Category: Covid-19 Vaccine

desmoinesregister.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.

Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on desmoinesregister.com

More here:

RSV, flu and COVID vaccinations: How to sort through the noise - Des Moines Register

Connect with Us

Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks

We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.

Sign up for our breaking news alerts

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Read more:

SAG-AFTRA Hit With Over 100 Covid Vaccine Mandate Suits By Members; Claims Are Without Merit, Guild Says - Deadline

Every COVID-19 vaccine is a step behind the virus. In the time it takes companies to make the shot, SARS-CoV-2 is already busy mutating into different versions that can evade the immune response produced by it.

But even though the latest vaccine targets XBB.1.5, a variant no longer dominant in the U.S., it seems to be doing a decent job at warding off some of the emerging variants. In a study published on the preprint server bioRxiv, scientists led by Dr. David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, report that the vaccine can generate strong antibodies that can neutralize not just XBB but variants such as HV.1, which now accounts for 31% of U.S. infections, and HK.3, which contributes to half of new infections in Asia (and about 7% in the U.S.).

The team analyzed blood samples from 60 people with different COVID-19 infection and vaccination histories, representing real-world scenarios. All had four to five doses of mRNA vaccinesmost recently, the bivalent BA.4/5 vaccine that was recommended before the new XBB.1.5 shot. One group had never had COVID-19 and received the XBB.1.5 booster. Another group recently recovered from an XBB infection and did not receive the XBB booster. The final group had previously been infected with an Omicron variant and did not receive the XBB.1.5 booster. Blood samples from these volunteers were pitted against lab-based versions of SARS-CoV-2 virus variants: the original, BA.5, XBB.1.5, and EG.5.1 (a variant that spread widely this fall). The samples were also tested against four emerging subvariants: HV.1, HK.3, JD.1.1, and JN.1.

The results suggest that the new XBB.1.5 vaccine helps generate antibodies against variants that the vaccine wasnt specifically designed to targetnamely HV.1, HK.3, JD.1.1, and JN.1. These antibody levels were 13 to 27 times higher in the blood of people who had never had COVID-19 but had an XBB.1.5 vaccine. They increased 10-fold among people with this new shot who had a prior Omicron infection. These responses were slightly lower than antibody levels generated against XBB.1.5, but still suggest that the latest vaccine can provide broader protection against a variety of variants.

Thats encouraging news as the battle between vaccines and the virus continues this season, and new variants that first appeared in other parts of the world make their way to the U.S. These new data support the need for people stay up to date on their vaccines so they can continue to be protected against new versions of the virus.

Go here to read the rest:

The Updated COVID-19 Shot Works on the Newest Variants - TIME

Special to The Messenger

AUSTIN Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Pfizer, Inc., for unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of the companys COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.

Pfizer engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims regarding the companys COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The pharmaceutical companys widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95% efficacy against infection was highly misleading. That metric represented a calculation of the so-called relative risk reduction for vaccinated individuals in Pfizers initial, two-month clinical trial results. FDA publications indicate relative risk reduction is a misleading statistic that unduly influence[s] consumer choice. Pfizer was also put on notice at that time that vaccine protection could not accurately be predicted beyond two months. Nevertheless, Pfizer fostered a misleading impression that vaccine protection was durable and withheld from the public information that undermined its claims about the duration of protection. And, despite the fact that its clinical trial failed to measure whether the vaccine protects against transmission, Pfizer embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.

In fact, Pfizers product failed to live up to the companys representations. COVID-19 cases increased after widespread vaccine administration, and some areas saw a greater percentage of deaths from COVID-19 among the vaccinated population than the unvaccinated. When the failure of its product became apparent, Pfizer then pivoted to silencing truth-tellers. The lawsuit notes: How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing and the viability of its cash cow was threatened? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring to censor its critics. Pfizer labeled as criminals those who spread facts about the vaccine. It accused them of spreading misinformation. And it coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers.

We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies, said Attorney General Paxton. The facts are clear. Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines. Whereas the Biden Administration weaponized the pandemic to force illegal public health decrees on the public and enrich pharmaceutical companies, I will use every tool I have to protect our citizens who were misled and harmed by Pfizers actions.

The lawsuit follows Attorney General Paxtonsinvestigationinto Pfizer and other vaccine manufacturers announced earlier this year.

