Category: Covid-19 Vaccine

The current predominant strain of COVID-19 should be a key consideration during the upcoming meeting of an FDA advisory committee tasked with making recommendations about the next COVID vaccine, agency staff said in a briefing document released Monday.

"Although JN.1 sublineages were predominant through spring 2024 in the U.S., the KP.2 subvariant has now become the predominant circulating strain," the authors noted. "Because the antigenic distance between JN.1 and JN.1-derived subvariants such as KP.2 subvariants is not far, it is possible that vaccines developed against JN.1 may adequately protect against KP.2. However, further SARS-CoV-2 evolution may lead to further divergence from JN.1, and consideration may need to be given to the selection of the subvariant that is currently predominant to assure the best possible match as the virus further evolves."

The document was released in advance of Wednesday's meeting of the agency's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Following presentations and committee discussion, committee members will be asked to vote "Yes," "No," or "Abstain" on the question, "For the 2024-2025 formula of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., does the committee recommend a monovalent JN.1-lineage vaccine composition?" Presenters will include staff from the FDA and CDC; representatives of vaccine manufacturers Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax; and a representative of the WHO's Technical Advisory Group on Coronavirus Vaccines (TAG-CO-VAC).

In the briefing document, the FDA staff gave a brief history of coronavirus vaccines, noting that two COVID vaccines -- Moderna's Spikevax and Pfizer's Comirnaty -- have been approved for COVID-19 prevention in persons 12 and older, while three other vaccines -- one from Moderna, one from Pfizer, and one from Novavax -- have emergency use authorizations for COVID prevention in various age groups. The document's authors emphasized that any recommendation for updating the vaccines' antigenic composition "must consider the time needed for manufacturers to implement and deliver" a new vaccine.

Since the introduction of the 2023-2024 updated vaccine, COVID-19 "has continued evolving into distinct sublineages by acquiring additional mutations," the briefing document said. "Although real-world effectiveness studies suggest that currently approved/authorized COVID-19 vaccines (2023-2024 formula) continue to provide protection against more currently circulating XBB sublineages, in prior years there appears to have been an inverse relationship between the time since vaccination and vaccine effectiveness, such that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 sublineages appears to wane over time and that better matching of the vaccine to circulating strains is associated with improved neutralizing antibody titers."

"Consistent with this observation, a decrease in effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (2023-2024 Formula) against COVID-19 caused by JN.1 lineage viruses has been reported," the authors wrote. "Available data suggest that updating the current formula of COVID-19 vaccines to more closely match currently circulating JN.1 lineage viruses is warranted for the anticipated 2024-2025 respiratory virus season in the U.S."

The authors also cautioned that the virus continues to evolve. "SARS-CoV-2 evolution continues to be complex and remains unpredictable," they wrote. "There is no indication that SARS-CoV-2 evolution is slowing, though immunity appears to be mitigating severe clinical outcomes, particularly in younger populations. Intrinsic viral factors, including mutation rate and recombination potential, generate possibilities for increased transmissibility and adaptation to the host. At the same time, host immune responses and other factors contribute to selection of variants."

The briefing document also discusses recommendations made by the WHO advisory group. In an April 26 statement, the group recommended that "As the virus is expected to continue to evolve from JN.1, the TAG-CO-VAC advises the use of a monovalent JN.1 lineage as the antigen in future formulations of COVID-19 vaccines." However, the briefing document added, "The TAG-CO-VAC recommendation for a monovalent JN.1 lineage vaccine was made at a time when JN.1 was almost completely dominant and before JN.1 lineage-derived virus variants with FLiRT mutations, such as KP.2, became dominant in the U.S. This change in epidemiology warrants consideration."

FDA officials will take the advisory panel's recommendation into account when it considers which updated vaccines to approve and/or authorize. The agency does not have to follow its advisory panels' recommendations, but often does. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will also weigh in with recommendations on use of the vaccines.

