Category: Corona Virus

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic enters a third calendar year, the Department of Health and Human Services is poised to make key decisions about future access to the pathogen. This moment in history may prove to be an important inflection point in the regulation of emergent pandemic pathogens and is an occasion for careful reconsideration of the decision-making process. While regulation plays an important role in securing against accidental or intentional release of biological threats, missteps resulting in overregulation could stymie scientific progress, leading to deficiencies in public health preparedness and security infrastructure in the long term.

Todays list of the most dangerous biological agents, which is key to regulating their possession, use, and transfer, first took form in 1996 as a list of select infectious agents proposedby the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense. Throughout its history, the list has served as a mechanism for bolstering the biosecurity of the United States by preventing unauthorized access, theft, loss, or release of dangerous pathogens and toxins. This is orchestrated by the Federal Select Agents Program (FSAP), which rigorously reviews individual and laboratory requests to possess and work with restricted agents. In addition, the regulations guide regular inspections of laboratory facilities and protocols, review of import and transfer requests, and penalties in the case of failure to meet standards (see box below). Over time, the type and number of agents included have changed, and todays list contains 67 pathogens and toxins. The addition of a new agent is relatively unusual; however, it is reasonable to assume that additions of the future are likely to be emergent diseases with significant risks to global health security.

At first blush, SARS-CoV-2 may seem to fall squarely into this category. If added to the select agents list, it would be the first novel pandemic pathogen added since its close relative SARS-CoV-1 was included in 2012. But the decision isnt as simple as it may appear. Not every dangerous pathogen that emerges makes the listfor example, another deadly coronavirus, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV), was discovered in 2012 but has not been added. And pathogens including HIV and the bacterium causing tuberculosis, two diseases that represent a considerable proportion of the global infectious disease burden annually, have not made the cut, either.

Clearly, criteria beyond novelty, pandemic potential, and total fatalities factor into whether an agent is select. But these factors are not as clearly defined as one might think. Four general criteria were determined by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which considers the virulence or toxicity of an agent, its mode of transmission, and the availability of treatments. But from a critical analysis of agents on the list, its apparent that further, unwritten factors are routinely considered, which confuses an already obfuscated process. In 2010, the National Research Council more carefully describedthe actual criteria that appear to be used, based on the agents on the list currently, and this analysis expanded the considerations to include the ability to produce and disseminate the agent at scale, the publics perception of the microorganism or toxin, and previous reports of bioweapons research on the agent. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not clarified its official criteria in response.

There is a reason for this lack of transparency: it is the general stance of the US government that the exact deliberations behind an agents inclusion or exclusion is information that, if public, would pose a risk to national security. But obfuscation of how agents become select and a dearth of clear guidelines and metrics for evaluating the effectivenessof the attendant regulations has frustrated many in the scientific community. Some see the list as an obstacle to biosecurity advancements that ultimately leads to negative effects, such as the destruction of invaluable microbial collectionsand the shuttering of important research programs. These effects have stemmed from a variety of restrictions, most notably burdensome transport logistics, reporting rules, and the massive security and safety installation costs necessary to make a laboratory compliant for work with a select agent.

As a first step in addressing whether SARS-CoV-2 deserves select agent status, HHS has presented an interim rule in the Federal Register that seeks to add chimeras combining features of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 to the select agents list. This is in line with the stance of the government to carefully review and often limit dual-use research of concern, and in particular, gain of function research. However, in our estimation, such chimeric viruses are already regulated by the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts access to HHS select agents and toxins . . . that have been genetically modified. This newly proposed regulation is therefore duplicative and unnecessary.

The natural next question is: Should SARS-CoV-2 be added to the select agents list? Such a decision seems premature, at best. It is worth noting that the additionof SARS-CoV-1 took nearly a decade, and was a contentiouschoice even then. At the very least, more time is warranted to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 meets the full range of criteria for selection, particularly in regard to whether it could be a desirable candidate for bioweapon development by nefarious actors. Further, the situation begs for the governments reconsideration of the criteria themselves, both stated and presumed. How dynamic do the criteria allow the security community to be in the face of emergent, novel pathogens, which may represent the clearest examples of the select agents of the future? What improvements can be made in the clarity and stringency of such criteria to enhance scientific progress on protective measures without risking national security? And to similar ends, should we establish clearer and more transparent guidelines for future addition and removal of listed agents?

