One of the few legitimate reasons to be hesitant about getting vaccinated is a fear of needles. Companies like Pfizer are working on pill forms of their Covid-19 vaccines as alternatives, but a new robot could also help make the vaccination procedure less intimidating as it performs injections all by itself and without the jab of a needle.
Developed by Cobionix, an autonomous robotics company that was founded at the Canadian University of Waterloo, Cobi is pitched as an autonomous and versatile robotics platform that can be configured and tailored for countless tasks which it can perform without the need for human intervention or supervision, which is an approach to robotics that has been gaining popularity over the years.
Typically, robots are designed and programmed for very specific tasks, such as welding frames on a vehicle in a car factory. In the long run, a purpose-built robot can be more affordable than a human employee, and take over tasks that are potentially dangerous for people to perform, but the initial costs are extravagant, which has meant they haven’t been a good fit for small businesses who can’t afford the upfront costs. Cobi, by comparison, is designed and built with extreme flexibility in mind, and simply needs software updates and minor re-tooling to change jobs. It allows the robot to be built en masse, which helps reduce the price tag, and to demonstrate just how flexible it can be, its creators have demonstrated it delivering vaccinations.
The only thing scarier than a trained medical professional jabbing a hypodermic needle deep into your arm is an unfeeling robot with no bedside manner attempting the same thing. So Cobi employs a less intimidating alternative: a needle-less injection technology developed by another company that uses a high-pressure fluid jet, no thicker than a human hair, to inject the vaccine’s contents deep into arm tissue.
Some medical robots, such as those designed for surgery, are remotely operated by real surgeons who can be miles away but still monitor the progress of the procedure through live video streams. Cobi, instead, automates all of that, first using cameras to detect the presence of a patient and then their documentation or identification. The robot’s hand features a LiDAR sensor that quickly scans the patient to create a 3D map of their body which is analyzed by software to determine the best spot for an injection to be made. Through a display, the patient is then given instructions on how to prepare for the shot, including where to stand, in what position, and whether articles of clothing need to be removed.
In a real-world setting, there are thousands of variables that need to be taken into account for such a robot to be effective at that specific task, including systems put in place to ensure that patients are who they say they are (facial recognition, etc.) which is why the platform’s creators believe it will still be a couple of years before Cobi starts administering vaccinations. But automating this task could make vaccinating large populations easier, cheaper, faster, and safer as it potentially reduces the exposure risk for medical professionals too. And while two years seems like a long time, we’re still not sure how long the current pandemic will drag on, and annual Covid-19 booster shots are starting to seem like a very real thing.
Heart healthy eating starts with your eating patterns, according to the American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement, “2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health.” (Shutterstock)
Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
ATLANTA — A full belly makes a happy heart, but your heart will be happier if you focus on sustaining long-term habits.
Heart-healthy eating starts with your eating patterns, according to the American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement, “2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health.”
That doesn’t mean giving up takeout or that five-minute meal kit from the grocery store altogether. The dietary guidance encourages people to adapt these habits into their lifestyle.
The statement identifies 10 features of heart-healthy eating patterns — including guidance to combine a balanced diet with exercise; consume most nutrients through food over supplements; eat whole grains; reduce sodium, added sugar and alcohol intake; use non-tropical plant oils; and eat minimally processed, over ultra-processed, foods.
“What’s really important now is that people make modifications that can be sustainable in the long term,” said Alice Lichtenstein, director of Tufts University’s Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory and chair of the writing group for the AHA’s new statement.
The statement’s writing group evaluated literature and devised 10 features of heart-healthy dietary patterns. The group also expanded on the guidance, recognizing the need for sustainability and societal challenges that can be obstacles to achieving proper nutrition.
Lichtenstein said eating behaviors have changed since the AHA last published a statement with dietary guidance 15 years ago. Previously, the main options were to eat out or dine in, but eating habits have been less consistent in recent years. There has been a trend — exacerbated by the pandemic — of more convenience food options, such as delivery, meal kits and premade meals.
Make changes that go the distance
The focus of the AHA’s new guidance, Lichtenstein said, is to do what works for you, whatever dietary restrictions or cultural adaptions you want to make. Lichtenstein discourages people from making drastic changes based on fad diets — instead, sustained efforts in incorporating these healthy habits can be more beneficial in the long run.
Lauri Wright, chair of the department of nutrition and dietetics at the University of North Florida and national spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, seconds this long-term mindset. Wright, who was not involved with the AHA’s statement, emphasized the focus on building lifestyle habits, regardless of people’s ages and backgrounds.
“When we’re talking pattern or a lifestyle, we’re not just talking about a diet — something temporary,” Wright said. “This is really a lifestyle, and it really can accommodate all of your individualities.”
A heart-healthy way of eating can have other benefits, the statement said, fostering more sustainable practices for the environment. This year is the first time the AHA guidance has included sustainability. Lichtenstein said there is still room for research about plant-based alternatives, such as vegan animal products, which are not always the healthier options. But generally, consuming more whole foods and fewer animal products can benefit both your health and the environment.