Greg Ritchie can be reached at [emailprotected]

View original post here:

Texas AG Suing Pfizer Over COVID Vaccine - The Messenger News

The attorney general of Texas is suing the pharmaceutical companyPfizer, alleging that it exaggerated the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine and deceived the public.

Ken Paxtonannounced the lawsuiton Thursday after filing it in Lubbock state district court in north-west Texas,the Texas Tribune reported.

Paxtons suit comesas a consensusof health experts and scientists have said that the vaccine prevents severe infection and death from COVID-19.

Paxton accused Pfizer of engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims regarding the companys Covid-19 vaccine in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, according to a press releaseshared to X, formerly known as Twitter.

Paxton argued that Pfizers claims about effectiveness implied that it would effectively end the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it failed to do so within a year of being introduced.

The lawsuit also added that claims the vaccine was 95% effective were not accurate, and that COVID-19 infection as well as death rates worsened as the vaccine became increasingly available.

Pfizerreleased resultson the effectiveness of COVID-19 in November 2020, finding that the shot was 95% effective in the first 28 days after receiving the vaccine.

The suit also claims that Pfizer conspired to silence those who were critical of the shot, common arguments made amid other anti-vaccine figures.

Paxtons suit asks that Pfizer be prohibited from making representations about the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine,the Hill reported.

The attorney general is also requesting $10,000 for every alleged violation by Pfizer, in addition to other financial restitution. The total civil penalties against Pfizer total up to more than $10m, according toReuters.

In a statement, Pfizer said the states case has no merit, adding that the vaccine has been administered to 1.5 billion people and helped protect against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

The representations made by the company about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based, it read.

The lawsuit is Paxtons second against Pfizer in November. The attorney general previously sued the pharmaceutical company and an additional supplier for allegedly altering quality-control tests on ADHD medication for children.

THE GUARDIAN

Read the original here:

Texas lawsuit claims Pfizer exaggerated effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine - Houston Herald

In recent times, whenever a government lawsuit swears at common sense, at the facts and at the public interest, it has been a safe bet that Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton has his fingerprints on it.

Sure enough, here comes Paxton with a lawsuit charging Pfizer Inc. with systematically misrepresenting the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor public discussion about it.

The COVID vaccines are the miracle that wasnt, Paxton states in the very first line of the lawsuit, filed Nov. 30 in state court in Lubbock. Placing their trust in Pfizer, hundreds of millions of Americans lined up to receive the vaccine.... However, the pandemic did not end; it got worse.

Newsletter

Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik

Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Enter email address

Sign Me Up

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

Theres a lot of misinformation and disinformation packed into the 54 pages of Paxtons legal complaint, some of it so nonsensical as to evoke laughter, starting with the fact that the reasons the pandemic got worse after the introduction of COVID vaccines had more to do with policies promoted by Paxton and his political cronies than with Pfizer.

But lets quickly dispose with the underlying theme of Paxtons lawsuit, which is that the vaccines dont work.

The COVID vaccines are the miracle that wasnt.

Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton

The Health and Human Services Department of the State of Texas itself refutes that assertion. Its website documents that at every stage of the pandemic and among every age group, vaccinated Texans experienced massively lower death rates from COVID than the unvaccinated.

In late January 2022, during the devastating Omicron wave, for instance, the COVID death rate in Texas was nearly 805 per 100,000 residents among the unvaccinated. Among those who had received the recently released bivalent booster vaccine, it was zero. In late April, the latest period surveyed, the death rate among the unvaccinated was 23 per 100,000; among the fully vaccinated it was 1.83.

Those figures match the findings of countless other studies of the vaccines effectiveness. A year ago, after the vaccines had been available for two years, the Commonwealth Fund calculated that they had prevented more than 18.5 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million deaths in the U.S. That saved the U.S. about $1.15 trillion in healthcare costs that would otherwise have been incurred, the fund estimated.

Whats Paxtons purpose in challenging this reality? It would take a triumph of metaphysics to pry into his soul, but its fair to conjecture that hes trying to maintain his extreme right-wing cred after his near-career-death experience in September. Thats when his Republican colleagues in the state Senate narrowly acquitted him of the corruption and bribery charges on which he had been impeached by the Republican-controlled Texas house in May.

You cant say that Paxton doesnt know his audience. Polls show that Republicans, self-identified conservatives and the less educated have all been overrepresented among vaccine resisters, in part because of campaigns against vaccines and vaccine mandates promoted by politicians such as Paxton.

