Country
United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe
More:
High levels of COVID-19 continue to strain the workforce - KITV Honolulu
Researchers at Gladstone Institutes and UC San Francisco (UCSF) have discovered in a study that bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) proteins are vital for the body to fight Covid-19 infection.
The research also found that BET proteins play two distinct roles in affecting how the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with human cells.
They provide the virus with a pathway into cells while aiding cells to defend themselves.
Gladstone Institutes senior investigator and UCSF Quantitative Biosciences Institute director Nevan Krogan made a detailed map in 2020 displaying which proteins of the virus directly interact with which proteins in infected human cells.
On examining the map, a pairing was observed where the viruss envelope protein was found to bind to BRD2 and BRD4, the two members of the BET proteins family.
Furthermore, researchers found that one of the genes turned on by these BET proteins is ACE2, the same protein that the virus depends on to get into cells.
In the latest study, Gladstone graduate student Irene Chen and the team found that the BET proteins switch on genes that block viruses, in SARS-CoV-2 infected cells.
This property is apart from turning on the ACE2 gene, which aids the virus in entering human cells.
On blocking BRD4 in Covid-19-infected mice, the symptoms of the mice worsened and progressed to severe disease.
These findings indicated that BET proteins have a vital role in enabling and combating Covid-19.
A close look at the virus also showed that the envelope protein has a small region that looks like human histones, which are protein complexes seen along DNA.
In addition, the team revealed that the virus could engage the BRD4 protein at the cell nucleus periphery by imitating the histones that BET proteins attach to. This, consequently, hindered BRD4 from activating antiviral genes.
The latest results show that current therapies that hinder all BET proteins at the same time are unlikely to be effective for Covid-19, at least in infected patients.
It was established in the study that various BET proteins play distinct roles in the infection cycle and could lead to the development of therapies that act on particular BET proteins or their parts in the future.
Gladstone Institute of Virology director Melanie Ott said: Its clear from our results that the BET drugs currently available are not suitable for Covid-19.
But certain elements of these drugs could be adapted for future drug development.
Lines and Machines for Pharmaceutical Solids Production
Pharmaceutical Packaging Products for Tablets and Capsules
Read this article:
Gladstone and UCSF scientists discover BET protein role in Covid-19 - Pharmaceutical Technology
Northern Health is expanding the access to its virtual emergency department service to people living in residential aged care facilities and COVID-19 patients being treated at home via the COVID-19 Positive Pathway Program.
This comes as part of the additional A$162 million ($122 million) funding provided by the state government of Victoria to the health service to improve the operations of Ambulance Victoria.
Due to this, the capacity of the Victorian Virtual Emergency Department (VVED) will be doubled from 250 patients per day. The service virtually connects patients with non-life-threatening emergencies to nurses and doctors via video call. It also enables paramedics to connect patients on scene for virtual assessment, management and referral.
THE LARGER CONTEXT
The additional funding for the VVED is part of the Victorian government's initiative to support the state health workers and patients amid a fresh outbreak caused by the emergence of new COVID-19 variants.
This week, COVID-19 cases in Victoria went above 10,000 with nearly 900 people hospitalised. The state health department reported seeing a 99% increase in COVID-19 patients in hospitals this month compared in late June.
"Well have more paramedics working alongside our nurses and doctors, to get more support to Victorians who can be treated in their home, [p]lus the tools to get patients the best care in the right place if they need to go to the hospital," said Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews.
THE LARGER TREND
In late-May, Northern Health deployed The Clinician's ZEDOC platform to replace the old patient intake platform at its VVED. The new platform has been configured to simplify the virtual ED's digital patient intake and clinical tracking processes. Since its implementation, the ZEDOC platform has helped manage the increase in patient flow in the VVED, which was recently expanded across Victoria.
See the original post here:
Northern Health to expand virtual ED access to COVID-19, aged care patients - Healthcare IT News
CNN
Injected vaccines against the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 have been hugely successful, saving nearly 20 million lives globally in their first year of use and slashing the pandemics death toll by an estimated 63%, according to a recent study. Yet good as these shots are, they have not stopped the virus from spreading from person to person.