The statement also recognizes societal challenges for the first time, such as food insecurity, diet misinformation and structural racism, which can all affect a person’s diet and access to food. A 2020 Northwestern University study found Black and Hispanic households are at greater risk for experiencing food insecurity.
Tackle 1 adjustment at a time
More comprehensive food education from an early age can also instill lifelong healthy eating habits. The emphasis is on prevention, Lichtenstein said, rather than short-term solutions.
Healthy foods have become more convenient, she said. Frozen fruits and vegetables, which can be cheaper than fresh, are comparably nutritious. Dairy products have low-fat and nonfat options. Flavored seltzers are also readily available as alternatives to soda.
Implementing all these changes at once can be overwhelming, but Lichtenstein said this shift could start with one item at a time. Read the label on one snack you purchase every week, such as crackers, and reach for the whole-wheat option. Or choose the reduced-fat and sugar options if those are available. Sustaining these habits is about making minor adjustments and incremental change.
“Think about your whole dietary pattern, not individual food or nutrients,” Lichtenstein said. “We just have to take advantage of what maybe we didn’t realize was out there.”
The best way to stop a contagious virus like COVID-19 is through a worldwide vaccination program. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images” src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/WoanGTpJBqTpug41Lb7Rig–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTQ3MA–/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/cE4j7X4gbbCmwB4ZK1mdsg–~B/aD05NjA7dz0xNDQwO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_conversation_us_articles_815/cd4bd62f51122de3e985d65ce08525ee” data-src=”https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/WoanGTpJBqTpug41Lb7Rig–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTQ3MA–/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/cE4j7X4gbbCmwB4ZK1mdsg–~B/aD05NjA7dz0xNDQwO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_conversation_us_articles_815/cd4bd62f51122de3e985d65ce08525ee”/>
Now that kids ages 5 to 11 are eligible for COVID-19 vaccination and the number of fully vaccinated people in the U.S. is rising, many people may be wondering what the endgame is for COVID-19.
Early on in the pandemic, it wasn’t unreasonable to expect that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might just go away, since historically some pandemic viruses have simply disappeared.
For instance, SARS-CoV, the coronavirus responsible for the first SARS pandemic in 2003, spread to 29 countries and regions, infecting more than 8,000 people from November 2002 to July 2003. But thanks to quick and effective public health interventions, SARS-CoV hasn’t been observed in humans in almost 20 years and is now considered extinct.
On the other hand, pandemic viruses may also gradually settle into a relatively stable rate of occurrence, maintaining a constant pool of infected hosts capable of spreading the virus to others. These viruses are said to be “endemic.”
Examples of endemic viruses in the United States include those that cause the common cold and the seasonal flu that appear year after year. Much like these, the virus that causes COVID-19 likely won’t die out, and most experts now expect it to become endemic.
We are a team of virologists and immunologists from the University of Colorado Boulder studying animal viruses that infect humans. An essential focus of our research is to identify and describe the key adaptations that animal viruses require to persist in the human population.
What determines which viruses become endemic?
So why did the first SARS virus from 2003 (SARS-CoV) go extinct while this one (SARS-CoV-2) may become endemic?
The ultimate fate of a virus depends on how well it maintains its transmission. Generally speaking, viruses that are highly contagious, meaning that they spread really well from one person to the next, may never die out on their own because they are so good at finding new people to infect.
When a virus first enters a population with no immunity, its contagiousness is defined by scientists using a simple mathematical term, called R0, which is pronounced “R-naught.” This is also referred to as the reproduction number. The reproduction number of a virus represents how many people, on average, are infected by each infected person. For example, the first SARS-CoV had an R0 of about 2, meaning that each infected person passes the virus to two people on average. For the delta variant strain of SARS-CoV-2, the R0 is between 6 and 7.
The goal for public health authorities is to slow the rate by which viruses spread. Universal masking, social distancing, contact tracing and quarantines are all effective tools to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Since SARS-CoV was poorly transmissible, it just took a little bit of public health intervention to drive the virus to extinction. Given the highly transmissible nature of the delta variant, the challenge for eliminating the virus will be much greater, meaning that the virus is more likely to become endemic.
In August 2020, about 500,000 motorcyclists rode the streets of Sturgis, South Dakota, at the city’s annual motorcycle rally. Masks were encouraged but not required. COVID-19 cases throughout the state increased.Bryan R. Smith/AFP via Getty Images
Is COVID-19 ever going away?
It’s clear that SARS-CoV-2 is very successful at finding new people to infect, and that people can get infected after vaccination. For these reasons, the transmission of this virus is not expected to end. It’s important that we consider why SARS-CoV-2 moves so easily from one person to the next, and how human behavior plays into that virus transmission.
SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus that is spread through the air and is efficiently transmitted when people congregate. Critical public health interventions, like mask use and social distancing, have been key in slowing the spread of disease. However, any lapse in these public health measures can have dire consequences. For instance, a 2020 motorcycle rally brought together nearly 500,000 people in Sturgis, South Dakota, during the early phases of the pandemic. Most of the attendees were unmasked and not practicing social distancing. That event was directly responsible for an increase in COVID-19 cases in the state of South Dakota and nationwide. This shows how easily the virus can spread when people let their guard down.