Our position is that regulation of an emergent pathogen is not in the best interest of public health during an ongoing pandemic, and we argue against regulation of any material that may play a role in development and promulgation of necessary biological technologies for preparedness and mitigation efforts. To support this position, we have evaluated SARS-CoV-2 using the National Research Council criteria, and from this analysis, can come to some general conclusions, presented in the table below.

Virulence, pathogenicity, or toxicity of the organism; its potential to cause death or serious disease

Yes

Clearly met and is likely to remain a risk for a significant period of time

Availability of treatments such as vaccines or drugs to control the consequences of a release or epidemic

Partial

Will clearly present lower risk in the near future as a result of mass vaccination campaigns, concomitant protection from vaccination and natural infection, other emerging therapeutic approaches, and general public health precautions like isolation and quarantine

Transmissibility of the organism; its potential to cause an uncontrolled epidemic

Partial

Ease of preparing the organism in sufficient quantity and stability for use as a bioterrorism agent; for example, the ability to prepare large quantities of stable microbial spores

-

Relate more specifically to bioterrorism concerns that are difficult to assess currently. It is still too early to determine the possibility of preparing SARS-CoV-2 at scale, and while ease of dissemination would appear to be high due to natural transmission dynamics, considerations that exclude criteria 2 and 3 will similarly temper this as a risk factor

Ease of disseminating the organism in a bioterrorism event to cause mass casualties; for example, by aerosolization

-

Public perception of the organism; its potential to cause societal disruption by mass panic

Partial

Remains a risk factor, but this is likely to wane precipitously in the near term as infections become less severe and common

Known research and development efforts on the organism by national bioweapons programs

-

While some have claimed that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory, until data is presented to support these claims, we determine this risk to be inapplicable

SARS-CoV-2 appears to soundly fit only one of these seven criteria, and it is too early to determine whether ongoing biomedical research and public health efforts will successfully alleviate the concerns put forth in three others. While there is not a defined threshold for how many criteria an agent must meet to be selected, there are other pathogens that better fit these criteria which are noton the list. As an example, HIV meets criteria 1, 2 (partial), 3, and 7 more than 35 years after its discovery and has still not been designated a select agent. This illustrates that even these expanded criteria fail to encompass all of the factors that go into government decision-making, in large part because they are undisclosed.

Ultimately, the decision about whether SARS-CoV-2 is named a select agent has broad implications for the scientific and policy communities. Regulation in this manner would severely restrict access to clinical and field samples, and would result in a mass destruction and consolidation campaign the likes of which may rival the one ongoingfor polio, which, though not a select agent, is the subject of an $5.1B eradication effort that includes destroying most samples of the virus and restricting others to certain well-secured labs. Such a campaign for SARS-CoV-2 would have economic ramifications that, while perhaps not debilitating for individual laboratories, are clearly burdensome. But more importantly, these burdens would translate to unavoidable losses in research productivity, which may ultimately harm public health security both in the US and globally. In particular, the development of therapeutics and the acquisition of fundamental knowledge about coronavirus biology could be hobbled.

These concerns are echoes of the past; the scientific community has voiced them before, when SARS-CoV was under consideration for addition to the select agents list. As a biosecurity community, we must seriously consider whether the decision to make SARS-CoV a select agent was connected to, and partly responsible for, the worlds vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2. If we are honest with ourselves about the likelihood that it was, we should take pause at the prospect of similar, rippling regulatory ramifications this time around.

See the rest here:

Opinion: Coronavirus and Regulating Access to High-Risk Pathogens - The Scientist

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical adviser to the president, testify before a Senate committee hearing on the federal response to COVID-19 on Jan. 11 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand how Americans are continuing to respond to the coronavirus outbreak. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,237 U.S. adults from Jan. 24 to 30, 2022.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology.

Nearly two years after the coronavirus outbreak took hold in the United States, Americans are increasingly critical of the response to COVID-19 from elected officeholders and public health officials.

Amid debates over how to address the surge in cases driven by the omicron variant, confusion is now the most common reaction to shifts in public health guidance: 60% of U.S. adults say theyve felt confused as a result of changes to public health officials recommendations on how to slow the spread of the coronavirus, up 7 percentage points since last summer.

Americans are now almost evenly divided over how well public health officials, such as those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are responding to the outbreak, with about half (49%) saying they are doing an only fair or poor job and half (50%) saying they are doing an excellent or good job. Positive ratings of public health officials have fallen 10 points since August and are well below ratings for their initial response to the outbreak in early 2020.

