Category: Corona Virus

The vaccine deployment in December 2020 signaled a turning point in the COVID-19 pandemic. By the end of May 2021, 40% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated. But as vaccination rates lagged over the summer, new surges of COVID-19 came, including Delta in the summer of 2021, and now the Omicron variant, which comprises the majority of cases in the U.S.

Researchers around the world have reported that Omicron is more transmissible than Delta, making breakthrough and repeat infections more likely. Early research suggests this strain may cause less severe illness than Delta and the original virus, however, health officials have warned an Omicron-driven surge could still increase hospitalization and death ratesespecially in areas with less vaccinated populations.

The United States as of Feb. 18 reached 933,154 COVID-19-related deaths and 78.3 million COVID-19 cases, according to Johns Hopkins University. Currently, 64.6% of the population is fully vaccinated, and 43.1% have received booster doses.

Stacker compiled a list of the counties with highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in California using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and Covid Act Now. Counties are ranked by the highest vaccination rate as of Feb. 17, 2022. Due to inconsistencies in reporting, some counties do not have vaccination data available. Keep reading to see whether your county ranks among the highest COVID-19 vaccination rates in your state.

Population that is fully vaccinated: 47.6% (37,457 fully vaccinated) 32.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 139 (109 total deaths) 33.2% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 21,007 (16,526 total cases) 6.1% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 48.2% (5,921 fully vaccinated) 31.1% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 163 (20 total deaths) 21.6% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,380 (1,398 total cases) 49.2% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 50.0% (138,829 fully vaccinated) 28.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 275 (763 total deaths) 32.2% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 24,217 (67,246 total cases) 8.2% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 51.4% (28,018 fully vaccinated) 26.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 314 (171 total deaths) 51.0% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 22,918 (12,485 total cases) 2.4% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 51.7% (20,536 fully vaccinated) 26.1% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 194 (77 total deaths) 6.7% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 22,152 (8,806 total cases) 1.0% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.0% (1,562 fully vaccinated) 25.7% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 0 (0 total deaths) 100.0% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 10,349 (311 total cases) 53.8% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.1% (114,210 fully vaccinated) 25.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 165 (361 total deaths) 20.7% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 17,479 (38,312 total cases) 21.9% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.1% (469,101 fully vaccinated) 25.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 230 (2,072 total deaths) 10.6% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 24,978 (224,854 total cases) 11.6% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.5% (24,094 fully vaccinated) 25.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 231 (106 total deaths) 11.1% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,327 (7,495 total cases) 27.0% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.7% (245,687 fully vaccinated) 24.7% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 274 (1,278 total deaths) 31.7% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 27,618 (128,752 total cases) 23.4% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 52.8% (83,132 fully vaccinated) 24.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 210 (330 total deaths) 1.0% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 26,634 (41,903 total cases) 19.0% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 53.7% (34,585 fully vaccinated) 23.3% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 191 (123 total deaths) 8.2% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,859 (10,855 total cases) 24.7% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 53.9% (15,300 fully vaccinated) 23.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 137 (39 total deaths) 34.1% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 22,467 (6,379 total cases) 0.4% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 54.2% (10,201 fully vaccinated) 22.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 69 (13 total deaths) 66.8% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 15,893 (2,989 total cases) 29.0% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 55.5% (1,209,682 fully vaccinated) 20.7% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 292 (6,372 total deaths) 40.4% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 26,407 (575,690 total cases) 18.0% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 55.6% (305,969 fully vaccinated) 20.6% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 260 (1,429 total deaths) 25.0% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 23,846 (131,310 total cases) 6.5% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 57.5% (1,419,737 fully vaccinated) 17.9% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 245 (6,049 total deaths) 17.8% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 24,574 (607,114 total cases) 9.8% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 58.8% (12,674 fully vaccinated) 16.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 97 (21 total deaths) 53.4% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 20,509 (4,419 total cases) 8.4% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 58.8% (57,033 fully vaccinated) 16.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 216 (209 total deaths) 3.8% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 22,425 (21,746 total cases) 0.2% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 59.5% (453,453 fully vaccinated) 15.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 265 (2,021 total deaths) 27.4% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 22,561 (171,946 total cases) 0.8% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 59.5% (594,636 fully vaccinated) 15.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 255 (2,543 total deaths) 22.6% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 24,349 (243,273 total cases) 8.8% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 60.1% (115,817 fully vaccinated) 14.1% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 98 (189 total deaths) 52.9% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 15,080 (29,080 total cases) 32.6% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 61.0% (10,995 fully vaccinated) 12.9% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 288 (52 total deaths) 38.5% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 24,713 (4,458 total cases) 10.4% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 62.1% (61,965 fully vaccinated) 11.3% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 121 (121 total deaths) 41.8% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,903 (16,862 total cases) 24.5% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 62.3% (9,003 fully vaccinated) 11.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 35 (5 total deaths) 83.2% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 21,255 (3,070 total cases) 5.0% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 63.2% (178,956 fully vaccinated) 9.7% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 148 (419 total deaths) 28.8% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 19,204 (54,369 total cases) 14.2% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 63.6% (718 fully vaccinated) 9.1% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 0 (0 total deaths) 100.0% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 11,160 (126 total cases) 50.1% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 65.1% (88,209 fully vaccinated) 7.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 97 (132 total deaths) 53.4% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 14,065 (19,066 total cases) 37.2% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 65.2% (292,077 fully vaccinated) 6.9% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 95 (427 total deaths) 54.3% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 18,736 (83,869 total cases) 16.3% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 65.5% (260,819 fully vaccinated) 6.4% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 139 (554 total deaths) 33.2% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 17,158 (68,344 total cases) 23.3% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 65.8% (1,021,348 fully vaccinated) 6.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 175 (2,721 total deaths) 15.9% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 19,035 (295,432 total cases) 15.0% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 67.4% (58,505 fully vaccinated) 3.7% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 124 (108 total deaths) 40.4% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 17,606 (15,273 total cases) 21.3% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 67.9% (303,002 fully vaccinated) 3.0% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 143 (640 total deaths) 31.3% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 19,769 (88,267 total cases) 11.7% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 69.1% (152,441 fully vaccinated) 1.3% lower vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 131 (289 total deaths) 37.0% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 17,389 (38,342 total cases) 22.3% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 70.4% (44,192 fully vaccinated) 0.6% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 145 (91 total deaths) 30.3% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 20,915 (13,136 total cases) 6.6% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 70.6% (306,525 fully vaccinated) 0.9% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 157 (682 total deaths) 24.5% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 20,378 (88,451 total cases) 8.9% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 70.7% (597,890 fully vaccinated) 1.0% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 162 (1,372 total deaths) 22.1% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 21,184 (179,216 total cases) 5.3% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 71.5% (2,269,354 fully vaccinated) 2.1% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 201 (6,374 total deaths) 3.4% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 18,188 (577,597 total cases) 18.7% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 71.8% (7,207,914 fully vaccinated) 2.6% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 296 (29,691 total deaths) 42.3% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 27,463 (2,757,043 total cases) 22.7% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 74.0% (202,124 fully vaccinated) 5.7% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 92 (250 total deaths) 55.8% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 17,280 (47,212 total cases) 22.8% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 77.0% (380,819 fully vaccinated) 10.0% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 87 (431 total deaths) 58.2% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,706 (82,584 total cases) 25.4% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 77.7% (106,974 fully vaccinated) 11.0% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 92 (127 total deaths) 55.8% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 18,709 (25,771 total cases) 16.4% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 80.0% (2,670,929 fully vaccinated) 14.3% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 147 (4,914 total deaths) 29.3% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 23,190 (774,146 total cases) 3.6% more cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 80.2% (1,340,020 fully vaccinated) 14.6% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 101 (1,683 total deaths) 51.4% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 15,562 (260,093 total cases) 30.5% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 81.0% (934,099 fully vaccinated) 15.7% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 102 (1,179 total deaths) 51.0% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,913 (195,099 total cases) 24.4% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 82.7% (729,192 fully vaccinated) 18.1% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 86 (756 total deaths) 58.7% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 14,690 (129,496 total cases) 34.4% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 83.2% (637,551 fully vaccinated) 18.9% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 78 (595 total deaths) 62.5% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,138 (123,709 total cases) 27.9% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 84.4% (1,626,513 fully vaccinated) 20.6% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 110 (2,130 total deaths) 47.1% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 16,320 (314,619 total cases) 27.1% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 86.3% (223,426 fully vaccinated) 23.3% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 99 (255 total deaths) 52.4% less deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 13,828 (35,791 total cases) 38.2% less cases per 100k residents than California