The virus that causes COVID-19 is often associated with superspreading events, in which many people are infected all at once, typically by a single infected individual. In fact, our own work has shown that just 2% of the people infected with COVID-19 carry 90% of the virus that is circulating in a community. These important “supercarriers” have a disproportionately large impact on infecting others, and if they aren’t tracked down before they spread the virus to the next person, they will continue to sustain the epidemic. We currently don’t have a nationwide screening program geared toward identifying these individuals.
Finally, asymptomatically infected people account for roughly half of all infections of COVID-19. This, when coupled with a broad range of time in which people can be infectious – two days before and 10 days after symptoms appear – affords many opportunities for virus transmission, since people who don’t know they are sick generally take few measures to isolate from others.
The contagious nature of SARS-CoV-2 and our highly interconnected society constitute a perfect storm that will likely contribute to sustained virus spread.
What will our future with COVID-19 look like?
Given the considerations discussed above and what we know about COVID-19 so far, many scientists believe that the virus that causes COVID-19 will likely settle into endemic patterns of transmission. But our inability to eradicate the virus does not mean that all hope is lost.
Our post-pandemic future will heavily depend on how the virus evolves over the coming years. SARS-CoV-2 is a completely new human virus that is still adapting to its new host. Over time, we may see the virus become less pathogenic, similar to the four coronaviruses that cause the common cold, which represent little more than a seasonal nuisance.
Global vaccination programs will have the greatest impact on curbing new cases of the disease. However, the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine campaign so far has touched only a small percentage of people on the planet. In addition, breakthrough infections in vaccinated people still occur because no vaccine is 100% effective. This means that booster shots will likely be needed to maximize vaccine-induced protection against infection.
With global virus surveillance and the speed at which safe and effective vaccines have been developed, we are well poised to tackle the ever-evolving target that is SARS-CoV-2. Influenza is endemic and evolves quickly, but seasonal vaccination enables life to go on as normal. We can expect the same for SARS-CoV-2 – eventually.
How will we know if and when SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic?
Four seasonal coronaviruses circulate in humans endemically already. They tend to recur annually, usually during the winter months, and affect children more than adults. The virus that causes COVID-19 has not yet settled down into these predictable patterns and instead is flaring up unpredictably around the globe in ways that are sometimes difficult to predict.
[Over 115,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]
Once rates of SARS-CoV-2 stabilize, we can call it endemic. But this transition may look different based on where you are in the world. For instance, countries with high vaccine coverage and plentiful boosters may soon settle into predictable spikes of COVID-19 during the winter months when the environmental conditions are more favorable to virus transmission. In contrast, unpredictable epidemics may persist in regions with lower vaccination rates.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Sara Sawyer, University of Colorado Boulder; Arturo Barbachano-Guerrero, University of Colorado Boulder, and Cody Warren, University of Colorado Boulder.
Read more:
Sara Sawyer is a co-founder of Darwin Biosciences, an infectious disease diagnostics company based in Boulder, CO. She receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Cody Warren receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Arturo Barbachano-Guerrero does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Late last year, as the coronavirus surged across the United Kingdom, Dr. Luca Ferasin and his colleagues started noticing an uptick in patients with symptoms of myocarditis, or heart inflammation.
The condition is a rare side effect of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, most commonly seen in men under 30. It can also be caused by infection with the virus itself.
But these patients weren’t humans; they were cats and dogs.
Full coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic
“These were dogs and cats that were depressed, lethargic, they lost appetite,” said Ferasin, a veterinary cardiologist at The Ralph Veterinary Referral Centre in Buckinghamshire, England. “And they had either difficulty breathing because of accumulation of fluid in their lungs due to the heart disease, or they were fainting because of an underlying abnormal heart rhythm.”
Before December, about 1.5 percent of pets referred to The Ralph were diagnosed with myocarditis, he said. But in the period between December and March, that number jumped dramatically, increasing to 12.5 percent of pets with confirmed myocarditis.
Ferasin and his colleagues later found out that many of the pets’ owners had either tested positive for Covid or had symptoms of the disease within three to six weeks of their pets becoming ill. That information, coupled with the fact that the timing coincided with the surge in cases driven by the alpha variant of the virus in the U.K., prompted the researchers to test the pets for SARS-CoV-2.
Ferasin detailed the rise in Covid-induced myocarditis cases in pets in a report published Friday in the journal Veterinary Record.
Of 11 animals, two cats and one dog tested positive for the alpha variant of the virus, and two additional cats and an additional dog tested positive for Covid antibodies. The remaining five animals tested negative for antibodies and the virus. None of the animals tested had symptoms of a respiratory infection or any other typical signs of Covid, but all of them had myocarditis, Ferasin said.
Because The Ralph only sees cardiac patients, the researchers can’t say whether dogs and cats may develop typical Covid symptoms in other cases of infection.
It’s also unknown if veterinarians in general practices are seeing more cases of myocarditis caused by SARS-CoV-2, said Margaret Hosie, a veterinary virologist at the MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research.