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads, it changes. Thats helped it get past our firewalls, the immunity created by vaccines or left behind after we recover from an infection. Which is why, well into the third year of the pandemic, were in the midst of another wave of Covid-19 caused by the most immune-evasive variant yet, BA.5. And more variants are coming.
Even as vaccine manufacturers race to update the first-generation shots in the hopes of patching up our protection for the fall, other scientists are taking a different approach, making vaccines delivered via nasal sprays or tablets that would deploy more immune defenders to the bodys front lines: the lining of the mouth, nose and throat.
The hope is to shore up the defenses right there in the nose so that the virus cant even replicate in the nose, said Dr. Ellen Foxman, an immunobiologist at the Yale School of Medicine. And then someone who has a really effective mucosal vaccination cant even really support viral replication or make viruses that can infect other people.
That would be like the holy grail, said Foxman, who helped plan the International Congress of Mucosal Immunology meeting this week in Seattle, which is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Janssen and Merck.
If it works, theres hope that mucosal immunity could slow the development of new coronavirus variants and finally bring the Covid-19 pandemic under control.
Theres a long way to go before that happens, however, and many scientists say the approach needs an injection of funding to accelerate the pace of development, much in the same way the billions of dollars doled out by Operation Warp Speed delivered the first generation of Covid-19 vaccines in record time.
The idea behind vaccinating the mucosa the lining of the tube (as mucosal immunologists refer to it) that runs from our nose and mouths to our lungs and guts isnt new. There are nine existing vaccines that work this way, including oral drops that protect against polio, cholera, salmonella and rotavirus, and a nasal spray, FluMist, that inoculates against the flu.
Most are based on the oldest types of vaccine technologies, using killed or weakened versions of a virus or bacteria to teach the body how to recognize it and fight it off when a real infection gets underway.
Because of those actual pathogens, some people cant use these kind of vaccines. Its risky to expose certain groups including pregnant women and those with weakened immune systems to even weakened viruses.
None has achieved the goal of blocking the transmission of an infection, but that may be because they havent gotten the same kind of investment as injectable vaccines, says Ed Lavelle, an immunologist at Trinity College in Dublin.
What hasnt really happened with mucosal vaccines is kind of huge advances in technology that have happened with injectable vaccines, even before Covid, Lavelle said.
That may be about to change, however.
More than a dozen nasal spray vaccines against Covid-19 are being tested around the world. Many use new kinds of technologies, like delivering instructions for making the spike protein of the coronavirus through harmless Trojan horse viruses. Others aim to deploy the mRNA technology that was so successful in the injectable vaccines in the form of a nasal spray.
One company, Vaxart, has even made a tablet that delivers instructions for making parts of the new coronavirus to the gut, which then builds immunity in the tube.
In animal tests, hamsters vaccinated in the nose or mouth have been less likely to spread a SARS-CoV-2 infection to uninfected animals that are in separate cages but share the same air.
What we found is that if you did an oral immunization, you inhibited the ability for that breakthrough to infect other animals, said Sean Tucker, chief scientific officer for Vaxart.
The Vaxart tablet, which is about the size and shape of an aspirin, uses an adenovirus the same delivery system utilized by the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca Covid vaccines to ferry instructions for making parts of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into cells in the gut, which stimulates the release of antibodies in the nose and mouth.
In an early trial that included 35 participants, 46% had an increase of antibodies in their nose after taking the tablet vaccine. Those who did seemed to create a broad spectrum of immunity to a number of types of coronaviruses, and they appeared to hold on to that protection for about a year. That may be a bit longer than injectable vaccines, though more research is needed to confirm those results.
Tucker is presenting these early results Monday at the Seattle conference. He says theyll also be published as a preprint study in the coming days.
A phase 2 trial of a tablet with a slightly different formulation, involving almost 900 participants, is also underway, Tucker says. It is scheduled to be completed next summer.
