Tag Archives: protective

CDC admits natural immunity more protective than vax, yet hypes ICU, other perils for unvaxxed kids

Natural immunity from COVID-19 is broad and durable. The lowest risk group for COVID complications should get vaccines — and boosters, for those authorized — regardless of their health.

These statements came out of the CDC two days apart, illustrating the agency’s mixed messaging as ongoing research fails to show a meaningful effect on viral transmission from COVID interventions, especially in children.

They have also exposed a potential rift between the agency’s researchers and its social media team, which proclaim the gospel of vaccines and boosters even for research that is more circumspect.

The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report last week found that COVID recovery became more protective against reinfection and hospitalization than “recent” vaccination alone once the Delta variant became dominant.

“The report finally acknowledges what many have suspected for a long time — that surviving COVID-19 provides excellent natural immunity not only [to] repeat infection but also to hospitalization and death for the delta variant of COVID-19,” University of Southern California clinical medical professor Jeffrey Klausner and UCLA Health senior resident Noah Kojima wrote this week in The Hill. 

“The pattern of improved protection after natural infection makes sense,” they explain, because natural infection exposes the body to “all parts of the virus” while vaccines target COVID’s spike protein.

This feds’ recognition means “it is time to update vaccination policies and school or work-entry requirements across federal and state or county governments,” they wrote.

The study’s findings undercut another agency’s social media team. The FDA recently tweeted a slick in-house video featuring Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Peter Marks, who claimed that people who recovered from COVID and then got vaccinated are still vulnerable without boosters.

‘Really misleading’ tweet

The CDC’s portrayal of a severe pediatric COVID study led by one of its Atlanta-based researchers is “really misleading,” a Stanford Medical School professor told Just the News.

Before COVID vaccines were “approved for most children, nearly 1 in 3 of 2,200+ children hospitalized w/ COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU or put on a ventilator,” the agency tweeted Jan. 31, recommending vaccines for children 5 and up and boosters for 12 and up.

It shared a link to a study in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ journal, “Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 in Children,” which reviewed 14 months of data from the start of the pandemic from the COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network.

Most of it is hidden behind a $25 paywall, including the percentage of kids on ventilators, but the abstract only specifically identifies “children at potentially higher risk” as beneficiaries of vaccines.

The CDC’s tweet drew immediate criticism on Twitter for mischaracterizing the study, which is about a hospitalized subset with “extremely high existing risk ratios,” according to Matt Shapiro, an occasional writer for National Review. The biggest COVID risk factors it identified included chronic lung disease, neurological disorders and “airway abnormality.”

Stanford Med’s Jay Bhattacharya, a coauthor of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration, shared a copy of the full study with Just the News. It shows the “invasive mechanical ventilation” percentage of hospitalized children in the study is 5.3%, or 122, and the death rate 0.5%, or 12.

Bhattacharya emphasized the study analyzed “the alpha wave” of COVID and its purpose is to “identify correlates of bad outcomes among these hospitalized kids.” Those with “severe pre-existing conditions,” more than half the study population, are more likely to suffer ICU admission, ventilation or death.

The CDC’s tweet falsely leads parents to think “1/3rd of all kids who get COVID before the vax … will be hospitalized and have severe disease,” he wrote in an email. “The randomized trials in kids did not establish that vax prevents severe disease in children. The CDC’s assertion that it does is not based on the randomized trial evidence.”

Asked to respond to criticism of its portrayal of the severe pediatric COVID study, a CDC spokesperson referred Just the News to another spokesperson who has not responded. The lead author of the study, CDC researcher Rebecca Woodruff, referred Just the News to media relations but has not answered whether she was banned from talking to reporters.

This wasn’t the first time the CDC’s tweets have been faulted by highly credentialed medical experts.

Harvard Medical School’s former dean, among others, challenged its purported finding of a COVID-diabetes link in children, which the agency used to promote masking and vaccines despite several study limitations disclosed by the CDC’s COVID and diabetes researchers.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky has shown similar seesawing, sometimes undermining COVID conventional wisdom while also promoting disputed research.