But maybe that’s because those vets don’t know it’s a possibility, said Hosie, who was not involved with the research. Reports like this will help general practice vets become aware of Covid-induced myocarditis in pets, so they’ll know to ask about Covid exposure and test for it.
All of the pets in this study recovered after supportive treatment with supplemental oxygen and diuretics to help remove fluid from the lungs, with the exception of one cat with persistent abnormal heart rhythm, in which case the owners decided to euthanize the animal. None of the animals were treated with antiviral medications, Ferasin said.
There have been other cases of pet cats and dogs around the world testing positive for other variants of Covid, including the delta variant, but there’s no evidence to date that the other variants cause similar heart issues in pets. In addition, Ferasin said the rate of pets with myocarditis referred to The Ralph has returned to its pre-Covid level of 1 to 2 percent.
As a precaution, Ferasin and Hosie both advised pet owners with Covid to avoid contact with their pets, just as they would with other humans.
Download the NBC News app for full coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic
“If it is not possible to get someone else to look after their pet, they should consider wearing a mask when preparing their food to minimize the likelihood of infecting them,” Hosie said.
Several studies to date show the virus is transmitted from people to their cats and dogs, but not vice versa. “So, people shouldn’t panic” if their pets start showing signs of illness, Ferasin said.
So far, it seems Covid doesn’t cause severe problems in animals; most recover quite quickly, Hosie said.
Nonetheless, it’s important to study Covid in pets because it’s possible they could be a viral reservoir that allows the virus to mutate in a way that causes more severe disease in humans, she added.
“Obviously we’re focused on preventing human-to-human transmission just now, because that’s crucial,” she said. “But if we were to take our eye off other species, we could be storing up problems in the future.”
In New York City, children can claim $100 if they get their first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine at city-operated vaccine site. Alternatively, they can get tickets to city attractions such as the Statue of Liberty or the Brooklyn Cyclones baseball team. The incentive program was already available to other New Yorkers who got vaccinated.
“We really want kids to take advantage, families take advantage of that,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said Thursday. “Everyone could use a little more money around the holidays. But, most importantly, we want our kids and our families to be safe.”
Plus, the Chicago school district — one of the largest in the nation — is closing on November 12 for Vaccination Awareness Day to make it easier for students to get their shots.
“It is rare that we make a late change to the school calendar, but we see this as an important investment in the future of this school year and the health and wellbeing of our students, staff, and families,” Chicago Public Schools Chief Executive Officer Pedro Martinez said in a message to parents.
The perks come after the US Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention on Tuesday cleared children as young as 5 for smaller vaccination doses, making most Americans eligible for the shots.
In Texas, San Antonio officials announced that parents and guardians who help their children get vaccinated at a public health clinic may claim a $100 gift card for H-E-B grocery stores. And in neighboring Louisiana, officials said the 5-11 age group could soon also claim $100.
In Minnesota, officials launched the “Kids Deserve a Shot” program intended to bolster vaccine numbers among those ages 12 and 17, officials said. The state is offering a $200 visa card as well as the opportunity to enter a raffle for a $100,000 college scholarship or a Minnesota experience prize package.
However, it’s unclear if the various incentives will help bolster the vaccine numbers.
A study published last month in JAMA Health Forum found that incentive lotteries organized by 19 states did not seem to work.
However, the researchers speculated that lotteries may be less enticing than actual cash for vaccines.
A survey in May from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 47% of people who say they want to “wait and see” before being vaccinated said paid time off to get it would make them more likely to do so, and 39% said a financial incentive of $200 from their employer would work.
Overall, the US has fully vaccinated more than 58% of the total population as of Thursday, according to CDC data.
CNN’s Raja Razek and Jen Christensen contributed to this report.
A bat flies during feeding time in Arizona. Bats are considered one of the biggest carriers of rabies. (Joe McDonald, Shutterstock)
Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
BOISE — An Idaho man who state health officials believe didn’t know he was bitten or scratched by a bat in late August died as a result of rabies last month, officials said Thursday.
It’s the state’s first human rabies death since 1978, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and Central District Health.
“This tragic case highlights how important it is that Idahoans are aware of the risk of rabies exposure,” said Idaho State epidemiologist Dr. Christine Hahn, in a statement. “Although deaths are rare, it is critical that people exposed to a bat receive appropriate treatment to prevent the onset of rabies as soon as possible.”
The agencies report that a Boise County man, whose name and age were not released, encountered a bat at his home in late August. The bat flew near him and became caught in his clothing but the man was unaware that he was bitten or scratched. Boise County is about an hour-and-a-half drive from the city of Boise, which is the state capital and county seat of Ada County.
Then, sometime in October, the man become ill and was hospitalized in the Boise area before he died. Officials said they learned about the bat incident when they investigated his death. They said they’ve since been in contact with the man’s family, those who treated him and anyone else who may been exposed to the virus.
Idaho — and Utah — health officials pointed out that rabies has the highest mortality rate of any disease; however, human rabies deaths are extremely rare. In 2018, a 55-year-old Moroni man was Utah’s first rabies fatality since 1944. That case three years ago also involved bats.