The FDA advisory committee meeting comes at a time when vaccine uptake is low. As of May 11 -- the latest date for which figures were available -- 22.5% of adults reported receiving an updated COVID vaccine since mid-September 2023, and 14.4% of children ages 6 months to 17 years were reportedly up to date on their COVID shots, according to the CDC.

Joyce Frieden oversees MedPage Todays Washington coverage, including stories about Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, healthcare trade associations, and federal agencies. She has 35 years of experience covering health policy. Follow

Go here to read the rest:

FDA Panel to Consider Which COVID Strain to Target in an Updated Vaccine - Medpage Today

The latest headlines from our reporters across the US sent straight to your inbox each weekday Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US

Dr Sherri Tenpenny, a Cleveland doctor who told state legislators during the Covid-19 pandemic that vaccines caused people to become "magnetic", has been sued by the federal government for failing to pay $650,000 in taxes and late fees, investigators say.

The Department of Justice's Tax Division sued Tenpenny in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, accusing her of failing to pay her taxes in 2001, 2012 and in 2013.

With the addition of late fees and penalties, the DOJ argues Tenpenny owes a total of $646,929.82.

Tenpenny spoke to Cleveland.com and told reporters she has been unfairly targeted by the feds and claims she has tried for years to clear up her tax issues.

This shows what the IRS can do to a person that they target, she told Cleveland.com's Adam Ferrise. This is a total harassment case. Theyve been doing this to me for 23 years.

The DOJ noted in the court filing that Tenpenny had previously established "compromise offers" and was involved in "installation agreements" to pay off her taxes, but noted the taxes from three years remained outstanding.

"Despite proper notice and demand, Sherri J. Tenpenny failed, neglected, or refused to fully pay the liabilities described in paragraph 3, and after the application of all abatements, payments, and credits, she remains liable to the United States in the amount of $646,929.82, plus statutory additions and interest accruing from and after April 8, 2024," according to the DOJ's lawsuit.

Tenpenny, who was lauded by anti-vax conservatives for speaking out against the Covid vaccines, has run to Republican Senator JD Vance looking for help.

In 2021, Tenpenny shared conspiracy theories while testifying in support of Ohio legislation that would block the state's ability to enforce mask mandates or vaccine requirements.

She infamously claimed that vaccines made human beings magnetic, that they "interface" with cell phone service towers and they interfere with women's menstrual cycles.

After sharing disinformation with legislators, approximately 350 complaints were filed against Tenpenny with the state's medical board. A probe was launched but the doctor refused to cooperate with investigators, calling the inquiry an "illegal fishing expedition." Her license to practice medicine was suspended in 2023.

Earlier this year, the state's medical board voted to reinstate her license provided she agree to pay a $3,000 fine and cooperate with investigators.

See the article here:

Doctor who claimed COVID vaccines made people magnets is sued by DOJ over taxes - The Independent

Spotmatik / iStock

COVID-19 accounted for much more absenteeism than influenza among Greek healthcare personnel (HCP) with low vaccine uptake in 2022 and 2023, highlighting the need to stay current with vaccinations against both diseases, according to an observationalstudy led by a National Public Health Organization researcher in Athens.

For the study, published yesterday in the American Journal of Infection Control, the researchers tested symptomatic HCP at four hospitals for COVID-19 and flu from November 2022 to May 2023 to estimate the number of missed workdays by disease type. The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was predominant during the study period.

"To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the burden of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza among HCP using data from the same season," the authors wrote.

A total of 9.2% of HCP were fully vaccinated, and 90.8% were partially vaccinated, against COVID-19. Flu vaccination coverage was 23.1%. HCP with flu were less likely to be current with the flu vaccine than unvaccinated workers with COVID-19 (14.0% vs 26.2%).

In total, 4,245 missed workdays were associated with COVID-19, compared with 333 for flu.

Among 5,752 HCP, 734 COVID-19 (incidence, 12.8%) and 93 flu (1.6%) cases were detected.Two COVID-infected HCP were hospitalized for 4 and 5 days, respectively.

The average number of workdays missed was 5.8 for COVID-19 and 3.6 for flu. In total, 4,245 missed workdays were associated with COVID-19, compared with 333 for flu. Analyses estimated that, on average, HCP with COVID-19 were absent for 1.91 more days than those with flu.

