Category: Covid-19 Vaccine

Kia Slade was seven months pregnant, unvaccinated, and fighting for breath, her oxygen levels plummeting, when her son came into the world last May.

A severe case of COVID pneumonia had left Slade delirious. When the intensive care team tried to place an oxygen mask on her face, she snatched it away, she recalled. Her baby's heart rate began to drop.

Slade's doctor performed an emergency cesarean section at her bedside in the intensive care unit, delivering baby Tristan 10 weeks early. He weighed just 2 pounds, 14 ounces, about half the size of small full-term baby.

But Slade wouldn't meet him until July. She was on a ventilator in a medically induced coma for eight weeks, and she developed a serious infection and blood clot while unconscious. It was only after a perilous 2 months in the hospital, during which her heart stopped twice, that Slade was vaccinated against COVID-19.

"I wish I had gotten the vaccine earlier," said Slade, 42, who remains too sick to return to work as a special education teacher in Baltimore. Doctors "kept pushing me to get vaccinated, but there just wasn't enough information out there for me to do it."

A year ago, there was little to no vaccine safety data for pregnant people like Slade, because they had been excluded from clinical trials run by Pfizer, Moderna, and other vaccine makers.

Lacking data, health experts were unsure and divided about how to advise expectant parents. Although U.S. health officials permitted pregnant people to be vaccinated, the World Health Organization in January 2021 actually discouraged them from doing so; it later reversed that recommendation.

The uncertainty led many women to delay vaccination, and only about two-thirds of the pregnant people who have been tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were fully vaccinated as of Feb. 5, leaving many expectant moms at a high risk of infection and life-threatening complications.

More than 29,000 pregnant people have been hospitalized with COVID-19 and 274 have died, according to the CDC.

"There were surely women who were hospitalized because there wasn't information available to them," said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Vaccine developers say that pregnant people who have special health needs and risks were excluded from clinical trials to protect them from potential side effects of novel technologies, including the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and formulations made with cold viruses, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

But a KHN analysis also shows that pregnant people were left behind because including them in vaccine studies would have complicated and potentially delayed the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to the broader population.

A growing number of women's health researchers and advocates say that excluding pregnant people and the months-long delay in recommending that they be immunized helped fuel widespread vaccine hesitancy in this vulnerable group.

"Women and their unborn fetuses are dying of COVID infection," said Dr. Jane Van Dis, an OB-GYN at the University of Rochester Medical Center who has treated many patients like Slade. "Our failure as a society to vaccinate women in pregnancy will be remembered by the children and families who lost their mothers to this disease."

At the time COVID-19 vaccines were being developed, scientists had very little experience using mRNA vaccines in pregnant women, said Dr. Jacqueline Miller, a senior vice president involved in vaccine research at Moderna.

"When you study anything in pregnant women, you have two patients, the mom and the unborn child," Miller said. "Until we had more safety data on the platform, it wasn't something we wanted to undertake."

But Offit notes that vaccines have a strong record of safety in pregnancy and sees no reason to have excluded pregnant people. None of the vaccines currently in use including the chickenpox and rubella vaccines, which contain live viruses have been shown to harm fetuses, he said. Doctors routinely recommend that pregnant people receive pertussis and flu vaccinations.

Offit, the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, said that some concerns about vaccines stem from commercial, not medical, interests. Drugmakers don't want to risk that their product will be blamed for any problems occurring in pregnant people, even if coincidental, he said.

"These companies don't want bad news," Offit said.

In the United States, health officials typically would have told expectant mothers not to take a vaccine that was untested during pregnancy, said Offit, a member of a committee that advises the FDA on vaccines.

Due to the urgency of the pandemic, health agencies instead permitted pregnant people to make up their own minds about vaccines without recommending them.

Women's medical associations were also hampered by the lack of data. Neither the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists nor the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine actively encouraged pregnant people to be vaccinated until July 30, after the first real-world vaccine studies had been published. The CDC followed suit in August.

"If we had had this data in the beginning, we would have been able to vaccinate more women," said Dr. Kelli Burroughs, the department chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital near Houston.

Yet anti-vaccine groups wasted no time in scaring pregnant people, flooding social media with misinformation about impaired fertility and harm to the fetus.

In the first few months after the COVID-19 vaccines were approved, some doctors were ambivalent about recommending them, and some still advise pregnant patients against vaccination.

An estimated 67% of pregnant people today are fully vaccinated, compared with about 89% of people 65 and older, another high-risk group, and 65% of Americans overall. Vaccination rates are lower among minorities, with 65% of expectant Hispanic mothers and 53% of pregnant African Americans fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

Vaccination is especially important during pregnancy, due to increased risks of hospitalization, ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, Burroughs said. A study released in February from the National Institutes of Health found that pregnant people with a moderate to severe COVID-19 infection also were more likely to have a C-section, deliver preterm, or develop a postpartum hemorrhage.