“Once a person begins to show signs of the disease, there is no effective treatment, and rabies is almost always fatal,” said Utah Department of Health disease epidemiologist Hannah Rettler, in a statement on Sept. 24, after a pair of pets came in contact with rabies-carrying wildlife in the St. George area earlier this year.
“That is why it is so important to work with your animal control officers, (Utah Division of WIldlife) officials and local health departments to determine if you need the rabies shot after an exposure,” she added. “It is lifesaving treatment and the reason why human cases of rabies have decreased so dramatically in the last 100 years.”
According to the Mayo Clinic, symptoms of rabies include: fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, agitation, anxiety, confusion, hyperactivity, difficulty swallowing, excessive salivation, fear brought on by attempts to drink fluids because of difficulty swallowing water, fear brought on by air blown on the face, hallucinations, insomnia and partial paralysis.
Idaho health officials say exposure to rabies is much more common. They say an estimated 60,000 Americans receive a post-exposure vaccination series annually.
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources officials say bats are the most common carrier of rabies in Utah. Bats account for all but two of the 96 confirmed rabies wildlife cases in Utah since 2016. As of September, there were also 59 cases of humans exposed to the virus over the past five years — with the one fatality.
Idaho health officials say 14 bats have tested positive for rabies in their state this year alone. About 11% of 159 bats tested in the Gem State last year also carried the virus.
If anyone in Utah comes in contact with an animal that may have rabies, the agency recommends to “immediately call” your local animal control or DWR office so they can capture the animal for rabies testing. If the incident happens during a weekend, they encourage you to call a nonemergency number for your local police dispatch, which can contact DWR employees.
If the animal cannot be tested, they say it should be presumed that the person who came in contact with the creature was exposed to the virus.
“Immediately visit the Utah Department of Health website to find the nearest location to receive the rabies vaccine (post-exposure prophylaxis),” agency officials wrote in a statement. “Contact your local health department with questions and to report the incident.”
As the Delta variant became the dominant strain of coronavirus across the United States, all three COVID-19 vaccines available to Americans lost some of their protective power, with vaccine efficacy among a large group of veterans dropping between 35% and 85%, according to a new study.
Researchers who scoured the records of nearly 800,000 U.S. veterans found that in early March, just as the Delta variant was gaining a toehold across American communities, the three vaccines were roughly equal in their ability to prevent infections.
But over the next six months, that changed dramatically.
By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.
The findings were published Thursday in the journal Science.
The three vaccines held up better in their ability to prevent COVID-19 deaths, but by July — as the Delta variant began to drive a three-month surge of infections and deaths — the shots’ effectiveness on that score also revealed wide gaps.
Among veterans 65 and older who were inoculated with the Moderna vaccine, those who developed a “breakthrough” infection were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated veterans of the same age.
Older veterans who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and subsequently experienced a breakthrough infection were 70% less likely to die than were their unvaccinated peers.
And when older vets who got a single jab of the J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 52% less likely to die than their peers who didn’t get any shots.
For veterans under 65, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provided the best protection against a fatal case of COVID-19, at 84% and 82%, respectively. When younger veterans inoculated with J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 73% less likely to die of COVID-19 than were their unvaccinated peers.
Johnson & Johnson representatives did not immediately respond to requests to discuss the study’s findings.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended booster shots for everyone who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine at least two months earlier.
Boosters are also recommended six months after a second dose of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines for everyone 65 and older; those with medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to a serious case of COVID-19; those who live in nursing homes or other group settings; and those who live or work in high-risk settings like hospitals or prisons.
In addition, all people with compromised immune systems are advised to get a booster shot if it’s been at least 28 days since their vaccine took full effect.
With millions of vaccinated Americans pondering whether they need a boost, the new study offers the most comprehensive comparison yet of how the three vaccines have performed across the nation this year.
It tracked 780,225 veterans of the U.S. armed forces from Feb. 1 to Oct. 1. Close to 500,000 of them had been vaccinated, while just under 300,000 had not.
Hailing from across the country, all were cared for by the Veterans Affairs’ unified system, which provides healthcare to 2.7% of the U.S. population. While the group under study was ethnically and racially diverse, the record-keeping that researchers relied upon was uniform.
Because these were veterans, the study population comprised six times as many men as women. And they skewed older: about 48% were 65 or older, 29% were between 50 and 64, and 24% were under 50.
While older veterans were more likely to die than younger vets throughout the study period, the decline of the vaccines’ protection against illness and death was seen in both young and old.
The study was conducted by a team from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Dr. Barbara Cohn, the study’s lead author, said in addition to its comparison of COVID-19 vaccines, the group’s analysis provides “a lens for making informed decisions around primary vaccination, booster shots, and other multiple layers of protection.” That includes mask mandates, coronavirus testing and other public health measures aimed at countering viral spread.
Strong evidence of the vaccines’ declining power should prompt even states and locales with highly vaccinated populations to consider retaining mask mandates, the authors said. And the findings strongly support the CDC’s recent recommendation that all recipients of the J&J vaccine get a booster.