"The shorter duration of work absence among HCP with influenza than those with COVID-19 may be attributed to the milder clinical course of influenza, the particular seasonal influenza strain, and to differences in absenteeism policies," the researchers wrote. "Indeed, although post-COVID-19 isolation is not mandatory as in the first pandemic waves, a five-days leave is common practice for HCP in Greece. In contrast, there are no official recommendations for HCP diagnosed with influenza."

The findings underscore the value of COVID-19 and flu vaccination in protecting HCP health and protecting healthcare services from absenteeism, they concluded.

Follow this link:

Parental vaccine hesitancy shifted with COVID-19 vaccines - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

WASHINGTON Dr. Anthony Fauci defended his decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic on Monday, testifying before Congress about his work on the virus as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during two presidencies.

House Republicans who called the hearing grilled Fauci during the contentious three-hour session about the origins of COVID-19, which killed more than 1 million Americans, as well as Faucis role in the response. It was the first time Fauci, 83, who also served as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, had appeared before Congress since leaving government employment in 2022.

Fauci repeatedly said he didnt conduct official business using personal email in response to allegations he did so to avoid oversight. He also said he has kept an open mind about the origins of the virus, and explained to members of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic why guidance shifted so much during the first several months of the pandemic.

When youre dealing with a new outbreak, things change, Fauci said. The scientific process collects the information that will allow you, at that time, to make a determination or recommendation or a guideline.

As things evolve and change and you get more information, it is important that you use the scientific process to gain that information and perhaps change the way you think of things, change your guidelines and change your recommendation, Fauci added.

Republicans on the panel repeatedly asked Fauci about how the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China received grant funding from the U.S. government, as well as whether it, or another lab, could have created COVID-19. That theory is counter to another that the virus emerged from a spillover event at an outdoor food market.

Fauci testified that it was impossible the viruses being studied at the Wuhan Institute under an NIH subgrant could have led to COVID-19, but didnt rule out it coming from elsewhere.

I cannot account, nor can anyone account, for other things that might be going on in China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is, Fauci said. But the one thing I know for sure, is that the viruses that were funded by the NIH, phylogenetically could not be the precursor of SARS-CoV-2.

Fauci added that the $120,000 grant that was sent to another organization before being sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was a small piece of the budget.

If they were going to do something on the side, they have plenty of other money to do it. They wouldnt necessarily have to use a $120,000 NIH grant to do it, Fauci said.

The NIH subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he testified, funded research on the surveillance of and the possibility of emerging infections.

I would not characterize it as dangerous gain-of-function research, Fauci said. Ive already testified to that effect, a couple of times.

Politicians have used multiple, often shifting, definitions for gain-of-function research during the last few years. The American Society for Microbiology writes in atwo-page explainerthat it is used in research to alter the function of an organism in such a way that it is able to do more than it used to do.

Actions taken during the first several months of the pandemic were essential to saving lives, Fauci testified. Those steps included encouraging people to socially distance, to wear masks and to obtain the vaccine once it was approved.

Fauci said that had public health officials just let the virus work its way through the country without any precautions or safety measures, there very likely would have been another million people (who) would have died.

Information about the COVID-19 vaccine, he said, was communicated as it came in, including particulars about whether it would stop the spread of the virus entirely or whether it predominantly worked by limiting severe illness and hospitalizations.

The issue is particularly complicated, Fauci said, because at the very beginning of the vaccine rollout, data showed the shot did prevent infection and subsequently, obviously, transmission.

However, its important to point out, something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by, is that the durability of protection against infection, and hence transmission was relatively limited whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization and deaths was more prolonged, Fauci testified.

We did not know that in the beginning, he added. In the beginning it was felt that, in fact, it did prevent infection and thus transmission. But that was proven, as time went by, to not be a durable effect.