Evaluations of elected leaders at all levels of government have also moved lower. A majority (60%) now describes the job Joe Biden is doing responding to the coronavirus as only fair or poor. The share of Americans who say Biden is doing an excellent or good job (40%) is down 7 points since August and is now only slightly higher than the share who said Donald Trump did an excellent or good job responding to the coronavirus outbreak over the course of his presidency (36%).

The new Pew Research Center survey finds that 78% of U.S. adults say they have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, including 73% who say they are fully vaccinated having received either two Pfizer or Moderna vaccines or one Johnson & Johnson. Among fully vaccinated adults, 66% say theyve received an additional COVID-19 booster shot within the past six months (this group makes up 48% of all U.S. adults). When it comes to the decision to get a vaccine:

Among Republicans, the decision to get a vaccine, as well as broader views on the outbreak, differ across key demographics and characteristics. For instance, age and education strongly shape the vaccine decision among Republicans:

With vaccines widely available, businesses and institutions are grappling with whether to require proof of COVID-19 vaccination to participate in a range of activities. The survey finds:

Partisan gaps on vaccine requirements are among the largest of any seen in the survey. Majorities of Republicans oppose vaccine requirements for all five activities listed in the survey, while majorities of Democrats favor them. For instance, 76% of Democrats favor requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination to attend a sporting event or concert, compared with just 26% of Republicans.

Not surprisingly, unvaccinated adults broadly oppose all vaccine requirements, while those who have received a vaccine support most of these measures.

Views on vaccine requirements highlight how partisanship and vaccine status are intertwined, yet both factors play a role shaping views. Among Republicans, those who have received a vaccine are more open to vaccination requirements than those who have not received a vaccine. On air travel, for example, 43% of Republicans who have received a vaccine say they would favor requiring proof of vaccination to travel by plane. Just 9% of Republicans who have not received a vaccine favor this.

One big change seen in the new survey is the increased comfort Americans express around everyday activities. Large shares now say they are comfortable visiting with close family and friends in their home (85%) and going to the grocery store (84%). Majorities also say they feel comfortable visiting a hair salon or barbershop (73%) or eating out in a restaurant (70%). Comfort levels with most activities in the survey are roughly 20 percentage points higher than in November of 2020, before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.

In part, these gaps in comfort tie to the finding that adults who have not received a vaccine are less concerned than vaccinated adults about getting a serious case of the coronavirus themselves. This has been the case throughout the outbreak. Levels of personal concern about the disease have been one of the core factors tied to the decision of whether or not to get vaccinated since vaccines became widely available.

These are among the principal findings from Pew Research Centers survey of 10,237 U.S. adults conducted from Jan. 24 to 30, 2022, on the coronavirus outbreak and Americans views of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The rise in cases spurred by the omicron variant put renewed focus on vaccination rates in the U.S. as well as the role booster shots play in limiting the impacts from the coronavirus.

Overall, 78% of U.S. adults say they have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, including 73% who say they are fully vaccinated (5% say theyve received one shot, but need one more). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fully vaccinated means having received two doses of Pfizer or Moderna vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson.

Two-in-ten U.S. adults say they have not received a vaccine for COVID-19. These estimates generally align with other national public opinion surveys, including those conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

When it comes to booster shots, the current survey finds that 66% of adults who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 say they have also received a booster shot within the last six months. This group makes up 48% of all U.S. adults.

There continue to be sizable differences across groups in the shares who say have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (78% of all U.S. adults).

Among the largest differences is partisan affiliation: Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are 26 percentage points more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say theyve received a COVID-19 vaccine (90% vs. 64%).

White evangelical Protestants continue to be less likely than other major religious groups to say they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19. About six-in-ten White evangelical Protestants (62%) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 77% of White non-evangelical Protestants, 80% of religiously unaffiliated adults and 85% of Catholics.

Those with higher levels of education and income are more likely than those with lower levels to say they have received a vaccine for COVID-19. And those with health insurance are 16 points more likely than those without to have gotten a vaccine.

Some demographic differences in vaccination status are more pronounced within one partisan group than another. For instance, 80% of Republicans ages 65 and older say they have received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared with far fewer Republicans 18 to 29 (52%). There is a much more modest gap between the shares of Democrats 65 and older and those 18 to 29 who say theyve received a vaccine (94% vs. 88%). See the Appendix for more details on vaccination status within partisan groups.

Among those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Democrats and Democratic leaners are more likely to say theyve received a booster shot within that last six months than Republicans and GOP leaners.

About three-quarters of fully vaccinated Democrats (73%) say they have received a COVID-19 booster shot within the last six months. This group makes up 62% of all Democrats.