The study concluded that the Delta variant, which drove a wave of infections and deaths across the country this spring and summer, was likely the factor that most eroded the protection of vaccines.
Other researchers have found similar evidence of declining vaccine effectiveness. But they have suggested that the immune system’s defenses against SARS-CoV-2 simply fade with time, and that waning vaccine effectiveness would likely have been seen with or without the arrival of a new, more transmissible strain.
Both studies show the vaccines strongly protect against severe disease and death, even months after people were first vaccinated and as the more transmissible Delta variant renewed the spread of the virus.
One large, ongoing study of 780,000 veterans shows all three vaccines being used in the US provide strong protection against death from Covid-19, even as their efficacy against mild and asymptomatic infection fell off dramatically.
Researchers looking at men and women getting treatment at Veterans Health Administration facilities found that overall vaccine efficacy against all types of infection fell from 87.9% in February to 48.1% in October. They only counted fully vaccinated veterans, and only counted test results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, the gold standard for determining infection.
“Although breakthrough infection increased risk of death, vaccination remained protective against death in persons who became infected during the Delta surge,” the researchers wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.
“Our analysis by vaccine type, including the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and (Johnson & Johnson’s) Janssen vaccines, suggests declining vaccine effectiveness against infection over time, particularly for the Janssen vaccine. Yet, despite increasing risk of infection due to the Delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against death remained high, and compared to unvaccinated Veterans, those fully vaccinated had a much lower risk of death after infection. These results demonstrate an urgent need to reinstate multiple layers of protection, such as masking and physical distancing — even among vaccinated persons — while also bolstering current efforts to increase vaccination.”
The researchers say their data is more up to date than data provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although it looks only at veterans, who may not be representative of the US population. The group studied represents 2.7% of the US population and while it skews more heavily in favor of males, it may represent more minorities than other study groups, Barbara Cohn, an epidemiologist at the Oakland, California Public Health Institute who helped conduct the study, told CNN.
In March, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine was 86.4% effective in preventing any type of infection. By September, this had fallen to 13%, they reported.
In March, Moderna’s vaccine was 89.2% effective in preventing any infection. This fell to 58% by September.
Pfizer’s vaccine was 86.9% effective against any infection in March and effectiveness fell to 43.3% by September, they reported.
From July to October 2021, they found, vaccine effectiveness against death among veterans under 65 was 73% for J&J’s Janssen vaccine, 81.5% for Moderna’s, and 84.3% for Pfizer’s and for those 65 and older it was 52.2% for Janssen’s, 75.5% for Moderna’s, and 70.1% for Pfizer’s.
“Everybody does better if they are vaccinated, Janssen people included,” Cohn said. “Vaccination is keeping people out of the hospital, even during Delta.”
A second study was coordinated with the CDC and found that people vaccinated with either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccines are much less likely to end up in the hospital on a ventilator or to die from infection than unvaccinated people.
Unvaccinated patients accounted for 91% of Covid-19 deaths and nearly 94% of those with a combined need for ventilators or death, the team reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“We are very confident now that the vaccine is still helping you, even if you get Covid,” Dr. Wesley Self, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University who led the study team, told CNN. “Even those who get sick don’t get as sick as they would if they were unvaccinated.”
The team at 21 US hospitals in 18 states studied 4,513 patients admitted to hospitals with respiratory diseases between March and July. “Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination,” the team wrote.
Not enough people had been vaccinated with Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine to provide sufficient data for the study, Self said. He noted that other studies have shown the Janssen vaccine is less effective than the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna.
“We have known for several months that the mRNA vaccines prevent people from being infected with Covid and prevent people from being hospitalized with Covid. What was not clear from data before was if people still get Covid despite being vaccinated. Was the vaccine beneficial? The answer is a resounding yes,” Self said.
“They are far less likely to become critically ill and die. That tells us the vaccines are attenuating the severity of disease.”
Syringes loaded with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine lie in a tray at a mobile vaccination site in Miami. (Wilfredo Lee / Associated Press)
As the Delta variant became the dominant strain of coronavirus across the United States, all three COVID-19 vaccines available to Americans lost some of their protective power, with vaccine efficacy among a large group of veterans dropping between 35% and 85%, according to a new study.
Researchers who scoured the records of nearly 800,000 U.S. veterans found that in early March, just as the Delta variant was gaining a toehold across American communities, the three vaccines were roughly equal in their ability to prevent infections.
But over the next six months, that changed dramatically.
By the end of September, Moderna’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine, measured as 89% effective in March, was only 58% effective.
The effectiveness of shots made by Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine, which also employed two doses, fell from 87% to 45% in the same period.
And most strikingly, the protective power of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine plunged from 86% to just 13% over those six months.
The findings were published Thursday in the journal Science.
The three vaccines held up better in their ability to prevent COVID-19 deaths, but by July — as the Delta variant began to drive a three-month surge of infections and deaths — the shots’ effectiveness on that score also revealed wide gaps.