Republican members on the subcommittee, as well as those sitting in from other committees, repeatedly asked Fauci about allegations that he avoided using his government email address to circumvent requests for those communications under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Fauci vehemently denied the accusations, saying he never conducted official business using his personal email.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell asked Fauci during thehearingabout threats he and his family have faced during the last few years, especially as misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 have spread.

There have been credible death threats, leading to the arrests of two individuals. And credible death threats means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me, Fauci testified.

Fauci and his wife and three daughters have received harassing emails, text messages and letters. Fauci said people targeting his family for his public health work makes him feel terrible.

Its required my having protective services, essentially all the time, Fauci testified. It is very troublesome to me.

One of the most critical Republicans on the panel, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, caused the hearing to grind to a halt during her questioning, refusing to address Fauci as a medical doctor and instead calling him Mr. Fauci.

Greene also alleged that Fauci should be in jail, though she didnt present any evidence of actual crimes, nor has any police department or law enforcement agency charged him with a crime.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, of which the subcommittee is a part, said repeated GOP-led investigations into Faucis conduct show he is an honorable public servant, who has devoted his entire career to the public health in the public interest. And he is not a comic book super villain.

Raskin later apologized to Fauci for several GOP lawmakers treating him like a convicted felon, before seemingly referencing that former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is a convicted felon.

Actually, you probably wish they were treating you like a convicted felon. They treat convicted felons with love and admiration, Raskin said. Some of them blindly worship convicted felons.

Link:

Fauci defends his work on COVID-19, says he has an 'open mind' on its origins Missouri Independent - Missouri Independent

Austin (Precision Vaccinations News)

A recently published study by Science shows that unflagged, factual, but misleading Facebook posts reduced the intent to receive avaccine 46 times more than false posts flagged by fact-checkers as misinformation.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technologyand the University of Pennsylvania researchersintroduced a method combining crowdsourcing, machine learning, and large-scale observational data for estimating the causal effect of social media on societal outcomes. They surveyed thousands about the influence ofheadlines fromvaccine-related news stories on their intent to vaccinate.

Announced on May 31, 2024, they found that the impact of flagrant vaccine misinformation on Facebook was significantly attenuated once third-party fact-checkers flagged and debunked such posts as false.

However, ambiguous misinformation remained unflagged as this 'gray'areaeluded fact-checkers.....factually accurate but deceptive content.

This unflagged content cast doubts on vaccine safety or efficacy and was more consequential for driving vaccine hesitancy than flagged misinformation.

They found that flagged misinformation causally lowers vaccination intentions, conditional on exposure.

Specifically, given the comparatively low exposure rates, this content had much less of a role in driving overall vaccine hesitancy compared with vaccine-skeptical content, much of it from mainstream outlets that were not flagged by fact-checkers.

These researchers concludedthat the only content dimension that consistently predicted aheadline's impacton vaccination intentions was the extent to which the headline suggested that the vaccine was harmful to the people.

This review suggests that while limiting the spread of misinformation has significant public health benefits, it is also critically important to consider gray-area content that is factually accurate but misleading.

Companies like Facebook assert that First Amendment free speech rights must protect unflagged content.

Furthermore, X, formerly known as Twitter, has deployed an innovative solution to fact-checker effectiveness.

A Research Letterpublished inJAMA on April 24, 2024, led byJohn W. Ayers, Ph.D., fromthe Qualcomm Institute within UC San Diego, finds that X'X'sommunity Notes helped counter false vaccine information with accurate, credible responses.

"Since the World Health Organization declared vaccine misinformation a risk, there have been surprisingly few achievements to celebrate," saidAyers in a press release.

XCommunity Notes have emerged as an innovative solution, pushing back with accurate and credible health information."

Traditionally, the most trusted vaccine information came fromhealthcare providers.

Regarding the most trusted healthcare providers, doctorsand pharmacists are at the top of the list. During the recentpandemic, these main-streetprofessionals played a crucial role in scaling up vaccinations throughout the U.S.

The rest is here:

Facebook's Fact Checkers Failed to Flag Gray Vaccine Information - Precision Vaccinations

The following is a summary of Health Care Personnel Workdays Lost and Direct Health Care Salary Costs Incurred due to COVID-19 Infection in the Age of Widespread Vaccine Availability, published in the May 2024 issue of Infectious Diseases by Townsend et al.