Among fully vaccinated Republicans, 55% say they have received a COVID-19 booster shot within the last six months (33% of all Republicans).

Public health experts are continuing to evaluate whether to recommend regular COVID-19 booster shots.

The survey finds that 64% of adults who have received a COVID-19 vaccine say they would probably be willing to get a vaccine booster about every six months, if public health officials recommended it; 35% of vaccinated adults say they probably would not be willing to get a booster shot every six months or so.

Among adults who have received a COVID-19 vaccine, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are far more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say theyd be willing to get a booster shot regularly (77% vs. 42%).

A large majority of Americans (81%) continue to say hospitals and medical centers in their area are doing an excellent or good job responding to the coronavirus.

Ratings are far less positive for the performance of public health officials and elected officeholders at the state, local and federal level.

Half of Americans now say public health officials, such as those at the CDC, are doing an excellent or good job responding to the outbreak, down from a high of 79% early in the outbreak and from 60% last August.

The same share (50%) say their local elected officials are doing an excellent or good job responding to the coronavirus outbreak, and 46% say this about their state elected officials. Ratings for both groups are down since August and are much lower than they were at earlier stages of the outbreak.

Four-in-ten say Joe Biden is doing an excellent or good job dealing with the coronavirus, compared with 60% who say he is doing an only fair or poor job. Positive ratings for Bidens performance dealing with the coronavirus have continued to decrease, down 7 percentage points since August and 14 points since February 2021, shortly after his inauguration as president. The share of Americans with a positive view of Bidens handling of the coronavirus outbreak is now nearing that for Trump after he left office (36%).

Republicans are especially critical of the response to the coronavirus outbreak by public health officials. Just 26% of Republicans and Republican leaners say public health officials, such as those at the CDC, are doing an excellent or good job; a majority (73%) say they are doing an only fair or poor job. By contrast, 69% of Democrats and Democratic leaners rate the job health officials are doing as excellent or good.

This contrasts with views of public health officials measured in the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak. For instance, in May of 2020, during Trumps administration, 68% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats said public health officials were doing an excellent or good job responding to the outbreak.

Partisans continue to offer starkly different ratings of Bidens response to the coronavirus outbreak: 64% of Democrats now say he is doing an excellent or good job, while 89% of Republicans say instead that he is doing an only fair or poor job.

Partisan gaps are more modest in ratings of state and local elected officials, and majorities of both Republicans (76%) and Democrats (86%) say hospitals and medical centers in their area are doing an excellent or good job responding to the coronavirus outbreak.

Americans have encountered a number of changes to public health guidelines about how to slow the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. over the past two years.

When asked how theyve felt about these changes, confusion is the top reaction Americans express: 60% say they have felt confused by changes in recommendations on how to slow the spread of the coronavirus, up 7 percentage points from the share who said this in August 2021.

Nearly as many (57%) say changes in health officials recommendations on how to slow the spread made them wonder if public health officials were holding back important information. And 56% say it made them feel less confident in the recommendations. The share saying theyve felt less confident in public health officials recommendations is up 5 points since August.

Changing health guidance has also prompted some positive reactions from the public: 56% say theyve felt that these changes made sense because scientific knowledge is always being updated. Still, the share who say theyve felt this way is down 5 points since last summer. Fewer Americans (43%) say changes to health officials recommendations on how to slow the spread of the coronavirus made them feel reassured that officials were staying on top of new information, down 8 points since August.

Vaccinated adults express much more positive reactions to changing public health guidance on how best to slow the spread of the coronavirus than adults who have not received a vaccine. Partisan affiliation also strongly shapes views, with Democrats taking a more positive view of changes in recommendations than Republicans.

Two-thirds (66%) of adults who have received a COVID-19 vaccine say changes in recommendations have made sense because scientific knowledge is always being updated; just 26% of adults who have not received a vaccine express this view.

Negative reactions register more widely with adults who have not received a vaccine than those who have. Still, 50% of vaccinated adults say changes in guidance on how to slow the spread of the coronavirus have made them less confident in health officials recommendations, and 58% say theyve made them feel confused.

Democrats and Democratic leaners are 38 points more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say changes in officials coronavirus recommendations have made sense because scientific knowledge is always being updated (74% vs. 36%). About three-quarters of Republicans say changes in guidance have made them wonder if public health officials were holding back important information and made them less confident in health officials recommendations (about four-in-ten Democrats express each of these reactions).

The partisan gap is more modest when it comes to confusion: 69% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats say theyve felt confused due to changes in public health officials coronavirus recommendations.