Population that is fully vaccinated: 87.8% (159,066 fully vaccinated) 25.4% higher vaccination rate than California Cumulative deaths per 100k: 475 (860 total deaths) 128.4% more deaths per 100k residents than California Cumulative cases per 100k: 35,418 (64,183 total cases) 58.3% more cases per 100k residents than California

Original post:

Counties with the highest COVID-19 vaccination rate in California - fox5sandiego.com

With the global death toll from Covid-19 approaching 6 million, the need to understand the origins of the pandemic is both pressing and grave. But the National Institutes of Health continues to withhold critical documents that could shed light on this question. This week, in response to ongoing litigation over public records related to coronavirus research funded by the federal agency, the NIH sent The Intercept 292 fully redacted pages rather than substantive material that could help us understand how the virus first came to infect humans.

One of hundreds of redacted pages the NIH sent to The Intercept this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The lab-leak hypothesis is bolstered by a long history of accidents at facilities that study pathogens and the fact that one such laboratory that specializes in coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, is located in the very city where the pandemic first began. As many have noted, China has not been forthcoming with information that could help us understand the origins of the pandemic, blocking access to a cave that may hold important clues, taking a database of information about coronaviruses offline, and refusing requests for records from the World Health Organization.

But the U.S. government, which funded some of the coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through a New York-based research organization called EcoHealth Alliance, has also withheld information that could provide insight into the origins of the pandemic. The Intercept filed a Freedom of Information Act request in September 2020 for grants the NIH provided to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. At the time, only summaries of the research were publicly available. The NIH initially refused to provide the documents. It was only after The Intercept sued the federal agency that it agreed to provide thousands of pages of relevant materials.

Some of these releases have proven newsworthy. The grant proposals received in an initial batch of documents in September revealed thatscientists working under the grant inWuhan were engaged in what most knowledgeable experts we consulted described as gain-of-function experiments, in which scientists created mutant bat coronaviruses and used them to infect humanized mice. The mutant viruses proved more pathogenic and transmissible in the mice than the original viruses. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, denied that the U.S. had funded gain-of-function work in Wuhan.

Communications received by The Intercept in December provided insight into the agencys ongoing and largely unsuccessful efforts to obtain records pertaining to the biosafety of the work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And another grant proposal from EcoHealth Alliance that we received from the NIH clarified the extent to which ongoing work now funded by the U.S. government is similar to the work under the now-suspended bat coronavirus grantthat has raised so many biosafety red flags and questions. We also learned that in 2020 the FBI sought documents related to the U.S.-funded coronavirus research in Wuhan.

But the most recent batch of documents, which the NIH sent The Intercept on Tuesday, underscores an ongoing lack of transparency at the agency.Even as members of Congress and scientists call for additional information that could shed light on the origins of the pandemic, 292 of 314 pages more than 90 percent of the current release were completely redacted. Besides a big gray rectangle that obscures any meaningful text, the pages show only a date, page number, and the NIAID logo. The remaining pages also contain significant redactions.