Months before she took over the agency, Walenksy questioned the purpose of PCR testing for recovered individuals in a Health Affairs essay promoting less sensitive rapid antigen tests.

She asked “what possible prevention purpose” PCR tests could serve by returning positives in those who “pose no risk of further transmission” and flagging “non-infectious individuals as candidates for isolation and quarantine.” They routinely send up “false alarms” and risk “undermining public confidence” in testing.

Under fire in December for cutting in half the recommended isolation and quarantine time for infected people, Walensky warned that PCR tests can register positives for up to 12 weeks after an infection clears. The FDA told Just the News that PCR tests for COVID nonetheless remain the “gold standard.”

But Walensky also repeatedly promoted a study that found schools without mask mandates were 3.5 times more likely to have COVID outbreaks. Critics noted it failed to control for vaccination status or even use the same time period for different schools.



Read original article here

U.S. CDC urges Americans to wear ‘most protective mask you can’

People wait in line to be tested for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at the Tower Theatre in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S., January 11, 2022. REUTERS/Nick Oxford

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday revised its guidance for Americans on wearing masks to protect against COVID-19, recommending donning “the most protective mask you can” while stopping short of advocating nationwide usage of N95 respirators.

The CDC, an agency critics have accused of offering shifting and confusing guidance amid the pandemic, clarified on its website “that people can choose respirators such as N95s and KN95s, including removing concerns related to supply shortages for N95s.”

Americans should “wear the most protective mask you can that fits well and that you will wear consistently,” the CDC added.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The United States leads the world in COVID-19 deaths – roughly 850,000 – even as it battles a surge of cases involving the fast-spreading Omicron coronavirus variant. Complicating matters is the refusal of some Americans to get vaccinated.

President Joe Biden said on Thursday that the federal government plans to make “high-quality masks” available to Americans for free. In another step, the White House on Friday said the government will begin shipping 500 million COVID-19 tests to Americans later this month without charge.

The CDC said it wants to encourage Americans to wear masks rather than push them to wear the highest-grade face protection, but also explicitly said that respirators provide the best level of protection. It said that “loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection.”

“Masking is a critical public health tool to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and it is important to remember that any mask is better than no mask,” the CDC added.

The CDC said the revised recommendations “reflect the science on masking, including what we have learned in the past two years,” since the start of the pandemic.

More Americans have been recently opting for higher-grade protection amid the surge in cases.

The United States is tallying about 1,800 COVID-19 deaths and 780,000 new infections daily – the most in the world – as well as record levels of hospitalized patients.

The Omicron-related surge appears to be slowing in areas that were hit first, including states in the Northeast and South, according to a Reuters analysis. In Western states, the number of new cases climbed 89% in the past week compared with the previous week.

The CDC last May announced that fully vaccinated people could shed their face coverings, as COVID-19 cases were then on the decline. But in July, the CDC said fully vaccinated people should wear masks in indoor public places in regions where COVID-19 was spreading rapidly. The CDC said this week 99.5% of U.S. counties currently are covered by the mask recommendation.

Some U.S. N95 makers told Reuters they had record N95 sales after Anthony Fauci, Biden’s chief medical adviser, recommended on CNN that Americans “get the highest quality mask that you can tolerate and that’s available to you.”

N95 masks that are worn correctly will filter out at least 95% of particulate matter in the air, preventing anything larger than 0.3 micron from passing through.

Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, on Monday will require some employers to provide “medical-grade” masks – surgical masks, KF94, KN95s or N95s – to workers at high risk of contracting a COVID-19 infection on the job.

Masks remain polarizing. Biden, a Democrat, this week again urged people to wear masks and noted that about a third of Americans report they do not wear a mask at all. Many Republican-leaning states have no mask requirements. Some Democratic-governed states such as California have reimposed indoor mask mandates.

Blair Childs, an executive at Premier Inc (PINC.O), a group-purchasing company for hospitals, expressed concern about legislation backed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders that would send every person in the country a pack of three N95 masks. Childs said such proposals could “throw the healthcare supply chain into disarray.”