Americans are now much more comfortable with a range of daily activities than they were in November 2020, before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S.

Most Americans (85%) now say they feel comfortable visiting with a close friend or family member inside their home, up 20 percentage points from the share who said this in November 2020. About as many (84%) say they feel comfortable going to the grocery store.

Majorities also say they are now comfortable going to a hair salon or barbershop (73%) or eating out in a restaurant (70%). In late 2020, far smaller shares of Americans felt comfortable doing these activities (53% and 44%, respectively).

Still, fewer than half say they feel comfortable attending an indoor sporting event or concert (43%) or a crowded party (34%), though these percentages have risen substantially since November 2020.

The 20% of U.S. adults who have not received a vaccine are less likely than vaccinated adults to see the coronavirus outbreak as a major threat to their own personal health. Consistent with lower levels of concern, unvaccinated adults tend to express more comfort with public activities than those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine.

For example, about six-in-ten (62%) of those who are not vaccinated say they feel comfortable attending an indoor sporting event or concert, compared with 37% of vaccinated adults. Unvaccinated adults are 29 points more likely than vaccinated adults to say theyre comfortable attending a crowded party and somewhat more likely to say theyre comfortable eating in a restaurant and going to a hair salon or barbershop.

Large shares of both vaccinated and unvaccinated adults now say theyre comfortable visiting with a close friend or family member inside their home and going to the grocery store.

Partisan affiliation also shapes views on this question, with Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party more likely than Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents to say they feel comfortable engaging in a variety of activities.

A majority of Republicans (62%) say they are comfortable attending an indoor sporting event or concert, compared with about three-in-ten Democrats (27%). Theres a similar gap in comfort with attending a crowded party.

Large shares of both Republicans and Democrats say they are comfortable visiting with a close friend or family member inside their home or going to the grocery store, though the size of the majority is about 10 points higher among Republicans than Democrats in both cases.

A separate early-January survey found the share of U.S. adults who say they have worn a mask all or most of the time in stores and businesses over the last month increased from 53% in August of 2021 to 61% in January. Those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine (70%) continue to be far more likely than those who have not (32%) to say theyve been wearing a mask in public places regularly. See Appendix for more details.

A majority of U.S. adults (58%) favor requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination before being allowed to travel by air.

Slightly more Americans favor (53%) than oppose (46%) a vaccine requirement to go to a sporting event or concert.

By 52% to 47%, more also favor than oppose requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for attending public colleges and universities in person. Support for this proposal is 5 percentage points lower than it was in August of 2021.

Americans lean against requiring proof of vaccination to eat inside of a restaurant (53% oppose, 46% favor), and 59% oppose requiring proof of vaccination to shop inside stores and businesses. Support for both of these proposals has also declined slightly since last summer.

Unsurprisingly, Americans who have not received a coronavirus vaccine are overwhelmingly against vaccine requirements, with around eight-in-ten or more opposing each of these measures.

There continue to be large partisan differences in how Americans view vaccination requirements. Majorities of Democrats favor requiring proof of vaccination status to do each of the five activities listed, while majorities of Republicans oppose requirements in each of these cases.

For example, eight-in-ten Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party favor requiring those traveling by airplane to show proof of vaccination, while only about three-in-ten (31%) Republicans and Republican leaners say they favor this.

Among Republicans, opposition to vaccine requirements is far more widespread among those who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine than among those who have. For instance, 43% of vaccinated Republicans favor requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for air travel, compared with just 9% of unvaccinated Republicans who say this. (Overall, 64% of Republicans and Republican leaners have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine; 33% have not.)

Excerpt from:

Increasing Public Criticism, Confusion Over COVID-19 Response in U.S. - Pew Research Center

CHICOPEE, Mass. (WWLP) The State Department of Public Health also released its weekly report on vaccination progress in Massachusetts.

For the week of February 10, the state administered 80,626 doses of COVID-19 vaccines. There are 5.2 million people are now fully vaccinated here in Massachusetts. The state considers people with two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna or one dose of Johnson and Johnson to be fully vaccinated.

School vacation week is right around the corner, but with COVID-19 still spreading, some parents may be concerned about the vaccination rate for their vacation destination. According to data from the Mayo Clinic, the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. are along the east coast.

Vermont leads the way with a nearly 80 percent vaccination rate. Followed by Rhode Island, Maine and Connecticut. The South is seeing the lowest vaccination rates. Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia have the lowest.

The Mayo Clinic reports that Alabama and Wyoming are the only states to have vaccination rates under 50 percent.