Widespread COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs) is a critical strategy in reducing infections and protecting the healthcare workforce.

Researchers conducted a retrospective study to assess the impact of illness on HCWs in COVID-19 burden and associated costs within a context of widespread vaccine availability.

They tracked HCWs for 8 months (January to August 2023) and documented COVID-19 infections, symptoms, missed workdays, and vaccination records. Workdays missed due to sickness were utilized to compute direct healthcare personnel costs from COVID-19 infection. Univariate analysis and multivariable regression explored factors linked to lost workdays and direct healthcare personnel costs.

The results showed 1,218 participants were enrolled and monitored for 8 months, with 266 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 1191 workdays lost, and healthcare personnel costs of 397,974. Multivariable regression indicated that an incomplete primary COVID-19 vaccination course was linked to workdays lost. Unvaccinated, older, and male were associated with increased healthcare personnel costs.

Investigators concluded that incomplete vaccination remained a key driver of HCWs workday loss and associated system burden.

Source: academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiae223/7675214

More:

COVID-19 Impact on Health Care Staff Workdays and Salary Costs in the Vaccine Era - Physician's Weekly

In a riveting congressional hearing, Dr Anthony Fauci, the prominent US government scientist, made major revelations about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and claims of cover-up. With unwavering candour, Fauci addressed a myriad of contentious issues surrounding the virus, declaring, "Nothing to hide." As the first day of grilling came to an end, he left the room after shaking hands with multiple White House staffers, while Ranking Member Raul Ruiz thanked him for his testimony and service to the country.

Also read: California lawmaker whose parents died of COVID-19 counterstrikes MTG, hails Fauci as an American hero

In his final remarks, Raul Ruiz highlighted that Raul Ruiz wasn't at fault for supporting the research that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, nor was he involved in any falsehoods regarding gain-of-function research in China's Wuhan. Furthermore, Ruiz declared that Fauci wasn't behind any effort to suppress the lab leak theory.

In a debatable exchange with Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis regarding the origins of COVID-19. He said thinking the virus came from a lab wasnt automatically a conspiracy theory. But he did say that some people twisted that idea into conspiracy theories. What is conspiracy is the kind of distortions of that particular subject, like it was a lab leak and I was parachuted into the CIA like Jason Bourne and told the CIA that they should really not be talking about a lab leak, Fauci said.

On Monday, June 3, Republicans united to challenge Dr. Anthony Fauci, aiming to interrogate his purportedly dubious connections to the COVID-19 pandemic and dig deeper into the true origins of the virus that posed a global threat. The leading US research scientist proceeded to recount how he and his family dealt with death threats during his tenure as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Also read: 'Don't cuff the kid': NYC Parks employee tries detaining 14-year-old girl fruit vendor in chaotic video

Everything from harassments from emails, texts, letters of myself, my wife, my three daughters. There have been credible death threats leading to the arrest of two individuals and credible death threats mean someone who clearly was on their way to kill me. And its required my having protective services essentially all the time," he said.

Dr. Anthony Fauci noted that while assessing how the United States has handled the Covid-19 situation, public health experts will carefully consider the "cost-benefit ratio" of measures such as vaccination requirements. He addressed concerns about whether these mandates might have made some people hesitant to get vaccinated during his testimony. Fauci also defended the effectiveness of vaccines, highlighting how they have saved countless lives in the US and globally.

Thats something that I think we need to go back now, when we do an after-the-event evaluation about whether or not given the psyche of the country and the pushback that you get from those types of things we need to reevaluate the cost-benefit ratio of those types of things. He remarked.

During the testimony, Democratic Representative Robert Garcia, who lost his parents to COVID-19, commended Dr Anthony Fauci for his policies that have saved lives throughout the pandemic and labelled him as an American hero. Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, acknowledged that while some progress has been made, there are still areas where the country falls short in handling health crises. He highlighted the importance of the US enhancing its readiness for upcoming pandemics.

