articles were evaluated for literature published up to 2023.1

Search terms related to COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccination, vaccination during pregnancy, maternal health, neonatal outcomes, and preterm birth were used as keywords. Eligibility criteria included being published in English and assessing the association between COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and preterm birth.

Studies evaluating this association included those that looked at pregnant patients vaccinated against COVID-19, measured preterm birth-related outcomes, had clear methodology for evaluating vaccination status and timing, had a detailed explanation on preterm birth assessment, and were a clinical trial, cohort study, case-control study, or case series. Births occurring before 37 weeks gestation were considered preterm.

Articles were screened based on abstracts, then underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers with a third consulted to settle disagreements. Data extraction was performed by 2 researchers and included study design, participant demographics, vaccine type and dosing, vaccination timing, and outcomes related to post-COVID syndrome.

There were 6 studies published between 2021 and 2022 included in the final analysis. Of studies, 3 were prospective cohort designs and 3 retrospective cohort designs. The studies included 35,612 participants, 227 of whom were vaccinated and 608 unvaccinated.

A range of comorbidities was reported across studies. In one study, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were reported in 1.1% of participants and gestational diabetes in 9.6%. One study reported obesity in 19.6% of vaccinated patients and 22.4% of unvaccinated patients. Higher rates of previous miscarriage and cesarean delivery were reported in vaccinated women.

The average reported birth weights were 3149 g among infants born to vaccinated mothers and 3207 g among infants born to unvaccinated mothers. Five-minute APGAR scores below 7 were seen in 6.3% and 6.6% of newborns, respectively.

In one study, 96% of infants born to vaccinated mothers were born at 37 weeks of gestation or greater. Vaccination had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.87 for adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Various results were found for preterm birth risk following vaccination, with ORs of 0.59, 1.01, and 1.49 reported. These indicated reduced, neutral, and increased risk, respectively. However, the increased risk was only found for second-trimester vaccination in the single study. Overall, the pooled OR for preterm birth after vaccination was 1.03, indicating a marginal risk.

These results indicated COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is not significantly associated with increased preterm birth risk. Investigators concluded this data should inform public health policy and reassure providers and expectant mothers.

This article originally appeared in Contemporary OB/GYN.

Original post:

Study Finds No Link Between COVID-19 Vaccination, Preterm Birth - Drug Topics

Page 55«..1020..54555657..6070..»