Most of the mucosal vaccines under development are designed to be delivered as a squirt of liquid or mist up the nose, and many are intended to be used as boosters in people whove had a complete primary series of Covid-19 vaccines.
I dont think of them as nasal vaccines. I think of them as nasal boosts, said Jennifer Gommerman, an immunologist at the University of Toronto who specializes in tissue-specific immunity.
Thats important, Gommerman says, because nasal vaccines like FluMist havent really worked all that well.
The next generation of inoculations will be something different, she says. They will build on the body-wide immunity that was created by shots; theyll just redeploy it to the nose and throat where it is needed most, she says.
But here, were actually talking about something else, where were talking about building on the systemic immunity that was induced by a vaccine to a three shots of mRNA and then training that systemic immunity to go to the upper respiratory tract by boosting through the nose, Gommerman says.
One such approach was recently tested by Akiko Iwasaki, an immunobiologist at Yale University. According to their preprint study, Iwasaki and her team inoculated mice with a low dose of Pfizers Comirnaty mRNA vaccine and followed up two weeks later with a boost of mRNA vaccine delivered via a nasal spray. The low dose of the injected vaccine was meant to simulate waning immunity. Other groups of mice got only an injection or only a dose of vaccine in the nose.
Only the group that got the injection followed by the nasal spray developed robust immunity against the Covid-19 virus.
That approach we have shown in the mouse model to be 100% protective against lethal dose of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it dramatically reduces the viral load in the nose and in the lung, Iwasaki said.
Mucosal vaccines also target a slightly different part of the immune system than shots.
Injections trigger the body to make antibodies against the virus that causes Covid-19. Most of these are Y-shaped proteins called IgG antibodies that are programmed to recognized and block specific parts of the SARS-CoV-2 virus along its spikes, the parts of the virus that latch onto and infect our cells.
A much smaller portion of these are IgA antibodies, and they look like two Ys joined together at their tails and turned sideways so it looks more like a dog bone, Gommerman says.
Like bouncers at a bar, IgA antibodies are the primary immune molecules on guard in the mucosa.
These molecules are beefier than IgG antibodies. They have four arms instead of two, and theyre special because theyre less picky about what they grab onto than IgG antibodies.
They might be a little more promiscuous in the way they recognize different variants. And thats obviously a plus, Gommerman said.
Shots increase IgA antibodies in the nose for a short time, but the hope is that mucosal vaccines will really ramp up the population of these sentries and help them stay active for longer.
Whether theyll be able to confer complete sterilizing immunity, thats a very tall order, Gommerman said. But we should be now working on ways to slow down person-to-person transmission, because this virus continues to mutate and then fools our immune system and gets past that mucosal layer.
This is now a very contagious virus, she said.
Iwasaki says she would love to move her vaccine out of animal studies and into clinical trials in people.
Were still at the stage where were kind of struggling to raise money, even make the vaccine for human use, because it takes millions of dollars, and we are not sitting on that kind of money for research lab, she said, so not yet.
Link:
With a sniff or a swallow, new vaccines aim to put the brakes on Covid-19 spread - CNN
Mike Stucka USA TODAY NETWORK| Deming Headlight
New coronavirus cases increased 8.5% in New Mexico in the week ending Sunday as the state added 6,717 cases. The previous week had 6,188 new cases of the virus that causes COVID-19.
New Mexico ranked seventh among the states where coronavirus was spreading the fastest on a per-person basis, a USA TODAY Network analysis of Johns Hopkins University data shows. In the latest week coronavirus cases in the United States increased 29% from the week before, with 947,862 cases reported. With 0.63% of the country's population, New Mexico had 0.71% of the country's cases in the last week. Across the country, 42 states had more cases in the latest week than they did in the week before.
The Fourth of July holiday disrupted who got tested, when people got tested and when both test results and deaths were reported. This may significantly skew week-to-week comparisons.
Luna County reported 56 cases and two deaths in the latest week. A week earlier, it had reported 69 cases and zero deaths. Throughout the pandemic it has reported 7,194 cases and 135 deaths.