I think one of the things that was really a problem with the response was the degree of divisiveness that we had in the country about a lack of a coherent response where we were having people, for reasons that had nothing to do with public health or science, refusing to adhere to public health intervention measures.

Follow this link:

Top scientist Fauci's Covid-19 bombshells: from 'lab leak theory' to 'US needs to prepare for next' - Hindustan Times

During the hearing, Dr. Anthony Fauci has repeatedly denied that the NIH funded gain-of-function research on SARS and MERS viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Last month, NIH principal deputy director Dr. Lawrence Tabak testified before the subcommittee that the experiments had occurred but denied that they were risky.

The potentially dangerous research, which received more than $500,000 from US taxpayers since 2014, resulted in a modified virus that was 10,000 times more infectious, NIH disclosed to Congress in 2021.

EcoHealth Alliance received that money and gave it as a subaward to WIV, and the scientific nonprofit's president revealed in testimony to Congress last month that he had not received any virus sequences from the Wuhan lab since before the pandemic.

The experiments violated the terms of the grant, NIH found, and EcoHealth has since been proposed for debarment. WIV was barred from receiving US funding last year.

Another proposal from EcoHealth, which was unfunded, has since been cited as "smoking gun" evidence that the virus engineered at WIV.

EcoHealth president Dr. Peter Daszak also revealed in his testimony that he has yet to receive sequences of viruses from the lab since before the pandemic.

NIH didnt go there; they didnt get the reports that they needed," Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) pressed Fauci. "How would you know?

Continued here:

Fauci testifies on COVID-19 origins, US response: Live updates - New York Post

Myocarditis and pericarditis can occur in COVID-19 vaccinated individuals, according to a study conducted by Oxford University researchers.

The researched published a preprint of a study that compared the health outcomes in children and adolescents who were received a COVID-19 vaccination verses children who were not vaccinated.

Whilst rare, all myocarditis and pericarditis events during the study period occurred in vaccinated individuals, the authors of the study wrote.

Health data from more than 1 million British children from age 5 to 11 and adolescents aged 12 to 15 were part of the study.

"Among both adolescents and children, myocarditis and pericarditis were documented only in the vaccinated groups, with rates of 27 and 10 cases/million after first and second doses respectively," according to the preprint.

Go here to see the original:

Myocarditis and pericarditis documented only in COVID-19 'vaccinated groups,' study shows - Just The News

In a recent essay in the journal Monash Bioethics Review, oncologist Vinay Prasad and health researcher Alyson Haslam provide a comprehensive after-the-fact assessment of the federal government's rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Their basic takeaway is that the vaccines were a "scientific success"tarnished by flawed federal vaccine policy.

The two argue the tremendous benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines for the elderly were undercut by government guidance and messaging that pushed vaccines on the young, healthy, and previously infected when data suggested that wasn't worthwhile (and was in some cases counterproductive).

Worse still, the government even pushed vaccine mandates when it was increasingly clear the vaccines did not stop COVID-19 transmission, they argue.

To correct these errors for future pandemic responses, Prasad and Haslam recommend performing larger vaccine trials and collecting better data on vaccine performance in lower-risk populations. They also urge policy makers to be more willing to acknowledge the tradeoffs of vaccination.

That's sound advice. We'll have to wait and see if the government adopts it come the next pandemic.

There is one policy that they don't mention and doesn't totally depend on the government getting better at judging the risks of new vaccines: Charge people for them.

Had the government not provided COVID-19 vaccines for free and shielded vaccine makers and administrators from any liability for adverse reactions, prices could have better rationed vaccine supply and better informed people about their risks and benefits.

Without prices, people were instead left with flawed government recommendations, incentives, and rationing schemes.

Those who recall early 2021 will remember the complex, often transparently silly eligibility criteria state governments set up to ration scarce vaccine supplies. This often involved prioritizing younger, healthier, often politically connected "essential workers" over elderly people.

Prasad and Haslam criticize this as a government failure to prioritize groups at most risk of dying from COVID-19.