In July 2021, when the Biden administration was trying to impose a vaccine mandate on employees of the federal government and of federal contractors, Paxton was quoted responding, Not on my watch! That October, he sued to block the mandates.

Official Texas statistics showing higher COVID death rates among the unvaccinated refute Texas A.G. Paxtons claim that the COVID vaccines dont work.

(Texas Health and Human Services Dept.)

In general terms, Paxtons claim that the vaccines are ineffective, even dangerous, dovetails neatly with themes parroted falsely by such luminaries of the extreme right as Arizonas Kari Lake, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo all of which have been conclusively refuted.

These claims are no laughing matter, however. They undermine confidence in vaccines against all vaccine-preventable diseases measles and polio, among others threatening the health of tens of millions of children and adults.

Paxtons immediate target is Pfizer, but his broader targets are the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna, which are the leading COVID vaccines in the U.S. and much of the rest of the developed world.

He also takes shots at the Food and Drug Administration, suggesting that the FDA improperly approved the vaccines for distribution. It should be remembered that the FDA, Americas premier regulator of drugs and medical devices, has long been a target of anti-regulation conservatives, including Johnson.

So lets take a closer look at Paxtons case.

At its heart is a ginned-up controversy over Pfizers claim that its COVID vaccine is 95% effective against COVID. Paxton complains that thats a measure of the vaccines reduction of relative risk, when it should be citing absolute risk.

These are abstruse notions for laypersons, so heres an explanation. (Beth Mole of Ars Technica, a microbiologist, is very good on this topic.) Put simply, when risk is fairly low, absolute risk calculations yield low numbers. Anti-vaxxers like that, because it minimizes the perception of a vaccines efficacy. Relative risk, however, arguably provides a better window into a treatments effectiveness.

For its key clinical trial of its COVID vaccine in November 2020, Pfizer divided test subjects into two groups of about 17,500 people each. One group got the vaccine, the other got a placebo. None had shown evidence of a prior COVID infection.

Of the placebo group, 162 of the 17,511 subjects got COVID. Only eight of the 17,411 members of the vaccinated group got COVID. The relative risk calculation is 162 minus eight, divided by 162 and expressed as a percentage. That answers the question of how much less is a vaccinated person likely to contract COVID than an unvaccinated subject, and the answer is 95% less.

Absolute risk is much lower, because the original risk is fairly low of the vaccinated group, 0.046% got COVID; of the unvaccinated group, about 0.9% did.

Paxtons argument is that Pfizer should have claimed only a 0.86% risk reduction rate. But thats absurd. As Mole points out, the absolute risk of an infectious disease can vary widely based on circumstance. A persons absolute risk of flu drops significantly when its not flu season, she writes. The absolute risk of COVID declined precipitately during lockdowns, and rose when people went out into the world again.

The question relevant for vaccines is how they worked for different people in the same situation and thats relative risk. Pfizers figures suggested that for everyone in a lockdown, the vaccine would reduce the severity of infection by 95%; the same for everyone out in the world.

Paxton asserts that Pfizers 95% claim created the false impression that 95% of vaccine recipients would never obtain COVID-19, full stop.

If thats so, its a flaw in our system of scientific reporting, perhaps because journalists writing about these results didnt know the significance of relative versus absolute risk reduction. But it was certainly well understood in the scientific community and at the FDA, which had all the data at hand and knows how to do the math.

Paxton also advances a long-debunked claim that the COVID vaccines actually increase the likelihood of contracting the disease. His argument here rises from a combination of sheer ignorance if not deliberate misrepresentation and flagrant cherry-picking.

One of his sources is a post that appeared on an online contrarian website last year and was widely reprinted, but that grossly misinterpreted an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about the effect of vaccination on children.

The post claimed that the NEJM article showed that vaccination increased childrens susceptibility to COVID, but that was wrong, as the author of the NEJM article made clear. In fact, the article showed only that the immunity conferred by the vaccine waned over time, which pointed to the conclusion not that vaccines are a health hazard for children, but just the opposite that they should receive booster vaccines.

Paxtons second source is a study of COVID death rates in Scotland that, he says, demonstrate negative vaccine efficacy. For example, the data show that the age-adjusted death rate from COVID in the third week of December 2021 was 1.69 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, but 6.55 per 100,00 among those with two doses of vaccine.