Evenwhen the redactions are technically justifiable under the Freedom of Information Act,public agencies typically havethe discretion to release documents anyway.In this inquiry, which could help us understand thehow this pandemic began and how we might avoid future outbreaks the presumption should be to give the public as much as information as possible, not the least.

The NIH still had more than 1,400 pages of relevant documents in its possession when it issued the almost entirely redacted release to The Intercept. Despite broad bipartisan agreementabout the need to better understandwhether research could have led to the deadliest disease outbreak in recent history, the agency appears to have no urgency to make this critical information public.

Read this article:

NIH Sent The Intercept 292 Fully Redacted Pages Related to Virus Research in Wuhan - The Intercept

For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.

When the C.D.C. published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots, because the first two doses already left them well-protected.

The agency recently debuted a dashboard of wastewater data on its website that will be updated daily and might provide early signals of an oncoming surge of Covid cases. Some states and localities had been sharing wastewater information with the agency since the start of the pandemic, but it had never before released those findings.

Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the countrys response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said.

Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk. Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early.

Without the booster data for 18- to 49-year-olds, the outside experts whom federal health agencies look to for advice had to rely on numbers from Israel to make their recommendations on the shots.

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data because basically, at the end of the day, its not yet ready for prime time. She said the agencys priority when gathering any data is to ensure that its accurate and actionable.

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.

Dr. Daniel Jernigan, the agencys deputy director for public health science and surveillance said the pandemic exposed the fact that data systems at the C.D.C., and at the state levels, are outmoded and not up to handling large volumes of data. C.D.C. scientists are trying to modernize the systems, he said.

We want better, faster data that can lead to decision making and actions at all levels of public health, that can help us eliminate the lag in data that has held us back, he added.

The C.D.C. also has multiple bureaucratic divisions that must sign off on important publications, and its officials must alert the Department of Health and Human Services which oversees the agency and the White House of their plans. The agency often shares data with states and partners before making data public. Those steps can add delays.

The C.D.C. is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization, said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundations Pandemic Prevention Institute. The steps that it takes to get something like this released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the C.D.C.

The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger adults, is among the most glaring omissions in data the C.D.C. has made public.

Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The agency presented that information as risk comparisons with unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.

But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

Ms. Nordlund confirmed that as one of the reasons. Another reason, she said, is that the data represents only 10 percent of the population of the United States. But the C.D.C. has relied on the same level of sampling to track influenza for years.

Some outside public health experts were stunned to hear that information exists.

We have been begging for that sort of granularity of data for two years, said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an epidemiologist and part of the team that ran Covid Tracking Project, an independent effort that compiled data on the pandemic till March 2021.

A detailed analysis, she said, builds public trust, and it paints a much clearer picture of whats actually going on.

Concern about the misinterpretation of hospitalization data broken down by vaccination status is not unique to the C.D.C. On Thursday, public health officials in Scotland said they would stop releasing data on Covid hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status because of similar fears that the figures would be misrepresented by anti-vaccine groups.

Feb. 21, 2022, 9:57 p.m. ET

But the experts dismissed the potential misuse or misinterpretation of data as an acceptable reason for not releasing it.

We are at a much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums, than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats, Ms. Rivera said.

When the Delta variant caused an outbreak in Massachusetts last summer, the fact that three-quarters of those infected were vaccinated led people to mistakenly conclude that the vaccines were powerless against the virus validating the C.D.C.s concerns.

But that could have been avoided if the agency had educated the public from the start that as more people are vaccinated, the percentage of vaccinated people who are infected or hospitalized would also rise, public health experts said.

Tell the truth, present the data, said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and adviser to the Food and Drug Administration. I have to believe that there is a way to explain these things so people can understand it.

Knowing which groups of people were being hospitalized in the United States, which other conditions those patients may have had and how vaccines changed the picture over time would have been invaluable, Dr. Offit said.

Relying on Israeli data to make booster recommendations for Americans was less than ideal, Dr. Offit noted. Israel defines severe disease differently than the United States, among other factors.

Theres no reason that they should be better at collecting and putting forth data than we were, Dr. Offit said of Israeli scientists. The C.D.C. is the principal epidemiological agency in this country, and so you would like to think the data came from them.

It has also been difficult to find C.D.C. data on the proportion of children hospitalized for Covid who have other medical conditions, said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, chair of the American Academy of Pediatricss Committee on Infectious Diseases.

The academys staff asked their partners at the C.D.C. for that information on a call in December, according to a spokeswoman for the A.A.P., and were told it was unavailable.

Booster shots. A flurry of new studies suggests three doses of a Covid vaccine or even just two can provide long-term protectionfrom serious illness and death. The studies come as U.S. health officials have said that they are unlikely to recommenda fourth dose before the fall.

C.D.C. data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published only a tiny fraction of the Covid data it has collected, including critical data on boosters and hospitalizations, citing incomplete reports or fears of misinterpretation. Critics say the practice causes confusion.

Ms. Nordlund pointed to data on the agencys website that includes this information, and to multiple published reports on pediatric hospitalizations with information on children who have other health conditions.

The pediatrics academy has repeatedly asked the C.D.C. for an estimate on the contagiousness of a person infected with the coronavirus five days after symptoms begin but Dr. Maldonado finally got the answer from an article in The New York Times in December.

Theyve known this for over a year and a half, right, and they havent told us, she said. I mean, you cant find out anything from them.