Within New Mexico, the worst weekly outbreaks on a per-person basis were in Grant County with 511 cases per 100,000 per week; Lincoln County with 450; and San Juan County with 419. The Centers for Disease Control says high levels of community transmission begin at 100 cases per 100,000 per week.
Adding the most new cases overall were Bernalillo County, with 2,216 cases; Doa Ana County, with 703 cases; and San Juan County, with 520. Weekly case counts rose in 19 counties from the previous week. The worst increases from the prior week's pace were in Bernalillo, Doa Ana and Sandoval counties.
>> See how your community has fared with recent coronavirus cases
Across New Mexico, cases fell in 12 counties, with the best declines in Los Alamos County, with 70 cases from 132 a week earlier; in San Juan County, with 520 cases from 572; and in Valencia County, with 205 cases from 245.
In New Mexico, 93 people were reported dead of COVID-19 in the week ending Sunday. In the week before that, 17 people were reported dead.
A total of 577,583 people in New Mexico have tested positive for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, and 8,056 people have died from the disease, Johns Hopkins University data shows. In the United States 89,542,107 people have tested positive and 1,023,799 people have died.
>> Track coronavirus cases across the United States
USA TODAY analyzed federal hospital data as of Sunday, July 17. Likely COVID patients admitted in the state:
Likely COVID patients admitted in the nation:
Hospitals in 36 states reported more COVID-19 patients than a week earlier, while hospitals in 27 states had more COVID-19 patients in intensive-care beds. Hospitals in 40 states admitted more COVID-19 patients in the latest week than a week prior, the USA TODAY analysis of U.S. Health and Human Services data shows.
The USA TODAY Network is publishing localized versions of this story on its news sites across the country, generated with data from Johns Hopkins University and the Centers for Disease Control. If you have questions about the data or the story, contact Mike Stucka at mstucka@gannett.com.
Excerpt from:
Luna County reported 56 additional COVID-19 cases this week this week - The Deming Headlight
The nation is experiencing a COVID-19 tsunami.Yet, peoples behavior suggests that no one is noticing. Are the surge and the behavior related?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)provides weekly updates on every countys COVID-19 status. As of July 14, over 75 percent of counties are at the medium or high levels. Givenhow these levels are defined, this means that COVID-19 hospital admissions in these counties are sufficient to impact hospital bed availability.
With more people usingat-home tests, case counts have become a meaningless measure for assessing COVID-19 community risk, sincepositive test results rarely get reported to public health agencies. Hospitalizations, both new COVID-19 admissions and current occupancy, provide the most informative risk metrics.
NewCOVID-19 hospital admissionscontinue to increase, with theBA.5 omicron subvariantgaining a foothold in the population and itscontagiousness driving widespread infection spread.
The majority of Americans appear unfazed by the current risk environment.
Restaurants and entertainment venues continue to enjoy robust activity and the travel industry is enjoying a returning vibrance. Air travel continues to be robust, as measured by the daily number of people the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are screening at airport security checkpoints, which has consistently beenover 2 million travelerssince early June. Given thatseat capacity is just below those levels available in 2019, air travel has essentially returned to pre-pandemic levels.
In the spring of 2021, one year into the COVID-19 pandemic, people were asking what thenew normalwould look like. We can now answer this question.
The new normal is an ongoing stream of new variants and subvariants, each with their own set of characteristics and risks. The ebb and flow of infections will continue. The much hoped for environment that prior infections would be protective has not panned out. The vaccines, including boosters, have continued to provide a fortress of protection against severe disease, albeit weakening over time. Treatments likePaxlovidare invaluable despite limitations such asdrug interactions.
The good news so far is thatdeaths have not surged in lockstep with infections, though at around 300 per day, they are not negligible. The not-so-good news is thathospitalizations continue to climb, which may lead to more deaths in the coming weeks.
Is this new normal acceptable? Will the public health environment continue to erode, or will it heal with time?
The CDC has done a great disservice to the nation. It has placed a tremendous burden on every person to assess what they should do to protect themselves, and most importantly, protect our societys well-being. Opaque guidance on social distancing, masking and ventilation has been lost in the cacophony of freedom to choose jubilation and an insensitivity spawned from a stream of worst-case warnings that have been communicated in the past.