Black moms such as Slade were already at higher risk of maternal and infant mortality before the pandemic, due to higher underlying risks, unequal access to health care, and other factors. COVID-19 has only magnified those risks, said Burroughs, who has persuaded reluctant patients by revealing that she had a healthy pregnancy and child after being vaccinated.

Slade said she has never opposed vaccines and had no hesitation about receiving other vaccines while pregnant. But she said she "just wasn't comfortable" with COVID-19 shots.

"If there had been data out there saying the COVID-19 shot was safe, and that nothing would happen to my baby and there was no risk of birth defects, I would have taken it," said Slade, who has had Type 2 diabetes for 12 years.

Government scientists at the NIH were concerned about the risk of COVID-19 to pregnant people from the very beginning and knew that expectant moms needed vaccines as much or more than anyone else, said Dr. Larry Corey, a leader of the COVID-19 Prevention Network, which coordinated COVID-19 vaccine trials for the federal government.

But including pregnant volunteers in the larger vaccine trials could have led to interruptions and delays, Corey said. Researchers would have had to enroll thousands of pregnant volunteers to achieve statistically robust results that weren't due to chance, he said.

Pregnancy can bring on a wide range of complications: gestational diabetes, hypertension, anemia, bleeding, blood clots, or problems with the placenta, for example. Up to 20% of people who know they're pregnant miscarry. Because researchers would have been obliged to investigate any medical problem to make sure it wasn't caused by one of the COVID-19 vaccines, including pregnant people might have meant having to hit pause on those trials, Corey said.

With death tolls from the pandemic mounting, "we had a mission to do this as quickly and as thoroughly as possible," Corey said. Making COVID-19 vaccines available within a year "saved hundreds of thousands of lives."

The first data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy was published in April, when the CDC released an analysis of nearly 36,000 vaccinated pregnant people who had enrolled in a registry called V-safe, which allows users to log the dates of their vaccinations and any subsequent symptoms.

Later research showed that COVID-19 vaccines weren't associated with increased risk of miscarriage or premature delivery.

Dr. Brenna Hughes, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' COVID-19 expert group, agrees that adding pregnant people to large-scale COVID-19 vaccine and drug trials may have been impractical. But researchers could have launched parallel trials of pregnant women, once early studies showed the vaccines were safe in humans, she said.

"Would it have been hard? Everything with COVID is hard," Hughes said. "But it would have been feasible."

The FDA requires that researchers perform additional animal studies called developmental and reproductive toxicity studies before testing vaccines in pregnant people. Although these studies are essential, they take five to six months, and weren't completed until late 2020, around the time the first COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for adults, said Dr. Emily Erbelding, director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH.

Pregnancy studies "were an afterthought," said Dr. Irina Burd, director of Johns Hopkins' Integrated Research Center for Fetal Medicine and a professor of gynecology and obstetrics. "They should have been done sooner."

The NIH is conducting a study of pregnant and postpartum people who decided on their own to be vaccinated, Erbelding said. The study is due to be completed by July 2023.

Janssen and Moderna are also conducting studies in pregnant people, both due to be completed in 2024.

Pfizer scientists encountered problems when they initiated a clinical trial, which would have randomly assigned pregnant people to receive either a vaccine or placebo. Once vaccines were widely available, many patients weren't willing to take a chance on being unvaccinated until after delivery.

Pfizer has stopped recruiting patients and has not said whether it will publicly report any data from the trial.

Hughes said vaccine developers need to include pregnant people from the very beginning.

"There is this notion of protecting pregnant people from research," Hughes said. "But we should be protecting patients through research, not from research."

Slade still regrets being deprived of time with her children while she fought the disease.

Being on a ventilator kept her from spending those early weeks with her newborn, or from seeing her 9-year-old daughter, Zoe.

Even when Slade was finally able to see her son, she wasn't able to tell him she loved him or sing a lullaby, or even talk at all, due to a breathing tube in her throat.

Today, Slade is a strong advocate of COVID-19 vaccinations, urging her friends and family to get their shots to avoid suffering the way she has.

Slade had to relearn to walk after being bedridden for weeks. Her many weeks on a ventilator may have contributed to her stomach paralysis, which often causes intense pain, nausea and even vomiting when she eats or drinks. Slade weighs 50 pounds less today than before she became pregnant and has resorted to going to the emergency room when the pain is unbearable. "Most days, I'm just miserable," Slade said.

Her family suffered, as well. Like many babies born prematurely, Tristan, now nearly 9 months old and crawling, receives physical therapy to strengthen his muscles. At 15 pounds, Tristan is largely healthy, although his doctor said he has symptoms of asthma.