Original post:

Massachusetts administered 80,600 doses of COVID-19 vaccines within 7 days - WWLP.com

Threemore Mainers have died and another 1,115coronavirus cases reported across the state, Maine health officials said Thursday.

Thursdays report brings the total number of coronavirus cases in Maine to 184,614,according to the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Thats up from 183,499 on Wednesday.

Of those, 136,105have been confirmed positive, while 48,509were classified as probable cases, the Maine CDC reported.

Two men and a woman in their 70s and 80s from Penobscot County have succumbed to the virus, bringing the statewide death toll to 1,822.

The number of coronavirus cases diagnosed in the past 14 days statewide is 13,090. This is an estimation of the current number of active cases in the state, as the Maine CDC is no longer tracking recoveries for all patients. Thats down from 13,501 on Wednesday.

The new case rate statewide Thursday was 8.33 cases per 10,000 residents, and the total case rate statewide was 1,379.36.

The most cases have been detected in Mainers younger than 20, while Mainers over 80 years old account for the largest portion of deaths. More cases have been recorded in women and more deaths in men.

So far, 4,081 Mainers have been hospitalized at some point with COVID-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus. Of those, 308 are currently hospitalized, with 66 in critical care and 26 on a ventilator. Overall, 59 out of 378 critical care beds and 258 out of 328 ventilators are available.

The total statewide hospitalization rate on Thursday was 30.49 patients per 10,000 residents.

Cases have been reported in Androscoggin (18,635), Aroostook (8,752), Cumberland (38,586), Franklin (4,516), Hancock (5,395), Kennebec (17,631), Knox (4,415), Lincoln (3,924), Oxford (8,976), Penobscot (20,732), Piscataquis (2,308), Sagadahoc (3,840), Somerset (7,739), Waldo (4,575), Washington (3,208) and York (31,378) counties. Information about where an additional four cases were reported wasnt immediately available.

An additional 977 vaccine doses were administered in the previous 24 hours. As of Thursday, 980,645 Mainers are fully vaccinated, or about 76.6 percent of eligible Mainers, according to the Maine CDC.

As of Thursday morning, the coronavirus had sickened 77,284,578 people in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as caused 912,549 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine.

More articles from the BDN

See the original post here:

3 more Mainers have died and another 1,115 coronavirus cases reported across the state - Bangor Daily News

KANSAS CITY, Mo. Following an investigation by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment into the death of a Kansas woman last year, an autopsy confirms her cause of death was an allergic reaction to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

68-year-old Jeanie M. Evans of Effingham, Kansas, received her vaccine in Jefferson County in March 2021. After receiving the shot, she began to experience anaphylaxis, according to KSHB 41's previous reporting.

"The decedent was a 68 year old female with a medical history of hypertension, environmental allergies, "allergic disorder", and reactive airway disease (not asthma), with previous anaphylactic reaction to albuterol," the autopsy report said.

It then described that, on March 23, 2021, about 15 minutes after receiving her first dose of the vaccine, she began to complain that her airway was becoming blocked.

"EMS was called and arrived on scene where she was noted to have severe respiratory distress with labored breathing and stridor and poor oxygen saturation," the report said.

Evans was then transported to the emergency room. She was pronounced dead on March 24.

"Based on the available case history and autopsy findings, it is my opinion that Jeanie Evans, a 68 year old female, died as a result of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccine administration," the report concluded.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, anaphlaxis after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is rare, with only five people per one million vaccinated experiencing it.

There have been 7,820 deaths due to COVID-19 infections in Kansas and 906,603 deaths in the U.S., according to the CDC.

We want to hear from you on what resources Kansas City families might benefit from to help us all through the pandemic. If you have five minutes, feel free to fill out this survey to help guide our coverage: KSHB COVID Survey.

See the original post:

Autopsy confirms Kansas woman died of allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccine - KSHB

SALT LAKE CITY Utah reported 1,935 new COVID-19 cases Thursday along with an additional 13 deaths in the state, although one occurred before Jan. 10.

There are currently 650 people in Utah hospitalized with COVID-19.

The rolling 7-day average for positive tests is now at 1,956 per day. The rolling 7-day average for percent positivity of "people over people" is 33.4%. and the rolling 7-day average for percent positivity of "tests over tests" is 19.5%.

Among the new cases, school-aged children accounted for 319 of them, including 155 cases in children ages 5-10, 67 cases in children ages 11-13, and 97 cases in children ages 14-18.