Thats true, but incomplete. In that week, the age-adjusted death rate among those with a booster or three doses was 0.33. And by the second week of January 2022, the rate among the unvaccinated was 10.4 per 100,000, but for those with booster shots or three doses it was only 1.5. In other words, Scotlands survey irrefutably demonstrated that the vaccines worked, not the opposite.

The danger in Paxtons campaign against Pfizer is that it only amplifies anti-vaccination sentiment that is spreading alarmingly around the country, especially in red states and conservative communities.

Vaccination is the quintessential medical intervention that benefits not only the vaccinated individuals but all those around them family, friends, co-workers and employees of the services that cant avoid contact with others. Its the sine qua non of public-spirited medical options, and its our shame and misfortune that it has been redefined by the Paxtons of this world as a strictly personal choice.

Read the original:

Hiltzik: Out of Texas, more disinformation - Los Angeles Times

A study conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has observed that COVID-19 vaccination did not increase the risk of unexplained sudden death among young adults in India, the government informed Parliament on Friday.

Image only for representation. Photograph: Manvender Vashist/PTI Photo

In a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya said post hospitalisation due to COVID-19, the family history of sudden death and certain lifestyle behaviours increased the likelihood of unexplained sudden deaths.

The minister was responding to a question on whether there has been any reported instance of a linkage between Covid vaccination and incidents of heart attacks in the country.

Sudden deaths have been reported in some people after they contracted Covid, but sufficient evidence is not available to confirm the cause of such deaths, Mandaviya said.

To ascertain the facts regarding the apprehension of a rising number of cardiac arrest cases after Covid, the ICMR's National Institute of Epidemiology (NIE) conducted a study titled 'Factors associated with unexplained sudden deaths among adults aged 18-45 years in India -- A multicentric matched case-control study' at 47 tertiary-care hospitals located across 19 states and Union territories from May to August.

A multi-centric matched case-control study was conducted. The cases that were studied were apparently of healthy individuals aged 18-45 years without any known co-morbidity, who suddenly died of unexplained causes between October 1, 2021 and March 31, 2023, Mandaviya elaborated.

Four controls were included per case matched for age, gender and neighbourhood. Information was collected regarding data on Covid vaccination, infection, post-Covid conditions, family history of sudden death, smoking, recreational drug use, alcohol frequency, binge drinking and vigorous-intensity physical activity two days before death.

A total of 729 cases and 2,916 controls were included in the analysis.

"It was observed that the receipt of at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine lowered the odds for unexplained sudden death, whereas past COVID-19 hospitalisation, family history of sudden death, binge drinking 48 hours before death/interview, use of recreational drug/substance and performing vigorous-intensity physical activity 48 hours before death/interview were positively associated," the minister said.

Two doses of a vaccine lowered the odds of unexplained sudden death, whereas a single dose did not, he added.

"Hence, the study observed that COVID-19 vaccination did not increase the risk of unexplained sudden death among young adults in India. Past COVID-19 hospitalisation, family history of sudden death and certain lifestyle behaviours increased the likelihood of unexplained sudden death," Mandaviya said.

There is a nationwide adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) surveillance system under the health ministry that continuously monitors reports of vaccine-related AEFIs through the CoWIN app.

These are investigated in a time-bound manner at the district level and then AEFI causality is done at the state and national levels, and analysed by the National AEFI Committee on a regular and time-bound basis. Prima facie, no direct signal has emerged till date linking heart attack to Covid vaccines, the minister said.

"The ICMR is not currently conducting any studies for assessing the potential risks associated with the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in children," he added.

However, a phase 2/3 open-label, non-randomised, multi-centre study on the immunogenicity and safety of the BBV152 vaccine conduced in six hospitals on healthy children (male or female) aged 2-18 years observed that the vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events, deaths or withdrawals.

Another prospective observational study on side-effects of the Corbevax vaccine in children aged 12 14 years demonstrated that it is a safe vaccine with a few mild side-effects, Mandaviya said.

Link:

Covid vax didn't increase risk of sudden death among young: Govt - Rediff.com

A new discovery about the Nobel Prize-winning mRNA technology behind some of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines has led scientists to look again at the vaccines design. By making a small tweak, the study team hopes to improve future mRNA therapeutics but the announcement has left some feeling concerned about the reports of off-target effects. We dive into what the new study actually found, and what it means for those of us in the Pfizer or Moderna clubs.