Experts in wastewater analysis were more understanding of the C.D.C.s slow pace of making that data public. The C.D.C. has been building the wastewater system since September 2020, and the capacity to present the data over the past few months, Ms. Nordlund said. In the meantime, the C.D.C.s state partners have had access to the data, she said.

Despite the cautious preparation, the C.D.C. released the wastewater data a week later than planned. The Covid Data Tracker is updated only on Thursdays, and the day before the original release date, the scientists who manage the tracker realized they needed more time to integrate the data.

It wasnt because the data wasnt ready, it was because the systems and how it physically displayed on the page wasnt working the way that they wanted it to, Ms. Nordlund said.

The C.D.C. has received more than $1 billion to modernize its systems, which may help pick up the pace, Ms. Nordlund said. Were working on that, she said.

The agencys public dashboard now has data from 31 states. Eight of those states, including Utah, began sending their figures to the C.D.C. in the fall of 2020. Some relied on scientists volunteering their expertise; others paid private companies. But many others, such as Mississippi, New Mexico and North Dakota, have yet to begin tracking wastewater.

Utahs fledgling program in April 2020 has now grown to cover 88 percent of the states population, with samples being collected twice a week, according to Nathan LaCross, who manages Utahs wastewater surveillance program.

Wastewater data reflects the presence of the virus in an entire community, so it is not plagued by the privacy concerns attached to medical information that would normally complicate data release, experts said.

There are a bunch of very important and substantive legal and ethical challenges that dont exist for wastewater data, Dr. Scarpino said. That lowered bar should certainly mean that data could flow faster.

Tracking wastewater can help identify areas experiencing a high burden of cases early, Dr. LaCross said. That allows officials to better allocate resources like mobile testing teams and testing sites.

Wastewater is also a much faster and more reliable barometer of the spread of the virus than the number of cases or positive tests. Well before the nation became aware of the Delta variant, for example, scientists who track wastewater had seen its rise and alerted the C.D.C., Dr. Scarpino said. They did so in early May, just before the agency famously said vaccinated people could take off their masks.

Even now, the agency is relying on a technique that captures the amount of virus, but not the different variants in the mix, said Mariana Matus, chief executive officer of BioBot Analytics, which specializes in wastewater analysis. That will make it difficult for the agency to spot and respond to outbreaks of new variants in a timely manner, she said.

It gets really exhausting when you see the private sector working faster than the premier public health agency of the world, Ms. Rivera said.

Link:

The C.D.C. Isnt Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects - The New York Times

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) With February being heart month, Baystate Health is highlighting a treatment thats been used for decades for heart related conditions but is now saving the lives of some of the sickest COVID-19 patients.

Its called an ECMO. Its used as a last resort for COVID patients. But the cardiac surgeon 22News spoke with at Baystate said its showing results. Baystate Medical Center is the only hospital west of Boston that offers this procedure in the state.

ECMO stands for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Heres how it works, the machine pumps the blood and brings oxygen to a persons body, and that allows the lungs to rest.

Doctor Daniel Engelman, the Baystate Cardiac Surgical Critical Care Medical Director, told 22News, And then we give all the antiviral treatments we can and then the body kind of takes over. And over time, I would say 50% of the people who go on this machine survive to the point where theyre walking out of the hospital. These are the people where 100% of them would have died.

Doctor Engleman add that while this treatment can be a literal lifesaver, he said the need for it could be avoided if people got vaccinated, and therefore protected themselves from serious illness or death. In fact, every person theyve used this treatment on here at Baystate, he said, was unvaccinated.

See more here:

ECMO: Baystate Healths lifesaving COVID-19 treatment - WWLP.com

Fluvoxamine is often prescribed to treat depression, while ivermectin is used to treat parasitic infections.

UVA Health has signed on to a national study on whether two medications ivermectin and fluvoxamine can be used to treat COVID-19.

About 15,000 Americans in total are expected to be involved in the trial.

While we have some great new drugs for COVID-19 in outpatients supplies are limited and its still important to find potential new treatments, said Dr. Patrick E.H. Jackson, who is leading the clinical trial at UVA Health.

Because the drugs were studying are cheap and widely available, they could have a huge global impact if we find theyre effective for COVID treatment.

Fluvoxamine is often prescribed to treat depression, while ivermectin is used to treat parasitic infections. (The Food and Drug Administration currently recommends that ivermectin not be used to treat COVID-19, and a study published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the drug does not prevent severe COVID cases.)

To be eligible for the study, participants must be at least 30 years old and have tested positive for COVID within the previous 10 days. They also must have at least two COVID symptoms for seven days or less.

UVA Health says participants do not have to live near a research site, because the medications can be shipped to their homes at no cost.

Find more information on the trial by visiting activ6study.org or calling (833) 385-1880.

More Coronavirus News

Looking for more information? D.C., Maryland and Virginia are each releasing more data every day. Visit their official sites here:Virginia|Maryland|D.C.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow WTOP on Twitter and Instagram to engage in conversation about this article and others.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

2022 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Original post:

UVA Health to test ivermectin, other drug to treat COVID - WTOP

BRAIN

Inflammation and low oxygen levels may cause cognitive problems.

LUNGS

Early evidence of oxygen limitations.

CIRCULATORY SYSTEM

Vascular damage and blood clots may trigger fatigue.

IMMUNE SYSTEM

Autoantibodies or viral remnants may set off a chain reaction.

BRAIN

Inflammation and low oxygen levels may cause cognitive problems.

LUNGS

Early evidence of oxygen limitations.

CIRCULATORY

SYSTEM

Vascular damage and blood clots may trigger fatigue.

IMMUNE SYSTEM

Autoantibodies or viral remnants may set off a chain reaction.

Millions of people continue to suffer from exhaustion, cognitive problems and other long-lasting symptoms after a coronavirus infection. The exact causes of the illness, known as long Covid, are not known. But new research offers clues, describing the toll the illness takes on the body and why it can be so debilitating.