Days after taking office in January 2020, Biden imposed mask requirements on airplanes, trains and public transit and in airports and other transit hubs – actions his predecessor Donald Trump declined to take. Biden last month extended the transit mask requirements through March 18. The CDC on Friday said N95 masks may be considered for use in places like transit “when greater protection is needed or desired.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington; Additional reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles; Editing by Will Dunham, David Gregorio and Matthew Lewis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Pfizer says COVID-19 pill near 90% protective against hospitalization, death

NEW YORK, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) on Tuesday said its antiviral COVID-19 pill showed near 90% efficacy in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in high-risk patients, and recent lab data suggests the drug retains its effectiveness against the fast spreading Omicron variant of the coronavirus.

The U.S. drugmaker last month said the oral medicine was around 89% effective in preventing hospitalizations or deaths when compared to placebo, based on interim results in around 1,200 people. Data from its final analysis of the trial disclosed on Tuesday includes an additional 1,000 people.

Nobody in the trial who received the Pfizer treatment died, compared with 12 deaths among placebo recipients.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

Register

The Pfizer pills are taken with the older antiviral ritonavir every 12 hours for five days beginning shortly after onset of symptoms. If authorized, the treatment will be sold as Paxlovid.

“It’s a stunning outcome,” Pfizer Chief Scientific Officer Mikael Dolsten said in an interview.

“We’re talking about a staggering number of lives saved and hospitalizations prevented. And of course, if you deploy this quickly after infection, we are likely to reduce transmission dramatically,” Dolsten said.

Pfizer also released early data from a second study suggesting that the treatment reduced hospitalizations by around 70% in a smaller trial of standard-risk adults, including some higher-risk vaccinated people.

Pfizer said those results showed a positive trend, but were not statistically significant. They are following the results and plan to release data from the final 20% of participants in the 1,100-patient trial.
The trial did not show that the drug alleviated symptoms of COVID-19 in that population.

Dolsten said he expects authorization for use in high-risk individuals from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies soon. He does not believe an FDA advisory panel meeting will be needed.

“We’re in very advanced regulatory dialogues with both Europe and the UK, and we have dialogues with most of the major regulatory agencies globally,” Dolsten said.

‘VERY EXCITING RESULTS’

Pfizer submitted data to the FDA last month, asking for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the drug.

Paxlovid, a Pfizer’s coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pill, is seen manufactured in Ascoli, Italy, in this undated handout photo obtained by Reuters on November 16, 2021. Pfizer/Handout via REUTERS

“These are very exciting results,” said Dr. Paul Sax, a professor at Harvard Medical School.

Sax said the FDA should try to accelerate the authorization process as much as possible, noting there are very limited treatment options for high-risk people outside of the hospital.

There are currently no oral antiviral treatments for COVID-9 authorized in the United States.

Analysts on average forecast 2022 revenue of more than $24 billion from the pill, which would more than make up for any decline in vaccine sales after 2021.

Rival Merck & Co (MRK.N) has asked for an EUA for its antiviral pill molnupiravir. But that drug only reduced hospitalizations and deaths in its clinical trial of high-risk patients by around 30%.

Some scientists have also raised safety concerns about the potential for birth defects from the Merck drug, as well as worries that it could cause the virus to mutate.

Pfizer’s treatment works differently. It is part of a class of drugs called protease inhibitors currently used to treat HIV, hepatitis C and other viruses.

Recent laboratory testing showed that activity against the protease of the Omicron variant is as “good as basically any SARS-COV-2 variant of concern,” Dolsten said.

The company has said it can have 180,000 treatment courses ready to ship this year and plans to produce at least 80 million more in 2022.

Dolsten said Pfizer is looking to expand that output further as new variants, like the newly-discovered Omicron, could push the need for antivirals substantially higher. Current vaccines appear to be less effective at preventing infection with Omicron. read more

Pfizer, which makes one of the leading COVID-19 vaccines with German partner BioNTech , has agreed to allow generic manufacturers to supply versions of the drug to 95 low- and middle-income countries through a licensing agreement with international public health group Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). However, Dolsten said that for next year he expects the drug will be mainly produced by Pfizer.