This lack of trust in the CDC means that the public is no longer listening. The recentWhite House briefing, which contained useful information and advice, fell on deaf ears.
Many hoped, or wished, that after over two years of restrictions and constraints, the pandemic would be in the rearview mirror. We can keep our heads in the sand and believe that it has, but the data says otherwise.
Does that mean that people have to lock down again and return to a state of hibernation? Definitely not. That did not work very well, as the implemented social disruptions led tonon-COVID-19 excess deathsthat were unexpected and unpredictable.
What our nation needs is a regained trust in the CDC and the data that can guide us through the BA.5 surge and other new variants that are likely to emerge in the future. The seeds of trust can be found in what is messaged and how it is messaged.
Blanket mask mandates are ineffective. Credible, targeted masking guidance gives people more control over their situation. Ongoing transparent communication on the state of the nation is needed. Worst-case scenarios have been ineffective and even harmful, as people tune out the message, no matter how informative its substance.
Our new normal need not be as bleak as it appears. It can be changed, with a willingness for people to recognize where we are, and a willingness to take actions that are in everyones best interest, even their own.
Without trust, our new normal will continue to on its current trajectory that serves no ones interests.
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor in computer science and the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A data scientist, he applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.
Read the original post:
Lack of trust is fueling the current COVID-19 surge - The Hill
July 18, 2022
The Oswego County Health Department reported that 174 residents tested positive for the COVID-19 virus from Monday, July 11 through Sunday, July 17. This includes both lab-confirmed and at-home tests.
The New York State Department of Health also reported another COVID-19-related death in Oswego County in the last week, bringing the total to 201.
Our heartfelt condolences go out to the family and friends of this person, Oswego County Deputy Public Health Director Vera Dunsmoor. Of course, we never want to see these reports as we strive to come out of the pandemic. In order to move forward, we must all continue working together to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and reverse the number of new positive cases of the virus.
The following report reflects data collected from Monday, July 11 through Sunday, July 17:
An additional four Oswego County residents were hospitalized due to COVID-19 between Sunday, July 10 and Saturday, July 16, according to the hospitalization report received by the Oswego County Health Department. New hospitalization numbers are not part of a running total of hospitalizations. For hospitalization details such as age groups and vaccination status, go to the Oswego County COVID-19 Dashboard at https://oswegogis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/3fd162cd12264b418dc03bdebd7f5300.
The Oswego County Health Department continues to hold weekly vaccination clinics. COVID-19 vaccines are available for children aged 6 months and over as well as adults. The clinics run every Tuesday afternoon from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m. by appointment only. An additional clinic runs from 9 to 11 a.m. and 1 to 3 p.m. on the second Wednesday of the month. Walk-ins are accepted on Wednesdays, but residents are strongly encouraged to go to health.oswegocounty.com/vaccines to make an appointment to avoid wait times.
The Oswego County Office for the Aging can help people aged 60 and older who need help navigating the internet to make appointments. Call 315-349-3484.
Vaccines are also available at local pharmacies and health care provider offices. Face masks are required at all clinics and at-home COVID-19 test kits will be distributed to those getting vaccinated at a county clinic while supplies last.
Free transportation is provided to residents to go to COVID-19 testing and vaccination sites through a partnership between Oswego County and Oswego County Opportunities, Inc. Rides are available between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. Call 315-598-1514 to schedule a ride in advance.
Oswego County developed a portal for residents to report positive at-home COVID-19 test results, exposure to the virus and get the necessary isolation/quarantine paperwork for schools and employers. Go to https://health.oswegocounty.com/COVID-19 and click on the appropriate link.
Test results received from doctors offices, pharmacies and other testing sites DO NOT need to be self-reported. However, if isolation orders are needed for school, employers or other reasons, people can request these documents using the portals Report a Positive (Laboratory) Test option.