Patients with severe Covid may wind up in hospitals or on ventilators until their symptoms resolve. Damage to the body from severe Covid pneumonia, low oxygen, inflammation typically shows up on traditional diagnostic tests.

Long Covid is different: A chronic illness with a wide variety of symptoms, many of which are not explainable using conventional lab tests. Difficulties in detecting the illness have led some doctors to dismiss patients, or to misdiagnose their symptoms as psychosomatic. But researchers looking more deeply at long Covid patients have found visible dysfunction throughout the body.

Studies estimate that perhaps 10 to 30 percent of people infected with the coronavirus may develop long-term symptoms. Its unclear why some people develop long Covid and others dont, but four factors appear to increase the risk: high levels of viral RNA early during an infection, the presence of certain autoantibodies, the reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus and having Type 2 diabetes.

Dang, why am I always so sick? Messiah Rodriguez, 17

Long Covid patients appear to have disrupted immune systems compared to post-Covid patients who fully recover. Many researchers believe chronic immune dysfunction after a coronavirus infection may set off a chain of symptoms throughout the body.

One possibility is that the body is still fighting remnants of the coronavirus. Researchers found that the virus spreads widely during an initial infection, and that viral genetic material can remain embedded in tissues in the intestines, lymph nodes and elsewhere for many months.

Ongoing studies are trying to determine if these viral reservoirs cause inflammation in surrounding tissues, which could lead to brain fog, gastrointestinal problems and other symptoms.

Start of small intestine (duodenum)

End of small intestine (terminal ileum)

Start of small intestine (duodenum)

End of small intestine (terminal ileum)

Researchers have also found evidence that Covid may trigger a lasting and damaging autoimmune response. Studies have found surprisingly high levels of autoantibodies, which mistakenly attack a patients own tissues, many months after an initial infection.

A third possibility is that the initial viral infection triggers chronic inflammation, possibly by reactivating other viruses in the patients body that are normally dormant. The reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus, which infects most people when they are young, might help predict whether a person will develop long Covid, one study found.

Inside the intricate world of the immune system, these explanations may coexist. And just as different long Covid patients may have different symptoms, they may also have different immune problems, too. Identifying the problems that are central to each patients illness will be critical for guiding treatment, said Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale.

For instance, a patient with autoantibodies might benefit from immunosuppressive medication, while a patient with remants of the Covid virus should receive antivirals, Dr. Iwasaki said. Depending on what each person has, the treatment would be quite different.

Something as simple as climbing on a ladder all of a sudden became a mountain. Eddie Palacios, 50

Many long Covid patients struggle with physical activity long after their initial infection, and experience a relapse of symptoms if they exercise. Initial studies suggest that dysfunction in the circulatory system might impair the flow of oxygen to muscles and other tissues, limiting aerobic capacity and causing severe fatigue.

In one study, patients with long-lasting Covid symptoms had unexpected responses to riding a bike. Despite having apparently normal hearts and lungs, their muscles were only able to extract a portion of the normal amount of oxygen from small blood vessels as they pedaled, markedly reducing their exercise capacity.

One possible culprit: Chronic inflammation may damage nerve fibers that help control circulation, a condition called small fiber neuropathy. The damaged fibers, seen in skin biopsies, are associated with dysautonomia, a malfunction of automatic functions like heart rate, breathing and digestion that is very common in long Covid patients.

These findings demonstrate that people with long Covid are suffering systemic physical problems, rather than just being anxious or out of shape, said Dr. David M. Systrom, an exercise physiologist at Brigham and Womens Hospital who helped conduct the bike study.

You cant make up small fiber neuropathy by skin biopsy. That isnt in somebodys head, Dr. Systrom said. You cant make up poor oxygen extraction to this degree. All of these are objective measures of disease.

South African researchers found another circulation problem: Microscopic blood clots. Tiny clots that form during an initial Covid infection will typically break down naturally, but might persist in long Covid patients. These clots could block the tiny capillaries that carry oxygen to tissues throughout the body.

Inflammatory substances called cytokines, which are often elevated in long Covid patients, may injure the mitochondria that power the bodys cells, making them less able to use oxygen. Walls of blood vessels may also become inflamed, limiting the uptake of oxygen.

Whatever the cause, low oxygen levels may contribute to long Covids most common symptom, severe fatigue. Researchers studying patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as ME/CFS), which shares many features with long Covid, found a similar pattern: A lack of oxygen triggered by circulatory problems puts enormous strain on the bodys metabolism, making simple activities feel like strenuous exercise.

I approach a red light, my brain knows that its red, but its not reacting to the rest of my body to put my foot on the brake. Do you understand how terrifying that is? Samantha Lewis, 34

Even people with mild cases of Covid can experience sustained cognitive impairments, including reduced attention, memory and word-finding. Possible long-term neurological problems from Covid constitute a major public health crisis, according to Dr. Avindra Nath, the clinical director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Researchers found a wide range of dysfunction in the brains of long Covid patients. Although it is unclear how often the virus directly penetrates the brain, even mild infections appear to cause significant brain inflammation, according to the researchers, who included Dr. Nath, Dr. Iwasaki and Dr. Michelle Monje, a neurologist at Stanford.

Infections may trigger the over-activation of immune cells called microglia in a way that appears similar to the process that can contribute to cognitive problems in aging and some neurodegenerative diseases.

Healthy brain tissue (white matter)

Brain tissue in a Covid patient (white matter)

Healthy brain tissue (gray matter)

Brain tissue in a Covid patient (gray matter)

Healthy brain tissue (white matter)

Brain tissue in a Covid patient (white matter)

Another research group found that long Covid may significantly reduce the amount of blood that reaches the brain, a finding that has also been seen in patients with a similar condition, chronic fatigue syndrome.