Slade said she would like to attend family counseling with Zoe, who rarely complains and tends to keep her feelings to herself. Slade knows her illness must have been terrifying for her little girl.

"The other day she was talking to me," Slade said, "and she said, 'You know, I almost had to bury you.'"

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KHN's free Morning Briefing.

Continued here:

Why pregnant people were left behind while vaccines moved at warp speed to help the masses - PhillyVoice.com

The CDC Foundation is encouraging COVID-19 vaccinations by partnering with arts and cultural organizations.

On Thursdays edition of Closer Look, Judy Monroe, the president and CEO of CDC Foundation, told program host Rose Scott that people need to hear from trusted sources and that the foundation is funding a total of 30 organizations across the country to boost vaccine confidence.

According to the foundations website, Dads Garage Inc., Out of Hand Theater and the University of Georgia are the three Georgia community-based organizations that will receive funding from the foundation.

Monroe further explained that the selected organizations had to submit proposals about how theyd engage and educate their audiences about COVID-19 vaccines.

The visual arts, they really matter in our culture and how we view the world, said Monroe.

Follow this link:

CDC Foundation seeks to combat COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy through the arts - WABE 90.1 FM

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Over a thousand Texas foster children some as young as 5 years old have been allowed to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine, despite not typically being allowed to make their own medical decisions, according to a new report from protective services watchdogs.

Around 40% of the foster children in the states care who are 5 and older have not received a COVID-19 vaccine despite being eligible. This is due, in part, to guidance from the Department of Family and Protective Services that may be confusing, leading to caseworkers unnecessarily querying even very young children as to whether they would agree to vaccination, court-appointed monitors say.

Nearly half of those children have been identified as having medical needs, meaning they could more easily contract COVID-19.

The monitors detailed how guidance has shifted and that many caseworkers seemed to be unaware that they were allowed to get children vaccinated or thought it required a judges order.

The deference to foster youth, even young children, seems to go against recent guidance from Gov. Greg Abbott on health care for transgender children. On Tuesday, Abbott instructed DFPS to investigate reports of children receiving gender-affirming medical care as child abuse because they are not deemed old enough to make medical decisions, citing an opinion from Texas Attorney Ken Paxton.

Generally, the age of majority is eighteen in Texas, Paxton wrote in his opinion. [Children] are considered by the State in most regards to be without legal capacity to consent, contract, vote, or otherwise.

The DFPS policy on the COVID-19 vaccine says unlike other routine vaccines, the COVID vaccine is currently authorized by the FDA for emergency use authorization, which means getting it is voluntary and the youth should agree (if able) in addition to the medical consenter.

It is also possible that DFPS has confused requirements related to a childs assent to participation in medical research or drug trials with language in the federal statute allowing emergency authorization of a drug or medical procedure, the monitors wrote.

In a response to monitors queries, DFPS officials pointed to federal health code that ensures patients be made aware when treatments are under emergency authorization. The monitors said the code doesnt apply here.

This language requires a medical professional to provide medical consenters with information about the products emergency authorization to ensure informed consent; however, it does not empower those without capacity to become a medical consenter nor does it include any requirements related to a minors assent to the treatment, the monitors wrote.

The report on foster care vaccinations was prepared by court monitors who act as watchdogs of the states foster care system as part of a long-running lawsuit against Texas. It details young children being allowed to refuse the vaccine, oftentimes seemingly nonchalantly or with little resistance from caseworkers.

Between April 20, 2020, and Feb. 17, 2022, there were 22 children in permanent managing conservatorship who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19, the monitors noted. Permanent managing conservatorship means that a judge appoints DFPS, a foster parent or another individual to be legally responsible for a child without adopting them.

The monitors noted that in several examples, the refusal seemed to reflect young childrens general reluctance or fear of shots rather than a reluctance for the COVID-19 vaccine specifically.

Earlier this month, a foster child who recently turned 8 rejected the vaccine because it was a shot, according to the caseworker who spoke to her.

I asked her if she wanted to get the vaccine, the caseworker recounted, according to the report. She said, isnt it a shot? I said yes, it is a shot, but it will help you stay healthy from getting sick with COVID. I said you can say yes you will take the shot, or you can say no. She said well if I get to choose, I say no. I said OK that is fine. You can change your mind in the future if you want to.

The court monitors report comes a month after a hearing in the federal lawsuit against Texas foster care system. State officials during the hearing revealed there is no mandate for a COVID-19 vaccine among foster youth and some expressed difficulties in getting children to be vaccinated because they refuse. DFPS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During the January hearing, U.S. District Judge Janis Jack dismissed officials accounts of children refusing the vaccine and noted that foster children have to be immunized for other diseases such as mumps or measles. She called the lack of COVID-19 vaccination negligence.

This continued, unconstitutional and unsafe treatment of these children is just getting to everybody thats involved in this case, Jack said.