"While the UK prioritized nursing home residents and older individualsthe US included essential workers, including young, resident physicians," write Prasad and Haslam. "Health care workers face higher risks of acquiring the virus due to occupation (though this was and is offset by available personal protective equipment), but this was less than the elevated risk of death faced by older individuals."

Yet if the government hadn't assigned itself the role of distributing vaccines for free, it wouldn't have been forced into this position of rationing scarce vaccine supplies.

Demand for the vaccine is a function of the vaccine's price. Since the vaccine's price was $0, people who stood to gain comparatively less from vaccination and people for whom a vaccine would be lifesaving were equally incentivized to receive it.

Consequently, everyone rushed to get in line at the same time. The government then had to decide who got it first and predictably made flawed decisions.

Had vaccine makers been left to sell their product on an open market (instead of selling doses in bulk to the federal government to distribute for free), the elderly and those most at risk of COVID-19 would have been able to outbid people who could afford to wait longer. Perhaps more lives could have been saved.

Over the course of 2021, the supply of vaccines outgrew demand.

At the same time, as Prasad and Haslam recount, an increasing number of people (particularly young men) were developing myocarditis as a result of vaccination. Nevertheless, the government downplayed this risk, continued to urge younger populations to get vaccinated, and failed to collect data about the potential risks of vaccination.

That's all a failure of the government policy. Even if the government was slow to adjust its recommendations, prices could have played a constructive role in informing people about their own risk-reward tradeoff of getting vaccinated.

If a 20-year-old man who'd already had COVID-19 had to spend something to get vaccinated, instead of nothing, fewer would have. Prasad and Haslam argue that would have been the right call healthwise.

Without prices, that hypothetical 20-year-old's decision was informed mostly by government guidance, and, later, government mandates.

The government compounded this lack of prices by giving liability shields to vaccine makers. As it stands right now, no one is able to sue the maker of a COVID-19 vaccine should they have an adverse reaction. (Unlike standard, non-COVID vaccines, people are also not allowed to sue the government for compensation for the vaccine injuries.)

If pharmaceutical companies had to charge individual consumers to make money off their vaccines, and if those prices had to reflect the liability risks of the side effects some number of people would inevitably have, consumers would have been even better informed about the risks and rewards of vaccination.

One might counter that individual consumers aren't in a position to perform this risk-reward calculation on their own.

That ignores the ways that other intermediaries in a better position to evaluate the costs and benefits of vaccination could contribute to the price signals individuals would use to make their own decisions.

One could imagine an insurance company declining to cover COVID-19 vaccines for the aforementioned healthy 20-year-old while subsidizing their elderly customers to get the shot. (This is, of course, illegal right now. The Affordable Care Act requiresmost insurance plansto cover the costs of vaccination for everyone.)

Instead, the financial incentives that were attached to vaccination were another part of the federally subsidized vaccination campaign.

State Medicaid programs paid providers bonuses for the number of patients they vaccinated (regardless of how at risk of COVID-19 those patients were). State governments gave out gift cardsto those who got vaccinated and entered them in lotteries to win even bigger prizes.

Leaving it up to private companies to produce and charge for vaccines would have one added benefit: It would make it much more difficult for the government to mandate vaccines or otherwise coerce people into getting them.

One of the things that made it easy for local and state governments to bar the unvaccinated from restaurants and schools was that they also had a lot of free, federally subsidized doses to give away. People didn't have a real "excuse" not to get a shot.

Had people been required to pay for vaccines, it would have been more awkward and much harder (politically and practically) to mandate that they do so.

Economist Alex Tabarrok likes to say that a "price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive." They signal crucial information and then incentivize people to act on that information in a rational, efficient way.

By divorcing COVID-19 vaccines from real price signals, we were left with an earnest, government-led vaccination effort. That effort got a lot of lifesaving vaccines to a lot of people.

But it also encouraged and subsidized people to get vaccinated when it was probably not a necessary or even good idea. When not enough people got vaccinated, governments turned to coercive mandates.

See the article here:

The COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn't Have Been Free - Reason