I couldnt breathe. It literally felt like someone was sitting on my chest. Angelica Baez, 23

Shortness of breath is a frequent symptom of long Covid. But common lung tests including chest X-rays, CT scans and functional tests often come back normal.

Using specialized M.R.I. scans, a team of British researchers found preliminary evidence of lung damage in a small group of long Covid patients who had never been hospitalized. Detailed scans of their lung function indicated that most of the patients took up oxygen less efficiently than healthy people did, even if the structure of their lungs appeared to be normal.

The researchers cautioned that a larger group of patients will be needed to confirm the findings. If the results hold up, possible explanations for the observed shortness of breath include microclots in lung tissues or a thickening of the blood-air barrier that regulates the uptake of oxygen in the lungs.

Its really not something you can push through. Dr. Abigail Bosk

Many hospitals now offer post-Covid clinics or recovery programs, which bring together doctors with experience treating long Covid patients. Given the number of patients, some doctors and programs have long waits for appointments. It can help to plan ahead and try multiple options.

Survivor Corps keeps a directory of post-Covid clinics.

Dysautonomia International offers a list of doctors with experience treating autonomic disorders commonly seen in long Covid.

Body Politic hosts a Covid support group where thousands of long haulers share information and advice on Slack.

The Long Covid Support Group hosts a community on Facebook.

The Royal College of Occupational Therapists offers advice for managing post-Covid fatigue.

An essay from Maria Farrell offers advice on how to get well, and the importance of making time to rest.

Americans with long Covid may qualify for disability benefits, although without conclusive medical results, many people face roadblocks.

Three leading researchers into long Covid often share information about the latest findings on Twitter: Dr. Amy Proal, a microbiologist at PolyBio Research Institute; Dr. David Putrino, the director of rehabilitation innovation for the Mount Sinai Health System; and Dr. Iwasaki, the Yale immunologist.

Health Rising covers the latest research into long Covid, ME/CFS and other chronic illnesses in detail.

Gez Medinger, a video producer, interviews some prominent researchers into long Covid on YouTube.

A video interview with Dr. Svetlana Blitshteyn, a neurologist and the director of the Dysautonomia Clinic, offers advice for treatment and an overview of current research into autonomic disorders.

A detailed guide to understanding, treating and living with orthostatic intolerance is available from the Johns Hopkins Childrens Center.

The Times has written extensively about long Covid, including:

Here is the original post:

How Long Covid Exhausts the Body - The New York Times

A rapid antigen test shows a positive test result for COVID-19. Odd Andersen /AFP via Getty Images hide caption

A rapid antigen test shows a positive test result for COVID-19.

Each week, we answer frequently asked questions about life during the coronavirus crisis. If you have a question you'd like us to consider for a future post, email us at goatsandsoda@npr.org with the subject line: "Weekly Coronavirus Questions." See an archive of our FAQs here.

I'm in my 50s. If I'm going to get COVID, it seems like it would be better to get it before I'm older and in a higher-risk category. So should I try to get COVID before I turn 60?

We spoke to three specialists and they all agree.

Definitely not, says Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician at Stanford University.

"It's lunacy," says Dr. Sarah Fortune, professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

"There are very few times in medicine where we say go ahead and get the disease, because for the most part getting the disease is not good," says Dr. Fred Pelzman, associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City. "Once a vaccine became available for chicken pox, for example, no one was saying, go ahead and expose your child to chicken pox."

Now it is true that being infected confers a degree of natural immunity. There's growing evidence that a symptomatic infection likely offers protection against severe disease and death for a few years in the general population. But protection against a second infection wanes quickly, probably after about six months.

And there are huge cautionary notes that our experts sounded. Here are the reasons not to try and catch the disease as a pre-emptive measure.

"Someone saying they want to get the disease now [before] they turn 60 is based on population data that older people do worse with COVID," says Pelzman. "But we don't know that the person in their 50s isn't going to have a terrible outcome."

"Every time you get sick with COVID there is a small but not zero risk of bad things happening," says Fortune. For example, one study, published last week, analyzed who has been hospitalized during the delta and omicron surges. About half of the people hospitalized were over age 64, but nearly 30% of them were between ages 45 and 64.

No matter your age, you still have a risk of having symptoms linger for months or developing long COVID, Karan says. Right now, scientists don't know what that risk is for an infection with omicron.

What's more, he notes, there's "the chance that COVID-19 could exacerbate other underlying conditions given it causes a significant amount of inflammation in the body."

And if you are in contact with kids under age 5, for whom there is currently no vaccine approved in the U.S., you run the risk of spreading COVID to them as well as to immuno-compromised people you're in contact with.

"I'm 53, I'm pretty risk tolerant," says Fortune. "I'm going to take more risks in terms of reengaging with people than others might be comfortable with, but I'm not going to a COVID party."

Another point to consider: Both treatments and vaccines will likely improve as the years pass, Karan says. "And we will have a better understanding by then of what the long-term costs of getting infected are on human health."

"For all we know, by the time the person now in their 50s is in their 60s, we could have a single pill for treatment," says Pelzman. "So risking a severe case now or passing it to others who are vulnerable won't have been worth it."

As he sums it up: "There's no reason to put yourself in harm's way for something you'd say, 'I wish I hadn't done that.' "

Sheila Mulrooney Eldred is a freelance health journalist in Minneapolis. She has written about COVID-19 for many publications, including The New York Times, Kaiser Health News, Medscape and The Washington Post. More at sheilaeldred.pressfolios.com. On Twitter: @milepostmedia.