The health department encourages residents who test positive to immediately notify any close contacts. The close contact should then go to the States website at https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/new-york-state-contact-tracing to find out if they meet the criteria for quarantine. If they do, they should report the exposure on the County Health Departments online portal.
Residents are urged to continue taking precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 including:
For more information, go to the Oswego County Health Departments COVID-19 page at https://health.oswegocounty.com/COVID-19 or call its COVID-19 Hotline at 315-349-3330. Callers may need to leave a message and a staff member will return the call.
Residents should contact their medical providers directly for personal medical advice about COVID-19 and vaccinations or booster shots.
For information about emotional supports, visit the Oswego County Department of Social Services Division of Mental Hygiene at http://www.oswegocounty.com/mentalhygiene.
Under New York State Public Health Law, the Oswego County Health Department is the local public health authority regarding the COVID-19 pandemic response within the County of Oswego. The Oswego County Health Department works closely with New York State Department of Health regarding COVID-19 monitoring, response, and reporting.
Read the rest here:
Reduce the Spread of COVID-19 to Keep Moving Forward - Oswego County
In a recent study published in the Lancet Regional Health Europe, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the fourth dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs).
Previous studies have barely investigated the COVID-19-related all-cause mortality beyond two months of receiving the fourth dose of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine in individuals over 80 years. The authors extensively searched PubMed and medRXiv servers. They found only one study from Israel which reported high relative effectiveness of the fourth compared to the third dose of an m-RNA-based vaccine, between 75 to 80%, against COVID-19-related mortality in the elderly (60+ years) during one to two months of receiving a vaccine. It was critical to obtain evidence on the effects of vaccination in LTCFs as they are frailer and because the transmission in LTCFs has been high.
In the present study, researchers used cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in recipients of a four-dose mRNA-based vaccine vis-a-vis recipients of a three-dose regimen. They computed relative vaccine effectiveness (VE) as one minus the hazard ratio. They enrolled residents of LTCFs who received a fourth dose of an mRNA vaccine from 1 January 2022 onwards. Next, they made a 1:1 matched cohort of Swedish individuals who received at least a third dose. The team also made another 1:1 matched cohort comprising 80+ individuals who had received a fourth dose and Swedish individuals who received at least a third dose.
The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality from seven days after baseline until 27 May 2022. The team used the Kaplan-Meier method to illustrate cumulative mortality. They also created a product term between vaccination status and dosing interval between the third and fourth dose; likewise, a product term between vaccination status and vaccine type among fourth dose recipients. Finally, the team performed interaction analyses using product terms, which they added to the final Cox model.
Over 98% of study participants had received BNT162b2 for primary-series vaccination, of which 80% also received a third dose of BNT162b2. Among four-dose recipients, ~60% received BNT162b2, and the remaining received mRNA-1273. The median age of the study cohort with 80+ individuals was 85.2 years. Of these, roughly 58% were women, and ~7% lived in an LTCF. More four-dose recipients lived in LTCFs compared to three-dose recipients (86% vs. 54%).
The fourth dose of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine reduced all-cause mortality by about 40% during the first two months in LTCF residents. Previously, a Canadian study reported a 40% reduction in COVID-19-related hospitalization or death in LTCF residents from the fourth dose compared to the third dose.
The authors followed up with LTCFs on average for 77 days, and a maximum of 126 days. During days 7 to 60, 1119 residents died, and the observed VE against all-cause mortality was 39% among LTCFs, with no effect of dose interval in fourth-dose recipients. Likewise, the time since the first booster dose and vaccine type had no effect. During subsequent follow-up, from day 61 to 126 days, VE declined to 27%, and there were 259 deaths reported.
In individuals 80 years or older, the average follow-up time was 73 days, with maximum follow-up reaching 143 days. During days 7 to 60, 5753 elderly died, and the observed VE against all-cause mortality was 71%, with a slight effect of living conditions in fourth-dose recipients. Accordingly, the authors observed a VE of 73% for individuals living in their own homes. Although the dosing interval had no impact, the time since the first booster dose changed VEs. The VE of the fourth dose increased to 79% when more than four months had passed since vaccination. During subsequent follow-up, from day 61 to 143 days, VE declined to 54%, and there were 1054 deaths reported.