It's important to remember that while mRNA vaccines are a comparatively new approach, all of the vaccines for COVID-19 were thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy before being brought to the general population. The World Health Organization (WHO) is clear that these vaccines have saved millions of lives and offer strong protection against serious illness, hospitalization and death. A vaccine is still your best defense against severe infection as new variants of the virus emerge.

But its understandable that with such new technology, some people had concerns at first. Some of these worries can be easily allayed, such as the conspiracy theory that mRNA vaccines can alter our DNA, which is provably false. Other reported side-effects, such as an impact on the menstrual cycle, and a small number of cases of vaccine-related myocarditis (heart inflammation), particularly in young males, do now have evidence to back them up. However, the vital message is that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination still clearly outweigh the risks.

A new study builds on previous advances by identifying a chemical modification present in some mRNA molecules included in these vaccines that can cause the mRNA sequence to slip while it is being decoded in the cell.

The researchers, led by a team at the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge, found that the presence of the modification called N1-methylpseudouridine caused an unintended immune response in around one-third of 21 vaccinated patients included in the study.

Some of the molecules within these types of vaccines have been modified to make them more durable. This is to prevent our immune systems from destroying the vaccines before they have had time to stimulate an immune response to the coronavirus, explained Professor Neil Mabbott, an immunology expert from the University of Edinburgh who was not directly involved in the study.

However, in this study the authors show that these modifications can sometimes cause the cell to misread the vaccines messenger RNA, by a process known as frameshift. When this happens, it can lead to abnormal versions of the coronavirus spike protein being made.

By correcting the sequences that are most prone to these chemical errors, the team was able to effectively redesign an mRNA vaccine that produced only the intended protein, and thus the desired immune response. The research has increased our understanding of how these vaccines work, and will help ensure that future uses of this technology for other diseases arent hampered by this same issue.

The first thing to clarify is that, while it is theoretically possible that an unintended or off-target immune response could be harmful, in this case, it caused no ill effects for these patients. Nothing found in this study provides any reason to doubt the extensive safety data for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, nor should there be any cause for concern for people who have already received a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

It is important to say that there is no evidence at all that there have been adverse outcomes from the mRNA vaccines that this mechanism would be involved in, commented Professor Sheena Cruickshank, an immunologist at the University of Manchester who was not directly involved in the study. Nor did the paper look at patient antibody responses following mRNA vaccination. Thus, it is unclear that this potential mechanism is having any impact in the current vaccination efficacy or safety.

Nonetheless this is an important study that enhances what we know and how we use the mRNA vaccine platform.

Even though its true that vaccines, like any medical treatment, cause side effects in some people, the experts say that right now, theres no reason to think that any side effects were a result of this frameshift problem.

There is no evidence to suggest that the findings in this paper relate to such events [side-effects]; this will, naturally, have to be confirmed beyond any doubt going forwards, said Professor Stephen Griffin, a professor of cancer virology at the University of Leeds, who was not part of the study team.

In short, the study is more about how we can optimize mRNA technology to continue to develop new, game-changing vaccines of the future, rather than identifying any serious issues with the current vaccines.

We need to ensure that mRNA vaccines of the future are as reliable. Our demonstration of slip-resistant mRNAs is a vital contribution to future safety of this medicine platform, explained joint senior author Dr James Thaventhiran in a statement.

Joint senior author Professor Anne Willis added, These new therapeutics hold much promise for the treatment of a wide range of diseases. As billions of pounds flow into the next set of mRNA treatments, it is essential that these therapeutics are designed to be free from unintended side-effects.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

All explainer articles are confirmed byfact checkersto be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current.

The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.

See original here:

Why Are People Talking About A Redesign Of The COVID-19 Vaccines? - IFLScience

One in six Americans have received their updated COVID vaccine so far this year, and federal data show people with little to no health insurance are far less likely to have that level of protection against severe COVID illness or death.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 percent of U.S. adults overall had received the updated COVID vaccine as of Nov. 25. With the once-free pandemic tool now available commercially, stark differences emerged between the insured and uninsured: About 18 percent of adults with insurance had gotten the latest COVID vaccine, compared to roughly 4 percent of those without coverage, the CDC found. Uninsured people under age 65 experience some of the lowest levels of COVID vaccine protection in the U.S., according to a recent KFF survey.