The DFPS website outlines its policy on vaccinations for youth in CPS custody. Unless there is known objection by the parent or person with legal authority over the child, the caseworker must ensure that children in DFPS conservatorship are immunized against disease, the website states.

The department states its vaccine schedule is in accordance with the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP recommends COVID-19 vaccination for all children 5 years old and older who do not have contraindications.

Read the original post:

Over 1000 Texas foster children have been allowed to refuse COVID-19 vaccines, despite the state requiring other vaccinations - The Texas Tribune

On January 20, 2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security updated its travel advisory to require all foreign national travelers (except U.S. permanent residents) to present proof of COVID-19 vaccination when seeking entry to the United States via land ports of entry and ferry terminals. The new guidance expands upon already existing COVID-19 travel requirements and establishes similar COVID-19 vaccination requirements for non-U.S. travelers seeking entry to the United States by both air and land.

Vaccination Requirements: Air and Land

With limited exceptions, all foreign nationals (except U.S. permanent residents) are now required to be fully vaccinated to travel to the United States by air, land, or ferry points of entry. Travelers are required to provide proof of vaccination for entry. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) guidance, acceptable proof of vaccination includes: (1) a vaccination certificate with QR code or digital pass via smartphone app with QR code; (2) a printout of the COVID-19 vaccination record or certificate; or (3) digital photos of the travelers vaccination card, record, or certificate. Travelers seeking entry must also attest to their COVID-19 vaccination status. Air travelers are further required to complete a passenger attestation form.

Testing Requirements: Air

All passengers traveling to the United States by air are required to present proof of a negative COVID-19 viral test. The CDC recommends that this test be taken no more than one day prior to air travel to the United States, regardless of vaccination status. An individual who has recently recovered from COVID-19 may present a positive COVID-19 viral test result from not more than ninety days before his or her flights departure, as well as a letter issued by a licensed healthcare provider documenting recovery from COVID-19. Children under two years of age are not required to submit COVID-19 viral test results.

Travelers seeking entry to the United States by land or ferry ports of entry are not required to present proof of negative COVID-19 tests or documentation of recovery.

Vaccination Exceptions

Current guidance includes limited exceptions for unvaccinated nonimmigrant visa holders seeking entry to the United States by air, land, rail, or ferry points of entry. These exceptions include, but are not limited to the following individuals:

The CDC provides a complete list of vaccine exceptions.

Key Information About the Medical Contraindication Exemption

An individual with a medical contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccine may be granted an exemption that allows travel to the United States by air or land if he or she can present a signed letter from a licensed physician that documents a medical contraindication to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

What is a medical contraindication?

The National Library of Medicine defines contraindication as a specific situation in which a drug, procedure, or surgery should not be used because it may be harmful to the person.

Documentation requirements to request a medical contraindication exemption

An individual seeking a medical contraindication must obtain a letter from a licensed physician. The letter must:

Important Reminders

Travelers may want to note that:

Read the rest here:

DHS Updates COVID-19 Vaccination Guidelines for Travelers to the United States - JD Supra

More than half the states are pursuing renewed legal challenges against a requirement from the Biden administration for millions of healthcare workers across the U.S. to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The vaccine requirement for Medicare and Medicaid providers was one of several mandates the administration imposed upon private-sector employers to try to drive up vaccination rates and slow the spread of the coronavirus.

After a Supreme Court ruling allowed it to go forward, the vaccine requirement for health workers was implemented gradually in all states. But opponents are again trying to stop it, arguing among other things that circumstances have changed as cases tied to the Omicron variant have receded.

Two of President Bidens other high-profile orders are on hold. The Supreme Court blocked a separate rule that would have required employers with more than 100 workers to be vaccinated or tested weekly for coronavirus infections. And a lower court has blocked a requirement for employees of federal contractors to be vaccinated.

Newsletter

Get our free Coronavirus Today newsletter

Sign up for the latest news, best stories and what they mean for you, plus answers to your questions.

Enter email address

Sign Me Up

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Bidens various vaccine orders were challenged in court by Republican-led states, conservative groups and some businesses. The lawsuits argued in part that the mandates exceeded federal executive powers and infringed on states rights to regulate public health matters.

About 69% of the U.S. population age 5 and older is fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Heres an overview of the Biden vaccine mandates that affect the private sector and the status of the legal fights over them.

What it would do: Under a rule published Nov. 5 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a wide range of healthcare providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding are to require their workers to be vaccinated. The rule affects doctors, nurses, aides, technicians and even volunteers at hospitals, nursing homes, outpatient surgery centers, home health providers and other medical facilities. It allows exemptions for medical and religious reasons.

The CDC says the requirement covers 10.4 million health care workers at 76,000 facilities.