The current study, executed during the era of the predominance of new SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern Omicron in Sweden, showed that compared to the first booster, a second booster dose substantially decreased the short-term risk of all-cause mortality in LTCF residents and the oldest. However, the conferred protection declined slightly after two months, indicating limited durability of protection from the third dose in the oldest and the frailest. Thus, vaccination timing is crucial for protecting this high-risk population via vaccination.
Follow this link:
INTERVIEW HIGHLIGHTS:
Surprising aspects of BA.4 and BA.5
What really has gotten our attention about BA.4 and particularly BA.5 is that the virus is evolving to become more evasive or able to better escape our immune protection from the vaccines and from prior infection, as well as increasingly easily spread or transmissible to other people.
They spread faster?
Probably about 20% to 30% faster than the original Omicron variant or some of the earlier subvariants we saw back in the early spring.
Some interesting data suggests the way BA.5, in particular, is more efficient at entering into cells and leads to higher spikes of the viral load we're seeing in the upper airways, which probably explains at least part of the reason why it's more easily spread.
Are the vaccines and the one or two boosters we've had effective against four and five?
They're not as effective against four and five at preventing any infection. And so we are seeing an increase in what we would call reinfection, meaning people who've had COVID before, including people who had Omicron only a few short months ago. We're seeing those individuals getting reinfected with BA.4 and BA.5. We're also seeing individuals who are fully up to date getting infected as well.
Now, prior infection and being fully vaccinated are still largely providing protection against severe disease. And so we haven't seen a significant increase in deaths from BA.4 and BA.5, but we are starting to see a slight uptick in hospitalizations just due to really to the large number of individuals who are getting infected or reinfected.
Will new boosters expected this fall offer more protection against four and five?
The FDA has come out and said all boosters the companies are planning for this fall should be what we call a bivalent vaccine, meaning they have a part of the vaccine-specific to target BA.4 and BA.5. And there is preliminary data that those do provide added protection. You know, I think that it will certainly help.
The question I think that's lingering in many people's minds is if we have to wait till October or November for these new boosters, will they still provide a substantial benefit then, or will the virus have further changed or mutated itself before we get there?
Is this worse than what I would have gotten from some previous variant?
We have not seen evidence that BA.4 and BA.5 are causing more severe disease. Now, we don't know if that's just the virus itself intrinsically doesn't cause more severe disease or if it's infecting individuals who already have that partial wall of immunity from prior infection and vaccines.
Fortunately, we aren't seeing trends of significantly more serious disease. But that's something we're going to have to monitor closely because we're these are still relatively new subvariants that we're learning a lot more about their clinical behavior when they infect people.
How do existing treatments for COVID stand up against BA.4 and BA.5?
We still have oral antivirals, and the main one people have been using is Paxlovid, a product that still works well if started early in high-risk individuals who get infected with BA.4 and BA.5.
There's one treatment, the monoclonal antibody bebtelovimab, that does still work against the subvariants. And so that is available and out there.
And there is also the preventative monoclonal for those that are very high-risk, such as immunocompromised individuals. And that does still appear to provide some protection.
What's important is anybody who's over the age of 50 or has other high-risk features have a treatment action plan in place where they can access testing quickly and then contact their physician to see what treatment options would be best for them, given their other medical conditions, and other medications that they may be taking.
RESOURCES:
What You Need to Know About Variants
Texas COVID-19 Data
Covid Data Tracker
COVID-19 Current State Analysis and Forecasting for the DFW Region
Five things weve learned about the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron variants
BA.5, now dominant U.S. variant, may pose the biggest threat to immune protection yet
Tracking Coronavirus in Texas: Latest Map and Case Count
Interview highlights were lightly edited for clarity.
Got a tip? Email Sam Baker at sbaker@kera.org. You can follow Sam on Twitter @srbkera.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
Go here to see the original:
New versions of omicron are fueling an increase in COVID-19 cases in North Texas - KERA News