The MPP told Reuters in a statement, that it will be “well into next year” before pills produced by generic manufacturers under its licenses will be ready for use.

The U.S. government has already secured 10 million courses of the Pfizer treatment for $5.29 billion.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Michael Erman in New Jersey and Deena Beasley in Los Angeles, Additional reporting by Mrinalika Roy in Bengaluru and Francesco Guarascio in Brussels; Editing by Nick Zieminski and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Breakthrough for SHIELD Team Studying Our Solar System’s Protective Magnetic “Force Field”

New research led by BU astrophysicist Merav Opher could explain why the heliosphere, a protective magnetic “force field” emanating from our sun and encompassing our solar system, is likely unstable and irregularly shaped. “The universe is not quiet,” Opher says. “Our BU model doesn’t try to cut out the chaos.” Credit: Merav Opher, et. al

Astrophysicists on BU’s

Is this what the heliosphere looks like? BU-led research suggests so. The size and shape of the magnetic “force field” that protects our solar system from deadly cosmic rays has long been debated by astrophysicists. Credit: Opher, et al

Since BU’S NASA DRIVE Science Center first received funding in 2019, Opher’s SHIELD team has hunted for answers to several puzzling questions: What is the overall structure of the heliosphere? How do its ionized particles evolve and affect heliospheric processes? How does the heliosphere interact and influence the interstellar medium, the matter and radiation that exists between stars? And how do cosmic rays get filtered by, or transported through, the heliosphere?

“SHIELD combines theory, modeling, and observations to build comprehensive models,” Opher says. “All these different components work together to help understand the puzzles of the heliosphere.”

And now a paper published by Opher and collaborators in Astrophysical Journal reveals that neutral hydrogen particles streaming from outside our solar system most likely play a crucial role in the way our heliosphere takes shape.

In their latest study, Opher’s team wanted to understand why heliospheric jets—blooming columns of energy and matter that are similar to other types of cosmic jets found throughout the universe—become unstable. “Why do stars and black holes—and our own sun—eject unstable jets?” Opher says. “We see these jets projecting as irregular columns, and [astrophysicists] have been wondering for years why these shapes present instabilities.”

Similarly, SHIELD models predict that the heliosphere, traveling in tandem with our sun and encompassing our solar system, doesn’t appear to be stable. Other models of the heliosphere developed by other astrophysicists tend to depict the heliosphere as having a comet-like shape, with a jet—or a “tail”—streaming behind in its wake. In contrast, Opher’s model suggests the heliosphere is shaped more like a croissant or even a donut.

The reason for that? Neutral hydrogen particles, so-called because they have equal amounts of positive and negative charge that net no charge at all.

“They come streaming through the solar system,” Opher says. Using a computational model like a recipe to test the effect of ‘neutrals’ on the shape of the heliosphere, she “took one ingredient out of the cake—the neutrals—and noticed that the jets coming from the sun, shaping the heliosphere, become super stable. When I put them back in, things start bending, the center axis starts wiggling, and that means that something inside the heliospheric jets is becoming very unstable.”

Instability like that would theoretically cause disturbance in the solar winds and jets emanating from our sun, causing the heliosphere to split its shape—into a croissant-like form. Although astrophysicists haven’t yet developed ways to observe the actual shape of the heliosphere, Opher’s model suggests the presence of neutrals slamming into our solar system would make it impossible for the heliosphere to flow uniformly like a shooting comet. And one thing is for sure—neutrals are definitely pelting their way through space.