Among veterans 65 and older who were inoculated with the Moderna vaccine, those who developed a “breakthrough” infection were 76% less likely to die of COVID-19 compared with unvaccinated veterans of the same age.
Older veterans who got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and subsequently experienced a breakthrough infection were 70% less likely to die than were their unvaccinated peers.
And when older vets who got a single jab of the J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 52% less likely to die than their peers who didn’t get any shots.
For veterans under 65, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines provided the best protection against a fatal case of COVID-19, at 84% and 82%, respectively. When younger veterans inoculated with J&J vaccine suffered a breakthrough infection, they were 73% less likely to die of COVID-19 than were their unvaccinated peers.
Johnson & Johnson representatives did not immediately respond to requests to discuss the study’s findings.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended booster shots for everyone who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine at least two months earlier.
Boosters are also recommended six months after a second dose of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines for everyone 65 and older; those with medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to a serious case of COVID-19; those who live in nursing homes or other group settings; and those who live or work in high-risk settings like hospitals or prisons.
In addition, all people with compromised immune systems are advised to get a booster shot if it’s been at least 28 days since their vaccine took full effect.
With millions of vaccinated Americans pondering whether they need a boost, the new study offers the most comprehensive comparison yet of how the three vaccines have performed across the nation this year.
It tracked 780,225 veterans of the U.S. armed forces from Feb. 1 to Oct. 1. Close to 500,000 of them had been vaccinated, while just under 300,000 had not.
Hailing from across the country, all were cared for by the Veterans Affairs’ unified system, which provides healthcare to 2.7% of the U.S. population. While the group under study was ethnically and racially diverse, the record-keeping that researchers relied upon was uniform.
Because these were veterans, the study population comprised six times as many men as women. And they skewed older: about 48% were 65 or older, 29% were between 50 and 64, and 24% were under 50.
While older veterans were more likely to die than younger vets throughout the study period, the decline of the vaccines’ protection against illness and death was seen in both young and old.
The study was conducted by a team from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco, and the University of Texas Health Science Center.
Dr. Barbara Cohn, the study’s lead author, said in addition to its comparison of COVID-19 vaccines, the group’s analysis provides “a lens for making informed decisions around primary vaccination, booster shots, and other multiple layers of protection.” That includes mask mandates, coronavirus testing and other public health measures aimed at countering viral spread.
Strong evidence of the vaccines’ declining power should prompt even states and locales with highly vaccinated populations to consider retaining mask mandates, the authors said. And the findings strongly support the CDC’s recent recommendation that all recipients of the J&J vaccine get a booster.
The study concluded that the Delta variant, which drove a wave of infections and deaths across the country this spring and summer, was likely the factor that most eroded the protection of vaccines.
Other researchers have found similar evidence of declining vaccine effectiveness. But they have suggested that the immune system’s defenses against SARS-CoV-2 simply fade with time, and that waning vaccine effectiveness would likely have been seen with or without the arrival of a new, more transmissible strain.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
The origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 remains unclear, but recent revelations reinforce the likelihood that the true source was a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Rep. James Comer of Kentucky confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1. Researchers at the institute grafted spike proteins from other coronaviruses onto WIV1 to see if the modified virus was capable of binding in a mouse that possessed the ACE2 receptors found in humans — the same receptor to which SARS-CoV-2 binds. The modified virus reproduced more rapidly and made infected humanized mice sicker than the unmodified virus.
Starting in 2014, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Anthony Fauci, funded the New York-based research nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance with annual grants through 2020 for “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
Total funding was $3,748,715. More than $600,000 of that went to the Wuhan lab. Three other Chinese institutions received funding, as well. The principal investigator was EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who, from the onset of the pandemic, has consistently campaigned in public and behind the scenes to convince people that SARS-CoV-2 did not come from the WIV but evolved naturally from animal-to-human transmission.
Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, previously claimed that “bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans,” in 2017.National Institutes of Health
Tabak’s letter asserts that the modified virus’ becoming more virulent “was an unexpected result” and not “something that the researchers set out to do” — an odd claim, considering that the whole point of manipulating the virus was to investigate things that could make it more virulent.
The 2018 research mentioned in Tabak’s letter is similar to earlier WIV research, funded in part by the NIH, that modified viruses related to SARS to see if they could infect human cells.
Publications of these studies in 2017 and 2016 were the subject of a contentious Senate hearing in which Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky pressed Fauci to admit that they constituted gain-of-function research, prompting Fauci’s denial and a statement that “NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak (left) was instrumental at denying the Wuhan lab leak theory along with Dr. Anthony Fauci. Twitter
Many, but not all, virologists believe that the WIV experimentation qualifies as gain-of-function research.
Such research was originally defined as “any modification of a biological agent that confers new or enhanced activity.”
The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity proposed that only a narrower category, gain-of-function research of concern — research that could make a pathogen likely to spread and cause disease in humans — needs extra regulatory oversight.
Following laboratory biosafety incidents at government research facilities, the US paused funding on gain-of-function research with influenza and the SARS and MERS coronaviruses in 2014 to determine additional oversight. Researchers conducted the 2017 and 2016 studies discussed in the Senate while this pause was in effect.