"In the last 28 days, people who are unvaccinated are at 8.6 times greater risk of dying from COVID-19, 4.6 times greater risk of being hospitalized due to COVID-19, and 2.4 times greater risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than vaccinated people," UDOH reports. "Since February 1, 2021, people who are unvaccinated are at 6.5 times greater risk of dying from COVID-19, 4.1 times greater risk of being hospitalized due to COVID-19, and 1.4 times greater risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than vaccinated people."

With 13 additional deaths reported Thursday, Utah's death toll stands at 4,250:

See the rest here:

Under 2,000 COVID-19 cases reported Thursday in Utah; 13 new deaths - fox13now.com

There are many theories, none entirely satisfying. An infectious hunter might encounter a deer, Dr. Mubareka noted, but if theyre good at hunting, she added, its a terminal event for the deer.

If an infected hiker sneezes and the wind is blowing in the right direction, it could cause an unlucky event, said Dr. Tony Goldberg, a veterinary epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Or if people feed deer from their porch, they could be sharing more than just food.

And white-tailed deer are expert leapers, reaching heights of eight feet. If you want to fence deer out of a place, you have to be trying very hard, said Scott Creel, an ecologist at Montana State University. Deer would have no trouble jumping into alfalfa fields to graze alongside cattle, perhaps inviting a close encounter with a farmer, Dr. Creel said.

Transmission could also happen indirectly, through wastewater or discarded food or other human-generated trash. Deer, like most other animals, will sniff before they eat, Dr. Kapur said. And deer release their feces as they feed, creating conditions where other deer might forage in areas contaminated with waste, or snuffle around waste that has feed mixed in, experts say.

But its not clear how long the virus would remain viable in a polluted water source or on the surface of a half-eaten apple, or whether enough of it would be present to pose a transmission risk.

An intermediate host, such as an itinerant cat, might ferry the virus from humans to deer. Farmed deer, which have frequent contact with humans, might also pass the virus to their wild counterparts through an escapee or their feces, Dr. Seifert said. (More than 94 percent of the deer in one captive site in Texas carried antibodies for the virus, researchers found more than double the rate found in free-ranging deer in the state.)

View original post here:

Is the Coronavirus in Your Backyard? - The New York Times

There are many theories, none entirely satisfying. An infectious hunter might encounter a deer, Dr. Mubareka noted, but if theyre good at hunting, she added, its a terminal event for the deer.

If an infected hiker sneezes and the wind is blowing in the right direction, it could cause an unlucky event, said Dr. Tony Goldberg, a veterinary epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Or if people feed deer from their porch, they could be sharing more than just food.

And white-tailed deer are expert leapers, reaching heights of eight feet. If you want to fence deer out of a place, you have to be trying very hard, said Scott Creel, an ecologist at Montana State University. Deer would have no trouble jumping into alfalfa fields to graze alongside cattle, perhaps inviting a close encounter with a farmer, Dr. Creel said.

Transmission could also happen indirectly, through wastewater or discarded food or other human-generated trash. Deer, like most other animals, will sniff before they eat, Dr. Kapur said. And deer release their feces as they feed, creating conditions where other deer might forage in areas contaminated with waste, or snuffle around waste that has feed mixed in, experts say.

But its not clear how long the virus would remain viable in a polluted water source or on the surface of a half-eaten apple, or whether enough of it would be present to pose a transmission risk.

An intermediate host, such as an itinerant cat, might ferry the virus from humans to deer. Farmed deer, which have frequent contact with humans, might also pass the virus to their wild counterparts through an escapee or their feces, Dr. Seifert said. (More than 94 percent of the deer in one captive site in Texas carried antibodies for the virus, researchers found more than double the rate found in free-ranging deer in the state.)

View post:

Is the Coronavirus in Your Backyard? - The New York Times

1. Oregon reports nearly 3,250 new coronavirus cases, 21 more COVID deaths on Tuesday  KATU
2. Coronavirus in Oregon: Omicron continues to recede as state reports 3,248 new infections, 21 deaths  OregonLive
3. Oregon reports 21 more COVID-19 deaths, 1 in Crook County; new daily cases fall to 3248  KTVZ
4. OHA: Oregon adds over 3K new COVID-19 cases, 21 deaths  KOIN.com
5. Oregon coronavirus updates, Feb. 8: Marion County ends contact tracing, case investigations  Statesman Journal
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Go here to read the rest:

Oregon reports nearly 3,250 new coronavirus cases, 21 more COVID deaths on Tuesday - KATU

As the Omicron variant of the coronavirus drives new waves of COVID infections around the world, some early studies appear to show the risk of reinfection has risen.