Who challenged it: The rule was challenged in several lawsuits filed by Republican-led states, mostly in groups. The states argued there were no grounds for an emergency rule, that the CMS had no clear legal authority to issue the mandate and that the rule infringed on states responsibilities.

Where it stands: The Supreme Court on Jan. 13 lifted injunctions that had been issued by lower courts prohibiting enforcement of the healthcare vaccine mandate in about half the states. The CMS subsequently implemented the mandate in several waves.

Health workers were required to have their first dose of the vaccine by Jan. 27 in jurisdictions that had not challenged the mandate in court. The first shot requirement kicked in on Feb. 14 in two dozen other states whose collective lawsuits prompted the Supreme Court decision. The requirement took effect Tuesday in Texas, which had sued separately from the other states.

Sixteen states filed a renewed challenge to the mandate on Feb. 4 in a Louisiana court. They argued that its unconstitutional to include some state government agencies in the requirement and that the mandate is not needed because vaccines have been less effective at stopping the spread of the Omicron variant. A coalition of 10 other states raised similar arguments in filing a renewed lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Missouri.

Whats next: Guidance documents from the CMS indicate it will initially grant leniency to healthcare providers who are showing progress in vaccinating their employees. But providers that dont eventually have their full staff vaccinated or exempted ultimately could face penalties, including the loss of federal Medicare and Medicaid funding.

What it would do: Under a rule published by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration on Nov. 5, businesses with 100 or more workers were to require employees to be vaccinated. If they were not, employees were to be tested weekly and wear masks while working, with exceptions for those who work alone or mostly outdoors. The requirement would have applied to businesses with a combined 84 million employees, and OSHA projected it could save 6,500 lives and prevent 250,000 hospitalizations over six months.

Who challenged it: The requirement was challenged by 27 Republican-led state governments, some conservative and business groups, and some individual businesses. The states mostly filed lawsuits in groups. They argued that the rule exceeded the agencys powers and that it was the job of states, not the federal government, to deal with public health measures.

Where it stands: The Supreme Court on Jan. 13 blocked the vaccine rule from being enforced. It said OSHA exceeded its authority granted under federal law. The agency subsequently withdrew the rule.

Whats next: Businesses do not have to require their employees to be vaccinated as a result of federal policy, though businesses are free to impose their own requirements in some states.

What would it do: Under an executive order issued by Biden on Sept. 9, contractors and subcontractors for the federal government are required to comply with workplace safety guidelines developed by a federal task force. That task force subsequently issued guidelines requiring that new, renewed or extended contracts include a clause requiring employees to be fully vaccinated. There are limited exceptions for medical or religions reasons. The requirements could apply to millions of employees.

Who challenged it: The guidelines have been challenged in more than a dozen lawsuits, including seven brought by Republican-led states or coalitions of states. The arguments are similar to those against other vaccine mandates, asserting the Biden administration exceeded the procurement rule making powers granted by Congress, infringed on states responsibilities and didnt properly gather public comment.

Where it stands: The rule is on hold. A federal judge in Georgia issued a ruling Dec. 7 prohibiting enforcement of the requirement for contractors nationally. The nationwide injunction is in addition to rulings by other courts that blocked the requirement only in particular states that sued.

Whats next: The nationwide injunction is on appeal to the Atlanta-based U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court has declined a request by the federal government for expedited consideration of the case.

Continued here:

What's the status of Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandates? - Los Angeles Times

Healthcare companies that came up with effective Covid-19 vaccines, treatments and tests are seeing a huge financial payoff and are starting to spend their cash, while grappling with questions about whether the growth is sustainable.

Companies including Pfizer Inc. and Moderna Inc. so far have reported at least $79 billion in combined global sales of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments for 2021, according to a Wall Street Journal review of recent earnings reports. Diagnostic sales also have been strong for companies including Abbott Laboratories , which had $7.7 billion in Covid-19 test sales last year.

Read more:

Pfizer, Moderna and Other Drugmakers Make Billions Responding to Covid-19 Pandemic - The Wall Street Journal

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccines are a safe and effective means to prevent severe cases of a disease that has killed nearly one million people in the U.S., there has been a proliferation of false and misleading claims trying to undermine the publics confidence in their safety and uptake.

Stanford scholar Rene DiResta is the author of a new report looking how to stop the online spread of mis- and disinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccine. (Image credit: Andrew Brodhead)

As the pandemic continues to be an ongoing health emergency with new variants rapidly spreading, it is increasingly urgent that accurate vaccine-related information be accessible and readily available to the public, said Stanford scholar and leading expert on mis- and disinformation, Rene DiResta.