To address that gap, in September the CDC launched the Bridge Access Program, a $1 billion effort to deliver free COVID vaccine doses to adults who are uninsured or underinsured a group of people who have historically fallen through the cracks in the nation's health care system.

There are no hospitals in Moultrie County, Illinois, a small, rural community that nearly 15,000 people call home. It's a place where people know each other, said registered nurse Angela Hogan, who leads the county's public health department. Residents there have suffered during the COVID pandemic, she said, along with the rest of the country. In a week, four people were newly hospitalized with confirmed COVID cases, according to federal data, marking a recent improvement.

READ MORE: Rise in U.S. life expectancy is 'good news,' but gains aren't enough to wipe out COVID losses

When she learned of the CDC's new program to make updated COVID vaccines free and more accessible, she signed her county up for it, wanting to do whatever she could "to reduce the impact" of the virus on her community and prevent more pandemic losses.

"We chose to do that because it provides better access to the vaccine for anyone who might want it," Hogan said. "The people who want the vaccine are going to get that vaccine, but removing financial barriers is a positive."

The U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet produces some of the lowest life expectancy rates among developed nations. About 30 million Americans have little to no health insurance, making vaccine access difficult in the nation's largely commercialized health care system. When the COVID public health emergency ended in May 2023, funds began to dry up that had covered hundreds of millions of vaccine doses and enabled communities to set up free clinics. In many ways, the nation's health care system returned to its pre-pandemic woes.

Once private insurance companies and public insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare started footing the bill for COVID vaccines, individuals found themselves caught in the middle. Insured Americans were not immune to the challenges, like setting up appointments at pharmacies but unsure if their dose would be covered. Some patients faced questions over reimbursements, receiving billing notifications that their once-free COVID vaccination could cost them hundreds of dollars.

"It shouldn't be the case that your ability to pay for a vaccine governs what your ultimate outcome might be if you get COVID."

"It shouldn't be the case that your ability to pay for a vaccine governs what your ultimate outcome might be if you get COVID," said Dr. Nirav Shah, the CDC's principal deputy director who is overseeing the Bridge Access Program.

If everything goes well with the Bridge Access Program, public health officials hope to see the program extend beyond COVID to improve vaccine access more broadly for adults in underserved communities.

When federal regulators first authorized COVID vaccines for emergency use in December 2020, the U.S. government paid for all of those doses in an effort to pave the way for easy vaccinations and protect as many people as possible against the virus.

That changed in the fall of 2023, when COVID vaccines went commercial.

"The U.S. government is no longer responsible for purchasing or distributing these vaccines," epidemiologist Dr. Katelyn Jetelina told the PBS NewsHour in October. "So this means we have now multiple payers, i.e. insurance companies, and changes to the delivery system, which has unfortunately resulted in this slow rollout and fragmented, inequitable and, quite frankly, imperfect system."

For weeks, people reported problems with getting the updated COVID vaccine. Retail pharmacies cited delays in getting any or enough doses. People's scheduled appointments were canceled due to vaccine supply issues, sometimes with little to no warning. Those hurdles occurred alongside common life logistics, such as securing transportation or taking time off of work to get to a vaccine site.

"It's rather distressing that even with that low number of vaccine doses available, we still don't have the uptake that we want."

Each layer of complication created a barrier to access and affordability for many people with insurance. It was that much more insurmountable for those without. On top of that, getting vaccinated against COVID slipped to a lower priority for many people amid the collective rush to return to life the way it had been before the pandemic.

Nationwide, "there's a low demand" for the updated COVID vaccine, said Lori Tremmel Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, adding that the Bridge Access Program overall offered 6 million doses. As of Nov. 28, more than 550,000 doses had been administered through the program, the CDC told the PBS NewsHour.

The program "was never intended to be the overarching solution, but it was meant to bridge the gap," Freeman said. "It's rather distressing that even with that low number of vaccine doses available, we still don't have the uptake that we want."

Across the country, the Bridge Access Program has been deployed through a network of retail pharmacies, like CVS and Walgreens, community health clinics and local and state health departments. In Moultrie County, according to Hogan, roughly 150 people have received their updated COVID vaccine through the since November.

Hogan said the onus is on the health provider to determine if a patient has insurance that would cover the vaccine's cost, a process that has been "very seamless and very easy" for patients who only need to show up, she said.