Fran Kritz is a health policy reporter based in Washington, D.C., who has contributed to The Washington Post and Kaiser Health News. Find her on Twitter: @fkritz

Continue reading here:

Coronavirus FAQ: Is it a good idea to get COVID before I'm over 60 and at higher risk? - NPR

State-funded infection sampling

First reports suggested that this service was going to be withdrawn, but news agency reports on Saturday indicated it was now likely to be maintained. Officials were quoted as saying that the governments Living with Covid plan would maintain resilience against any future variants with ongoing surveillance capabilities.

The move comes after senior statisticians argued that some form of the Office for National Statistics coronavirus study should remain in place. Sir David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University told BBC Radio 4s Today programme that the ONSs Covid-19 Infection Survey had been vital for monitoring behaviour. Lots of people are saying how important it is, particularly the statistical community.

This point was backed by Prof Sylvia Richardson, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who said: Throughout the pandemic, national surveillance studies have provided invaluable information to support decision making.

The legal duty to self-isolate after testing positive for coronavirus is expected to end this week. The prime minister is due to announce the move as part of his living with Covid plan, in which all pandemic regulations that restrict public freedoms in England will be terminated. Local authorities will be required to manage outbreaks with existing public health powers, as they would with other diseases. Downing Street said pharmaceutical interventions would continue to be our first line of defence, with the vaccine programme remaining open to anyone who has not yet come forward.

But the change worries many scientists. Removing the requirement for isolation in the face of high infection levels will inevitably result in increased spread of the virus, said Prof Lawrence Young, a virologist at Warwick University. This may give people a false sense of security. We must not let our guard down.

Free home-delivered lateral flow tests for all are likely to be scrapped in the near future. The move will save the government a great deal of money but will make it difficult to maintain mass surveillance of the virus, as scientists have warned.

Even though the pandemic may appear to be ending, it has not yet ended, said Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute. There are no guarantees that new, more pathogenic variants will not emerge. Despite the successes of vaccination, many people are still at risk. Any significant reduction in testing will jeopardise lives and compromise our ability to monitor the appearance of new variants.

See original here:

What happens next with Covid protocols? - The Guardian

No one wants their geographic region to be associated with a deadly disease. Unfortunately, this has happened in the past with diseases such as German measles, Spanish flu and Asiatic cholera.

It happens today, too, even though the World Health Organization advises against naming pathogens for places to minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations, economies and people. By Feb. 11, 2020, the WHO had announced that the official name for the novel coronavirus just starting its spread around the world would be severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2. The illness it caused would be called COVID-19, short for Coronavirus Disease of 2019.

Yet some politicians, conservative journalists and others persisted in calling the COVID-19 virus the Chinese virus, or some variant of this term, such as the China virus, Wuhan virus (after the Chinese city that first reported the virus), Chinese flu and Kung flu.

Does it matter?

Hateful behavior against Asians in the U.S. and many other countries rose after the start of the pandemic. According to the FBI, anti-Asian hate crimes increased by 73% in 2020.

Social scientists like me are investigating the kinds of repercussions racialized framing like calling the coronavirus Chinese can have.

The way media frame, depict and describe events can have a profound influence on the publics perception of those events. Researchers have found that audiences are prone to interpret media stories in the context of their biases, especially in relation to racial groups.

My colleagues Lanier Frush Holt, Sophie Kjrvik and I found that simply reading one media article calling the coronavirus the Chinese virus made people more likely to blame China for the pandemic.

We randomly split a diverse sample of 614 American adults into two groups. One read a fabricated news article that labeled the coronavirus as the Chinese virus. The other read an identical article except for labeling the coronavirus as the COVID-19 virus.

There were important differences in how the articles were perceived. For instance, Democrats and more liberal individuals judged the Chinese virus article much more negatively than did Republicans and more conservative individuals. But overall, we found that participants who read the Chinese virus article were 8.5% more likely to agree with the statement China is responsible for the current global pandemic than were those who read the COVID-19 virus article.

The effect of reading that one article with Chinese virus language was not huge, and we wouldnt expect it to be. The attitudes and beliefs that people brought with them before they read the story had a greater influence on their likelihood to blame China for the pandemic than did the framing language. But the fact that reading a single Chinese virus article did have an impact on readers with a range of political leanings shows the power of labeling a disease for a geographic region.

Other researchers have also found connections between the Chinese virus label and anti-Asian sentiments.

One study linked then-president Donald Trumps tweet on March 16, 2020, that referred to the Chinese Virus with a rise in anti-Asian hashtags.

When pressed on his repeated use of the term Chinese virus, Trump told reporters at a news briefing: Its not racist at all. Its from China. Thats why. It comes from China. I want to be accurate.

When researchers studied 1.2 million hashtags on Twitter in March 2020, they found that approximately 1 in 5 hashtags used in tweets along with #covid19 were anti-Asian, whereas half of the hashtags used alongside #chinesevirus were. Chinese virus wasnt just an innocent statement of reality, as Trump seemed to contend. It was often paired with racist sentiment.

As racially stigmatizing language like Chinese virus increased in the media in March 2020, so did the belief that Asian Americans are less American than their white counterparts.

Another study found that exposure to conspiracy theories and misinformation linking China to the spread and creation of the coronavirus was correlated with an increase in anti-Chinese sentiment and xenophobia.

Use of terms like Chinese virus by the media and political leaders is unlikely to change a persons beliefs or attitudes. But it can trigger negative stereotypes that can heighten prejudice and possibly even incite incidents of hate.

Just as biomedical researchers try to understand how pathogens spread through a population, social scientists are working to understand the spread of hate and prejudice. Unfortunately, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic and anti-Asian bias, only a brief exposure to racially charged language can have negative impacts.

[Research into coronavirus and other news from science Subscribe to The Conversations new science newsletter.]