Throughout 2021 and into the present, DiRestas team at the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) has been working hard to detect and disrupt mis- and disinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccines in real-time as part of her work leading the Virality Project, a multi-year effort between SIO and five other research groups. Their collaboration has culminated in a new report, Memes, Magnets and Microchips: Narrative dynamics around COVID-19 vaccines, that offers specific recommendations for how public health officials, social media platforms and other academic institutions can counter and curb the spread of false or misleading information that has a potential negative impact on individual or public health.

There are very real-world impacts to vaccine hesitancy at this moment in time, said DiResta, the technical research manager at SIO. Myths, rumors and disinformation contribute to vaccine hesitancy, and thinking about our information environment is part of understanding the public health quandary that we find ourselves in.

The Virality Project grew out of prior research DiResta was involved with at SIO and the University of Washingtons Center for an Informed Public (UW), as well as Graphika, a social network analysis firm, and the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensics Research Lab during the 2020 U.S. election to address electoral-related mis- and disinformation.

When mis- and information about vaccination started going viral at the start of the coronavirus pandemic long before a vaccine against COVID-19 had even been developed or approved the team reassembled (and added new members NYU Tandon and the National Conference on Citizenship) to apply what they learned during the 2020 U.S. election to the COVID-19 crisis that was unfolding all around them. The team also wanted to better understand what makes anti-vaccination rhetoric, which has existed as long as vaccines themselves, distinct from other forms of mis- and disinformation, which DiResta started tracking when she co-founded Vaccinate California in 2015, a parent advocacy group working to improve public health in California by raising vaccination rates.

Since the spring of 2020, the Virality Project has investigated some 900 incidents across major social media platforms in the U.S., including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and TikTok, as well as newer online spaces such as Gab, Parler, Telegram and Gettr. In addition, posts in Spanish and Mandarin Chinese the two most spoken languages in the United States after English were also analyzed by language specialists.

Public health organizations and social media platforms have been trying to tackle the problem of anti-vaccine activism and hesitancy long before the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, vaccine misinformation can be traced back to when vaccines were first developed, DiResta explained.

Shortly after Edward Jenner created the vaccine in 1796 to protect people against smallpox, opposition to this new life-saving technology proliferated. Its derivation from cowpox captured peoples imagination: Wild imagery circulated in pamphlets of inoculated women growing horns and birthing calves, for example.

Some 200 years later, anti-vaccination fears coalesced in the late 1990s after Andrew Wakefield published a now-retracted, notorious study in The Lancet that fraudulently connected the MMR jab to autism. While there has since been plenty of research debunking the claim and Wakefield has had his medical credentials pulled, trepidation about vaccination persists.

Today, online communities foment fears by offering digital spaces for mis- and disinformation to flourish in largely echo chambers where anti-vaccination activists, unrestrained by editorial gatekeepers, have been able to broadcast their claims, unchecked. Despite social media platforms developing policies against vaccine-related mis- and disinformation, anti-vaccination activists have become savvy at avoiding accountability for the misleading and pseudoscientific claims they spout.

Thus, when conversations about a potential COVID-19 vaccine emerged, anti-vax groups were already positioned to insert their own ideology into the media landscape, DiResta and her team explain.

The Virality Project has convened over 30 weekly briefings, provided in-depth policy analysis and issued Rapid Response reports that examined overarching trends and tactics used within the anti-vaccination community and its influential supporters on how to stop rumors and lies from spreading even further.

In Memes, Magnets and Microchips, the researchers break down what theyve learned from their various narrative tracking efforts. For example, they detail the various ploys online influencers use to undermine health experts, like how they sow doubt by asking their followers to do their own research on already well-established scientific facts, or by highlighting incredibly rare events or miscasting statistics to give the impression such occurrences are more common and harmful than they actually are.

Theyre framed as if large numbers of people are being injured by the vaccines. And thats not true: far, far greater numbers of people are dying from COVID, said DiResta. For example, anti-vaccination influencers, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and Joseph Mercola, have cherry-picked unverified reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the public health database where people self-report adverse side effects from vaccination, in a way that misrepresents vaccine safety.

For people who dont spend all their time looking up or understanding how vaccine trials or vaccine adverse event reporting systems work, these statistics and numbers can be very scary, said DiResta.

In an information-saturated world, it can be hard for people to distinguish between established facts and speculation. This was especially true in the early days of the pandemic, when there was so much uncertainty about how to respond to this new, emerging disease. For example, there was even a brief debate about whether face coverings were an effective strategy to curb community transmission of COVID-19. At first, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said people didnt need to wear masks. They didnt change their stance about masking until early April 2020, and by that point, they already faced the challenge of countering a vast amount of misinformation, including their own inaccurate messaging, DiResta pointed out.

Slow responses like this have led the public distrust of public health officials, said DiResta.

Even people who have not taken the vaccine are not necessarily anti-vaccine. Many of them are hesitant, she said. They dont know who to trust or what to believe. Understanding how information reaches them, what sources they trust and continue to share along, is important for understanding how to address false and misleading claims on social media in the long term.