According to an analysis by the United Kingdoms Office for National Statistics (ONS), the risk of reinfection is 16 times higher when Omicron was the dominant variant, compared with the period when Delta was dominant.

The analysis also showed that unvaccinated people were twice as likely to be reinfected than those who had their second dose of vaccine in the previous 14 to 89 days.

With infection rates continuing to surge across most regions around the world and as the number of reinfections also climbs, experts have said that protection from previous infections or vaccines declines over time.

A reinfection is a medical condition that usually occurs when a person becomes infected with COVID-19, recovers, and then gets infected again. It could happen with any of the variants of the coronavirus.

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a reinfection is considered such if the patient tests positive again 90 days or more after their first positive test. The same standard has been established by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

The 90-day period has been chosen because some patients continue to have the virus in their systems for longer than the average of about two weeks, making it difficult to distinguish between an infection or a reinfection within this time frame.

The majority of patients with normal immunity do not have the virus beyond 10-14 days, but some harbour it for a longer time and therefore the time has been extended to three months, Dr Pere Domingo, currently senior consultant and HIV/AIDS programme director at the Infectious Diseases Unit of the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, told Al Jazeera.

According to a report published by the UKs ONS in June 2021, reinfections were considered rare, but the rate of reinfections has increased since the Omicron variant became the dominant strain in late 2021.

An analysis published last week by the news agency Reuters, citing data collected by the UKHSA, suggested that suspected reinfections accounted for approximately 10 percent of confirmed cases in England in January. Suspected reinfections made up fewer than 2 percent of cases in the six months prior to December 6. A total of 588,000 possible reinfections have been registered in England.

Meanwhile in Italy, 3 percent of the new cases were reinfections, up from about 1.5 percent before Omicron, a spokesperson for Italys National Institute of Health said last week.

Dr Domingo noted that the Omicron variant has mutated significantly compared with other variants, meaning that protection developed against previous variants could be less effective against Omicron.

Omicron has mutated many times, Dr Domingo said. These mutations have changed the antigens, the proteins are no longer the same as they were in Delta, nor the strain that came out in Wuhan.

Therefore, the antibodies that one could develop against the original strain or against Delta, are no longer useful for Omicron, he added.

According to the research by Imperial College London, the protection afforded by the past infection may be as low as 19 percent.

Viruses are constantly evolving and these changes naturally lead to the emergence of new strains that can lead to new infections.

There is always a struggle between the forces of the individual and immunity on the one hand and the virus on the other, Dr Domingo said.

And the way the virus fights is by changing, by making mutations that will allow it to avoid the patients antibodies, he added.

According to research from South Africa, people infected with Omicron developed an antibody response to the current and previous strains. However, according to the Gavi vaccine alliance, the immunity from a Delta infection provides limited protection against Omicron.

Previous infections or vaccines will provide protection, and the greater the exposure to the virus leads to greater protection, but the immunity is not complete and it declines over time, Dr Domingo said.

And if the virus changes, the protection generated by infection, is overwhelmed.

According to early research, reinfections are generally mild. A study done in the state of Qatar found that reinfections have 90 percent lower odds of resulting in hospitalisation or death than primary infections.

Dr William Schaffner, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, said the severity of a reinfetion depends on the patients immune system.

If you are immuno-compromised, or if you are a person who is frail, or sick, then I would think a second infection could potentially be serious enough to put you in the hospital, but if you have a normal immune system, the second infection is not likely to be severe, he added.

Experts said a reinfection would provide some level of immunity against any potential reinfection in the future, but the best immunity is the result of a hybrid immunity.

Hybrid immunity is the result of having been both infected and vaccinated against the virus. According to research, this could generate a super-immune response.

However, there is a risk in the long term effects of the infection.

Anyone who recovers from COVID stands or risk of developing so-called Long COVID, Dr Schaffner said.

[And so far] we have no information, on whether second infections are more likely to result in Long COVID than first infections, he added.

Experts have said the current guidance in place to combat COVID-19 are still effective. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended people get vaccinated.

It also advised people to maintain physical distance, avoid crowds and close contacts, wear a properly fitted mask, clean your hands frequently, and cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing.

We need people to keep [following] all these measures, Dr Ali Fattom said.

Precautions are very important, not only for the person itself, but you dont want to transmit the virus to others and put them at risk, he added.

Original post:

Catching COVID more than once: What we know about reinfections - Al Jazeera English