See the original post here:

Calling the coronavirus the 'Chinese virus' matters research connects the label with racist bias - The Conversation US

When Peter Coleman took a rapid antigen test just weeks after recovering from Covid-19, it was partially for the fun of it.

Peter and his husband first tested positive to the virus on 10 January, during the post-holiday period that saw a spike in cases hit Melbourne and much of Australia.

I was feeling really unwell but I didnt expect to be positive, I thought Id just double check, he says.

I was on the phone with my friend after I took the test, and then I looked over and I was just like I have to go like, what the hell?

Peter is one of the unlucky Australians to have been reinfected with Covid-19 after making a full or partial recovery from the virus.

No data on Covid-19 reinfections is currently being collated by the federal government. But a spokesperson from the Department of Health says the emergence of Omicron has seen a significant increase in the risk of reinfection compared with previous variants.

There is increasing evidence that there is little cross-neutralisation with Omicron, the spokesperson says.

Whether Omicron infection protects against another Omicron infection is unclear and there remains significant uncertainty about the durability of immunity following infection with the emergence of Omicron.

When Peter first acquired the virus, he was hit by brain fog so bad he forgot how to order food on Uber Eats, along with muscle aches and fatigue. The second time, though, symptoms were very different more akin to a common cold or flu.

Peter, who works from home, says he had no idea where he acquired the second infection, only that it happened just outside the 30-day period when he initially tested positive.

Fully vaccinated, Peter expects he had been hit by the Omicron strain, but has no way to know for sure.

Peter says the second bout was relatively minor. When a nurse rang to check on him, she asked if he was feeling depressed.

I said not depressed, unimpressed Ru Pauls Drag Race is really helping me through.

The Communicable Disease Network Australia continues to monitor the evidence on reinfection and whether the definition of reinfection in the national public health guidelines requires review.

If someone is re-exposed to the virus in the 28 days after being released from isolation, theyre exempt from further quarantine a decision last reviewed on 2 February.

A senior research fellow at the Kirby Institutes infection analytics program, Dr Deborah Cromer, says the likelihood of acquiring a Covid-19 infection twice is partially dependent on the variant and time since vaccination.

While two doses of the vaccine provides protection against symptomatic disease upwards of 80% or 90% with Delta, with Omicron it drops to about 70% for mRNA vaccinations and 40-50% for AstraZeneca.

Once receiving a booster, though, protection increases to 70-80%.

Very early on when the original strain was circulating, we were asking how much protection someone who has the disease had from getting the disease again, Deborah says.

The trials show people whove had the Pfizer vaccine primary dose have twice as much [immunity] as someone whos recovered from normal virus. But all vaccines are primarily giving you immunity targeted against the original strain.

Deborah says once someone has acquired the virus, they have specific immunity against that variant, as well as some general immunity against SARS-Cov-2.

Youre less likely to get the same variant again, but youre certainly not completely protected, she says. Nevertheless, we would expect it to be less severe. Protection will grow, like what we see with the flu now.

While Covid-19 has some key differences from the flu, Deborah says similarities exist, as it is possible to have both viruses without symptoms or with mild symptoms, and repeated exposure encourages the body to have good immunity.

Thats probably where [Covid-19] will eventually go, Deborah says.

Each time you experience a SARS-Cov-2 infection, your immunity will be boosted somewhat, which would mean the next time youll still have some immunity remaining.

Clancy Read first tested positive to the virus during Fijis second wave in August of last year. Living in Suva, her and her family had lived a relatively Covid-free life until shit hit the fan in April.

We were a close contact, and all went and got tested. My daughter, who was two at the time, was the only one who came back positive, she says.

We were moving houses it was just a disaster. So we isolated by ourselves, and as soon as we got to the new house, I got really sick.

It was in the chest, in my breathing, Id be laying there in the middle of the night thinking Oh God, at what point do you say I need to call it and seek medical attention?

Clancy thinks that if she had been in Australia, she would have admitted herself to hospital but feared being split from her husband and daughter and getting sicker alone.

The hardest part was not knowing how bad it was going to get, she says. The psychological symptoms were just as bad to the physical ones.

Then, after months of slow recovery, the Christmas period arrived and Clancy tested positive again.

We all got sick, and I assume it was Omicron, she says. I was flattened for two weeks, but it wasnt as frightening I wasnt in tears in the night thinking Oh my God, am I going to die?

Now the families that havent had Covid are nervous, they want to get it over and done with, whereas were happy to be out and about together Theres an element of relief.

Deborah says that as the pandemic continued, it wouldnt be particularly unlikely to be reinfected with the virus.

Weve had a relatively small time window for people to have repeated infections in Australia. It might be unlikely [now] because of that, she says. But from a theoretical point of view, having Covid is not special you get some level of immunity from having had the disease and some from vaccination. Both will boost your immunity.

Eleanor is still suffering from her exposure to the virus. She first tested positive to Covid at the start of January during the Omicron wave, after her housemate contracted the virus.

Eleanor, who did not want to use her surname, had a range of symptoms headaches, diarrhea, shortness of breath, insomnia which began to subside within a few days. But then her second housemate returned from work out of town weeks later, and tested positive upon his arrival. This time she had different symptoms.

Fever, chills, cough, swollen glands.

Eleanor is normally an active person she does rock climbing as well as regular workouts with a personal trainer.

Now I have shortness of breath, a racing heart, she says. I really struggle with exercise and get puffed really easily and I have an ongoing cough triggered by laughing.

I get frustrated by people saying its a minor cold or flu. Im a healthy 33-year-old and Ive had shortness of breath for over a month now. Getting Covid twice is more than enough.

Read the rest here:

What the hell?: the unlucky Australians who have caught Covid twice - The Guardian