Drake, a coauthor on the new study, says Opher’s model “offers the first clear explanation for why the shape of the heliosphere breaks up in the northern and southern areas, which could impact our understanding of how galactic cosmic rays come into Earth and the near-Earth environment.” That could affect the threat that radiation poses to life on Earth and also for astronauts in space or future pioneers attempting to travel to (function(d, s, id){ var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.6"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Read original article here

Studying our solar system’s protective bubble

Is this what the heliosphere looks like? BU-led research suggests so. The size and shape of the magnetic “force field” that protects our solar system from deadly cosmic rays has long been debated by astrophysicists. Credit: Merav Opher, et. al

A multi-institutional team of astrophysicists headquartered at Boston University, led by BU astrophysicist Merav Opher, has made a breakthrough discovery in our understanding of the cosmic forces that shape the protective bubble surrounding our solar system—a bubble that shelters life on Earth and is known by space researchers as the heliosphere.

Astrophysicists believe the heliosphere protects the planets within our solar system from powerful radiation emanating from supernovas, the final explosions of dying stars throughout the universe. They believe the heliosphere extends far beyond our solar system, but despite the massive buffer against cosmic radiation that the heliosphere provides Earth’s life-forms, no one really knows the shape of the heliosphere—or, for that matter, the size of it. 

“How is this relevant for society? The bubble that surrounds us, produced by the sun, offers protection from galactic cosmic rays, and the shape of it can affect how those rays get into the heliosphere,” says James Drake, an astrophysicist at University of Maryland who collaborates with Opher. “There’s lots of theories but, of course, the way that galactic cosmic rays can get in can be impacted by the structure of the heliosphere—does it have wrinkles and folds and that sort of thing?”

Opher’s team has constructed some of the most compelling computer simulations of the heliosphere, based on models built on observable data and theoretical astrophysics. At BU, in the Center for Space Physics, Opher, a College of Arts & Sciences professor of astronomy, leads a NASA DRIVE (Diversity, Realize, Integrate, Venture, Educate) Science Center that’s supported by $1.3 million in NASA funding. That team, made up of experts Opher recruited from 11 other universities and research institutes, develops predictive models of the heliosphere in an effort the team calls SHIELD (Solar-wind with Hydrogen Ion Exchange and Large-scale Dynamics). 

Since BU’S NASA DRIVE Science Center first received funding in 2019, Opher’s SHIELD team has hunted for answers to several puzzling questions: What is the overall structure of the heliosphere? How do its ionized particles evolve and affect heliospheric processes? How does the heliosphere interact and influence the interstellar medium, the matter and radiation that exists between stars? And how do cosmic rays get filtered by, or transported through, the heliosphere? 

“SHIELD combines theory, modeling, and observations to build comprehensive models,” Opher says. “All these different components work together to help understand the puzzles of the heliosphere.”

And now a paper published by Opher and collaborators in Astrophysical Journal reveals that neutral hydrogen particles streaming from outside our solar system most likely play a crucial role in the way our heliosphere takes shape.

In their latest study, Opher’s team wanted to understand why heliospheric jets—blooming columns of energy and matter that are similar to other types of cosmic jets found throughout the universe—become unstable. “Why do stars and black holes—and our own sun—eject unstable jets?” Opher says. “We see these jets projecting as irregular columns, and [astrophysicists] have been wondering for years why these shapes present instabilities.”

New research led by BU astrophysicist Merav Opher could explain why the heliosphere, a protective magnetic “force field” emanating from our sun and encompassing our solar system, is likely unstable and irregularly shaped. “The universe is not quiet,” Opher says. “Our BU model doesn’t try to cut out the chaos.” Credit: Merav Opher, et. al

Similarly, SHIELD models predict that the heliosphere, traveling in tandem with our sun and encompassing our solar system, doesn’t appear to be stable. Other models of the heliosphere developed by other astrophysicists tend to depict the heliosphere as having a comet-like shape, with a jet—or a “tail”—streaming behind in its wake. In contrast, Opher’s model suggests the heliosphere is shaped more like a croissant or even a donut.

The reason for that? Neutral hydrogen particles, so-called because they have equal amounts of positive and negative charge that net no charge at all.