Adding further to the issue has been a growing partisan divide about the countrys handling of the pandemic. The anti-vaccination community and other influential proponents, including conservative news broadcasters, took advantage of this chaotic, politicized news environment to further undermine the publics confidence in authoritative sources.

Memes, Magnets and Microchips provides tailored recommendations that the academic research community, social media platforms and public health officials can follow to mitigate the deleterious effects of mis- and disinformation.

Go to the web site to view the video.

Stanford Cyber Policy Center

The Stanford Cyber Policy Center hosted U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy for a conversation about confronting health misinformation.

Overall, there are three things that must happen, DiResta said.

One is finding a trustworthy messenger to deliver accurate information to people still hesitant about the vaccines. The messenger is very, very important particularly at a time when people have lost a lot of confidence in the government and traditional authorities, she said.

That person could be someone from within their own community with similar lived experiences and background, and therefore better able to connect on a deeper, personal level. This is particularly important in underserved or marginalized communities. For example, when the Stanford Cyber Policy Center and the Virality Project hosted Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy for a panel discussion about vaccine misinformation, one of the panelists, Katrina Rudolph, who runs a hair salon in a predominantly Black community, shared how she uses her role as a local hairdresser to talk supportively with her clients, colleagues and friends about how they can arrive at informed decisions about their health, like seeking information about the vaccine from their healthcare provider and not what they see on social media.

It is also important that people combatting mis- and disinformation have a clear understanding of what exactly is spreading across social media whether it is specific allegations or an emotional resonance point so that they can respond in a way that directly addresses specific concerns a vaccine-hesitant person may have. Just saying the vaccines are safe and here are the stats is not enough, said DiResta. It doesnt address the root concern that people have.

Finally, the format of the message is important too particularly one that will lend itself to a social media environment. For example, releasing a PDF or holding a press conference that details scientific information in a cold and matter-of-fact way might not be a suitable medium for a chatty, digital world. DiResta suggests communities get creative with how they promote their messages, like coming up with a clever meme or TikTok video, for example. An effective example of this was the #ThisIsOurShot grassroots campaign, which involved frontline healthcare workers who are considered to be some of the most trusted sources of health information sharing their own personal experiences getting vaccinated on social media.

Ultimately, given the dynamic nature of social media and the divisive political environment, the scholars say members from across society, including government, academia, civil society, individual citizens and industry, must be united in addressing dis- and misinformation in real-time.

The fight against misinformation is only beginning, the authors of the Memes, Magnets and Microchips conclude. The collective effort must continue.

Executive editors of the report are Rene DiResta, Elena Cryst and Lily Meyersohn, all affiliated with Stanford University.

Stanford staff contributing to the report include: Carly Miller.

Stanford students that also helped on the report include: Toni Friedman, Zoe Huczok, Lindsay Hurley, Chase Small, Abigail Tarquino and Julia Thompson.

Other contributors from outside Stanford are: Taylor Agajanian, Julienne Ching, Osiris Cruz-Antonio, Kaitlyn Dowling, Laura Edelson, Kris Fortmann, Cameron Hickey, Alyssa Kann, Kolina Koltai, Kathy Liu, Rachel Moran, Kyle Weiss, Matt Masterson, Erin McAwee, Lily Meyersohn, Carly Miller, Rachel Moran, Chase Small, Abigail Tarquino, Julia Thompson and Kyle Weiss.

Follow this link:

Curbing the spread of COVID-19 vaccine-related mis- and disinformation | Stanford News - Stanford University News

Nearly 1 in 3 Wisconsin residents have received a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose; state reports fewer than 600 patients in hospitals  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Continued here:

Nearly 1 in 3 Wisconsin residents have received a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose; state reports fewer than 600 patients in hospitals - Milwaukee...

In a statement to the Globe, a city spokesperson expressed confidence in Wus legal strategy.

Courts across the country have repeatedly recognized the rights of state and local governments to require full vaccination of public employees. Our appeal will help ensure the City can protect public health moving forward in line with that precedent as we continue negotiating with our labor partners.

Trial Court spokeswoman Jennifer Donahue said that the appeals court was closed because of Fridays snowstorm, meaning any electronically filed, or paper mailed, notice of appeal submitted today or over the weekend would not be processed until Monday.

The order the city is appealing was issued by a single justice of the Appeals Court. The Wu administration had 30 days from Singhs ruling to file notice of appeal, and any appeal would go before a panel of three justices of the Appeals Court for briefing and decision, Donahue said.

In all such appeals, the states highest court, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, may order a case transferred to the SJC for direct appellate review, said Donahue. Some parties can seek to file a petition with the SJC, but that is not the regular avenue of appellate relief, she said in an e-mail.