During Medicaid's historic unwinding after the public health emergency ended in 2023, roughly 12 million people have been disenrolled from their public insurance coverage. Many of them don't discover this change in status until they are in need of medical care or show up for a doctor's visit or vaccine appointment, said Dr. Kyu Rhee, CEO of the National Association for Community Health Centers.

A quarter of all doses in the program went to community health centers at nearly 1,500 sites across the United States, according to Rhee. These centers treat more than 31 million patients, and of those patients, one in five have no insurance, and six in 10 are covered by Medicaid.

Millions of Americans trust and rely on community health centers to help them patch through a fractured health care system, especially when they are uninsured or newly disenrolled, Rhee said.

"Many of those folks are working poor, and many of those are in communities that need it the most," he said.

Public health advocates say they expect to see more uptake of the Bridge Access Program and the updated COVID vaccine overall as the nation moves deeper into winter. It is not too late to get vaccinated against COVID, influenza or RSV, Shah said. While he acknowledged that "we're all tired of COVID" and said that the "worst of COVID is likely in the rearview mirror," Shah added, "COVID will be with us for the long-term."

Based on hundreds of millions of COVID vaccine doses that have been administered since the end of 2020 in the U.S. alone and billions worldwide, "what we've seen from the data is that the vaccine is safe and effective," Shah said. "The notion that there are long-term concerns or consequences with the vaccine has thankfully not been seen in the data."

The updated COVID vaccine "is pretty well-keyed to the viruses that are circulating around us," Shah said. While the Bridge Access Program currently makes up a small fraction of the administered doses so far in Moultrie County, Illinois, Hogan said she anticipates a rise in demand if "we see a COVID virus uptick."

The program is designed to expire by the end of December 2024, and Shah said it represents a potential roadmap for how to deliver life-saving vaccines to adult populations that lack adequate insurance and who might be more willing to gamble with exposure to a vaccine-preventable illness than with limited finances.

" there should be a vaccine-for-adults program."

"I hope we recognize that we want people to stay healthy we don't want them to go to schools or workplaces sick," Rhee said. "To me, there should be a vaccine-for-adults program."

Rhee pointed to the decadeslong success of the federally funded Vaccines for Children program, which the CDC estimates to have saved trillions of dollars and prevented hundreds of millions of cases of pediatric illness. A program modeled after it for adults would go far to ease patient concerns about cost while preserving health at individual, household and community levels, he said.

But the nation has "a long way to go" when it comes to jabs of the updated COVID vaccine, Freeman said. Among all the respiratory illnesses circulating in the U.S. currently, COVID-19 is still the leading cause of hospitalizations and deaths, and is the fourth leading cause of death overall. "It's disappointing after everything we just went through and the impact people had to their lives and their families. We should know better right now. We have a tool that's proven to protect."

Read more:

How uninsured adults can still get vaccinated against COVID - PBS NewsHour

With the holiday season upon us and more time spent indoors in close proximity to others, the risk of respiratory virus infection increases.1In November, COVID-19 cases and hospitalization rates increased across the U.S. and the European Union (EU). 2-4 Experts have reiterated that, despite COVID-19 fatigue, our best line of defense to protect communities is to get vaccinated with the latest vaccines.5,6

Without vaccination, these rates may continue to rise, posing significant risks for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and immunocompromised.1,5 In the U.S., COVID-19 cases are increasing in many states.2 Preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of November 25, 2023, showed that COVID-19 led to more hospitalizations than influenza, with a hospitalization rate of 4.36 per 100,000 people, compared to 0.83 for influenza.7

As of November 26, 2023, in the EU, there was an overall increasing trend in COVID-19 cases.4Severity indicators such as hospital admission, intensive care unit admissions and death rates continued to increase due to COVID-19, especially in individuals aged 65 and older.4

These rising rates could be slowed if immunization rates increase. In the U.S. and EU, a significant proportion of the population has not received an updated COVID-19 vaccine, despite health authority recommendations.6,9-11 This immunization season, people have options for vaccination, with two vaccine technologies available to protect against COVID-19: protein-based and mRNA vaccines.6,8It is critical that we remain vigilant to help protect against COVID-19.

References:

View original post here:

Rising U.S. and EU COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalization Rates and the Need for COVID-19 Vaccination - Dec 8, 2023 - Novavax Investor Relations