“They come streaming through the solar system,” Opher says. Using a computational model like a recipe to test the effect of ‘neutrals’ on the shape of the heliosphere, she “took one ingredient out of the cake—the neutrals—and noticed that the jets coming from the sun, shaping the heliosphere, become super stable. When I put them back in, things start bending, the center axis starts wiggling, and that means that something inside the heliospheric jets is becoming very unstable.”

Instability like that would theoretically cause disturbance in the solar winds and jets emanating from our sun, causing the heliosphere to split its shape—into a croissant-like form. Although astrophysicists haven’t yet developed ways to observe the actual shape of the heliosphere, Opher’s model suggests the presence of neutrals slamming into our solar system would make it impossible for the heliosphere to flow uniformly like a shooting comet. And one thing is for sure—neutrals are definitely pelting their way through space.

Drake, a coauthor on the new study, says Opher’s model “offers the first clear explanation for why the shape of the heliosphere breaks up in the northern and southern areas, which could impact our understanding of how galactic cosmic rays come into Earth and the near-Earth environment.” That could affect the threat that radiation poses to life on Earth and also for astronauts in space or future pioneers attempting to travel to Mars or other planets.

“The universe is not quiet,” Opher says. “Our BU model doesn’t try to cut out the chaos, which has allowed me to pinpoint the cause [of the heliosphere’s instability]…. The neutral hydrogen particles.”

Specifically, the presence of the neutrals colliding with the heliosphere triggers a phenomenon well known by physicists, called the Rayleigh-Taylor instability, which occurs when two materials of different densities collide, with the lighter material pushing against the heavier material. It’s what happens when oil is suspended above water, and when heavier fluids or materials are suspended above lighter fluids. Gravity plays a role and gives rise to some wildly irregular shapes. In the case of the cosmic jets, the drag between the neutral hydrogen particles and charged ions creates a similar effect as gravity. The “fingers” seen in the famous Horsehead Nebula, for example, are caused by the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. 

“This finding is a really major breakthrough, it’s really set us in a direction of discovering why our model gets its distinct croissant-shaped heliosphere and why other models don’t,” Opher says.


Uncovering our solar system’s shape


More information:
M. Opher et al, A Turbulent Heliosheath Driven by the Rayleigh–Taylor Instability, The Astrophysical Journal (2021). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2e
Provided by
Boston University

Citation:
Studying our solar system’s protective bubble (2021, December 3)
retrieved 3 December 2021
from https://phys.org/news/2021-12-solar.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.



Read original article here

Pfizer Says Booster Shots of Its Vaccine Are Highly Protective Against Covid

Booster shots in adults who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were highly effective at preventing symptomatic Covid-19 breakthrough infections, Pfizer announced on Thursday.

The company said that out of more than 5,000 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients enrolled in its study who received a booster shot, only five later developed symptomatic disease, compared with 109 people among a similar group that received a placebo instead of a booster dose.

The news arrived as an advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention debates whether Americans should receive booster shots of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines.

The company claimed the findings came from the first randomized efficacy trial of booster shots. But the results, announced in a news release, have not been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration authorized Pfizer-BioNTech booster shots for people 65 and over, people who are at high risk of severe Covid-19, and those who are at elevated risk of exposure because of where they work or live. That decision was based on limited effectiveness data.

The new findings appear to bolster proof that booster shots are highly effective, though the trial participants were only followed for a median period of two and a half months after receiving the booster.

“These important data add to the body of evidence suggesting that a booster dose of our vaccine can help protect a broad population of people from this virus and its variants,” said Dr. Ugur Sahin, founder and chief executive of BioNTech.

The results will be shared with the F.D.A. and its European equivalent, the European Medicines Agency, as well as other international regulatory agencies, according to Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive.

The randomized controlled trial of the booster included more than 10,000 participants aged 16 and older, half of whom received a booster that contains the same amount of vaccine as each of the two primary doses, and half of whom received a placebo.

The booster was given an average of 11 months after the initial regimen, and participants were monitored for symptoms of Covid that developed between a week and 2.5 months after the booster, on average.

Stratified analyses showed the relative efficacy rate of 95.6 percent for the boosters was consistent regardless of age, sex, race, ethnicity or chronic medical conditions.