On Friday, the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, one of the unions involved in the litigation, said it was disappointed in Wus decision to appeal, saying it reflects a disregard for city workers and for taxpayers by continue to use public monies on outside law firms.

The Federation and our allied public safety unions have made several offers to Mayor Wus advisors to resolve this dispute and she has ignored them, the union said in a statement.

Mayor Wus decision to continue litigating instead of meeting with us at the bargaining table is frustrating, read the unions statement. Our members who have committed themselves to a life of service deserve to be protected, respected, and fairly treated.

Singhs ruling represented a blow to Wus vaccination mandate, and threw the future of such a policy, which has dominated Wus early tenure, into question.

Just weeks into her term, Wu announced in December that she was requiring the citys 19,000-plus workers be vaccinated against COVID-19 to help curb the spread of the virus and protect the public. In her announcement, she said she wanted to do away with a weekly testing option in lieu of vaccines, adding that under her plan, vaccination would be a condition of employment with the city of Boston meaning unvaccinated workers who do not receive an exemption could be fired.

Wus vaccination mandate has received vocal pushback from opponents, with demonstrators protesting outside her Roslindale home and at her public events. But Wus team has credited her proposal with helping raise the vaccination rate among city employees, which has topped 95 percent.

Public health experts widely agree that vaccination against COVID-19 is more effective at curbing the diseases spread than testing alone, which provides only a snapshot in time of whether an individual is infected.

The unions have accused Wu of ignoring previous collective bargaining agreements they reached with the city last year. They say it is wrong for the mayor to make vaccination a condition of employment with the city.

Singhs order applies to only the trio of unions that brought the litigation against the city the Boston Firefighters Union Local 718, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, and Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society and not to other municipal unions.

But in the wake of that decision, not one employee from the citys workforce has been fired for lack of compliance with the vaccination mandate, a Wu spokesman confirmed Thursday. Last week, Wu said her administration was likely to appeal the most recent court ruling regarding the mandate.

The citys court filing came a day after a city council hearing considered the citys pandemic response. Front-and-center in that discussion was the vaccination mandate, with union officials indicating they were waiting for Wus next move.

Currently no policy is being enforced, no testing is happening, said Leah Barrault, an attorney representing Boston Firefighters Union Local 718, at the hearing. Nothing is happening.

Danny McDonald can be reached at daniel.mcdonald@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @Danny__McDonald.

Link:

With Wu legal appeal, fight over COVID-19 vaccination for city workers continues - The Boston Globe

2022-02-25

It has now been 62 weeks since the first shipments of the COVID-19 vaccine were sent out to states, kicking off the largest vaccination campaign in human history. As of February 24, 688,186,745 doses of the vaccine have been sent out across the country equivalent to 209.7% of the U.S. population.

While the initial distribution of the vaccine took longer than federal projections had indicated, in recent months the U.S. has made great leaps in the worldwide race to administer vaccinations and some states are faring far better than others. Under the current system, led by the White House COVID-19 Response Team, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sends states limited shipments of the vaccine as well as funding and tasks them with distributing the vaccine in accordance with relatively loose federal guidelines.

Each state has developed its own rollout plan, prioritizing different age groups and classes of essential workers. The mix of policies and logistical challenges across the country has led to wide variations across states in both the percentage of vaccines that have been administered and the percentage of the population that has been vaccinated.

In Wisconsin, 89.1% of allocated vaccines have been administered to residents as of February 24, greater than the national average of 80.2% and the largest share of all states.

The administered doses amount to 169.1% of the state population, in line with the 168.1% national figure and the 21st largest share of all states.

While a majority of Americans remain unvaccinated due to a lack of supply, there are some who have no plans to receive a vaccine at all. According to a survey from the U.S. Census Bureau, 64.4% of U.S. adults 18 and over who have not yet received the vaccine will either probably not or definitely not get a COVID-19 vaccine in the future. In Wisconsin, 74.8% of adults who have not yet received the vaccine report that they will probably not or definitely not get a vaccine in the future, the 10th largest share of any state. The most common reason cited for not wanting a vaccine is being concerned about possible side effects. Other commonly cited reasons include not trusting COVID-19 vaccines, believing they don't need a vaccine, and not trusting the government.

To determine how states are doing with the vaccine rollout, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. States were ranked based on the number of vaccines administered within a state as a percentage of the number of vaccines distributed to that state by the federal government as of February 24. Data on confirmed COVID-19 cases as of February 24 came from various state and local health departments and were adjusted for population using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2019 American Community Survey. Data on the percentage of adults who probably or definitely will not get a COVID-19 vaccine and their reasons for not getting one came from the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, conducted from December 29, 2021 to January 10, 2022.

Read this article:

COVID-19: Over 11.0 Million Vaccines Have Been Distributed To Wisconsin. This Is How Many The State Has Actually Given Out - Patch.com