In 2017, officials lifted the moratorium and replaced it with oversight guidelines for research using potential pandemic pathogens (PPP) — pathogens likely to be highly transmissible, capable of uncontrollable spread and able to cause significant morbidity or mortality in humans. A PPP resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility or virulence of a pathogen is called an enhanced PPP (ePPP).
Tabak does not address whether the 2018 WIV experiments he cited in his letter were gain-of-function research. Instead, he maintains that NIH did not consider the WIV experiments so dangerous as to require special review and biosafety measures under the ePPP regulations adopted in 2017 “because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.”
But this is an unconvincing technicality. Other bat coronaviruses had already caused two deadly diseases, SARS and MERS, and other coronaviruses regularly circulate and infect humans to cause the common cold. It isn’t a stretch to think that a different coronavirus could become dangerous, too — particularly if used in an experiment designed to manipulate a virus that humans have never encountered to see if it could acquire the ability to infect humans.
After explaining why NIH didn’t review the proposal under its guidelines, Tabak’s letter claims that EcoHealth violated the terms of its grant stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold — terms that NIH inserted “out of an abundance of caution and as an added layer of oversight.”
But the letter never explains why this stipulation was necessary.
This blame-shifting is not only unseemly but also may be untrue: EcoHealth maintains that it reported the results in its April 2018, Year Four report.
The main point of the letter seems to be that any deficiencies in NIH’s grant-review and oversight processes didn’t make a difference.
Tabak repeatedly assures Rep. Comer that the viruses being studied “were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2,” so they “are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2.”
The Wuhan Institute of Virology received more than $3.5 million in federal funding since 2014.AFP via Getty Images
Whether this particular virus evolved into SARS-CoV-2 is beside the point: The WIV was engaged in this type of research, with US government support, and this makes it more, not less, likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is a manmade catastrophe.
Another WIV project, other than the specific one in the Tabak letter, could have created SARS-CoV-2.
Despite early attempts by the scientific community, with the aid of a credulous and politically motivated media, to downplay this possibility, the accumulating evidence suggests that the pandemic was more likely the result of laboratory creation and accidental release of SARS-CoV-2 than a product of natural viral evolution.
The first reported cases of COVID-19 occurred in Wuhan, China, the site of the WIV. In addition, both US intelligence sources and the State Department reported that several WIV researchers became ill and were hospitalized with COVID-19-like symptoms months prior to the Chinese government’s announcement of the first cases.
A Ecohealth Alliance research group examines fecal and bodily fluids from bat caves while looking into COVID-19’s origins in January 2020.ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE
In previous animal-to-human viral transmissions, such as the 2003 SARS outbreak in China, researchers ascertained intermediate animal hosts and serologic signs of infections in animal traders within months of the outbreaks. Despite intensive efforts over the past two years, no one has found a bat-source population, SARS-CoV-2 circulating in an intermediate species that functioned as a viral conduit between bats and humans, or evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was present anywhere else before it emerged in Wuhan.
Consider, too, the unique furin cleavage site between the S1 and S2 subunits of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Furin is an enzyme expressed by human cells that separates the spike protein subunits at the cleavage site, enabling the virus to bind more efficiently to human cells and release its genetic material into them. It is an important reason that SARS-CoV-2 is so easily transmissible.
The furin cleavage site is found nowhere else in the entire genus of SARS-related betacoronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is the only one that has it. This fact alone suggests that it did not arise naturally in SARS-CoV-2. In addition, while other, more distant coronaviruses do have furin cleavage sites, the protein components (amino acids) in the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site are coded for by a unique set of nucleotides in its RNA, not found in the other viruses, making natural recombination between the viruses unlikely.
Dr. Anthony Fauci insists the Wuhan Institute of Virology experimentation on coronaviruses was not gain-of-function research.AFP via Getty Images
It’s particularly concerning that in 2018 the EcoHealth Alliance reportedly submitted a proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to partner with the WIV in constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses by inserting such cleavage sites into their spike proteins. DARPA rejected the proposal because it failed to address the risks of gain-of-function research. EcoHealth’s president, Daszak, did not dispute details of the reporting.
In other words: There are many indications that SARS-CoV-2 could have been created in a lab, specifically the Wuhan lab, which was conducting gain-of-function-type research with coronaviruses, some of it funded by the NIH.
While the particular experiments revealed in Tabak’s letter may not have created SARS-CoV-2, other research at the WIV, including research that EcoHealth sought to fund with US grants, could have done so.
It’s doubtful that we will ever discover the true origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, since the Chinese will never cooperate with a full and open investigation. It doesn’t help that, until recently, our own NIH stonewalled on questions about its funding of WIV research.
Rep. Rand Paul has called on Dr. Anthony Fauci to resign over denying his gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.Greg Nash/UPI/Shutterstock
Considering the release of the recent NIH letter and the revelations about EcoHealth Alliance, it remains entirely possible that US taxpayers funded a project at the Wuhan lab that may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D., is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and an associate clinical professor of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in Manhattan. Adapted with permission from City Journal.