Slightly more than half of the participants were between 16 and 55 years old, and just under one quarter were 65 or older. The companies said that they had not identified any new side effects or safety concerns during the trial.

Read original article here

County COVID-19 metrics show positive trends, emphasize need to continue protective measures – Communications and Outreach – Communications and Outreach

County COVID-19 metrics show positive trends, emphasize need to continue protective measures

NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC – New Hanover County’s COVID-19 percent positivity rate and hospitalizations have decreased slightly over the past few weeks, showing early indicators that the severity of COVID-19 transmission in our community may be improving.

The county’s current percent positivity rate is 9.5 percent, compared to 11.8 percent reported last week and 13.9 percent the week prior. This is still nearly double the county’s desired threshold of five percent positivity but is an improvement from the end of August when the county’s percent positivity rate rose to more than 14 percent.

“We’re seeing a downward trend in some key COVID-19 metrics and that’s a sign that wearing face coverings, more people getting vaccinated, and other protective actions our community is taking are working,” said Public Health Director David Howard. “Hospitalization rates have also decreased slightly week over week, with a daily average of 76 COVID-19 patients treated locally, compared to averages of more than 100 patients per day in August. While this is good news, we must keep up these collective actions to see continued positive results, we’re moving in the right direction, all due to the great work by our residents and businesses. Reported new cases, while falling recently, are still high for our area, so please continue using face coverings indoors and if you’re not yet vaccinated, please consider doing so. The more we layer these protective actions, the faster we drive transmissions down, and the more we help others in our community avoid serious illness or death from COVID-19.”

New Hanover County’s mask mandate for all indoor facilities remains in place, and unvaccinated residents should get vaccinated as soon as possible. Public Health vaccine clinics’ hours, locations, and more information can be found at Health.NHCgov.com.

Booster Shots

On Wednesday, the Food and Drug Administration authorized use of a single booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series, for people over 65, and those at high risk of severe Covid-19 or who are at risk of serious complications because of exposure to the virus in their jobs. Now the Centers for Disease Control and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will determine the next steps and how these boosters should be rolled out in the community.

“Public Health is following this conversation closely and will be relying on the CDC and NCDHHS for next steps on when we should begin providing booster shots and to whom,” said Health and Human Services Director Donna Fayko. “In addition to our public health clinics, there are many providers that are now able to give the vaccine, including pharmacies and medical practices, so we will be relying on our system of vaccinators to continue providing first and second doses, as well as boosters when the CDC determines who is eligible.”

 

COVID-19 Community Data, as of September 23:

  • Over the last week, 583 new COVID-19 cases and 14 deaths have been reported (for a total of 24,849 total cases of COVID-19 in New Hanover County and 264 resident deaths from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic). Currently, 1,392 people have presumed active cases. View the county’s data dashboard at Health.NHCgov.cov/Coronavirus.
  • The 14-day Percent Positivity Rate is 9.5 percent, down slightly from the 11.8 percent reported last week. This metric represents positive COVID-19 tests as a percent of total tests performed countywide and is updated at COVID19.NCDHHS.gov/Dashboard.
  • An average of 76 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized daily, according to NHRMC. Local hospitalization data is updated weekly by NHRMC and by NCDHHS statewide and regionally.
  • Approximately 144,943 New Hanover County residents (about 62 percent) have received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and approximately 136,233 residents (about 58 percent) are fully vaccinated and protected from COVID-19.

 

NHC Public Health COVID-19 Vaccine Clinics (no appointment needed):

  • Health and Human Services Health Clinic (1650 Greenfield Street)
    • Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    • Tuesday, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
  • Independence Mall (3500 Oleander Drive)
    • Tuesday and Thursday, from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m.

« Back to news overview

Read original article here

Tory Lanez Violated Megan Thee Stallion Protective Order, Prosecutors Want Bail Revoked

Read original article here

Potential Path Discovered to a Broadly Protective COVID-19 Vaccine Using T Cells

  • Using a method developed for HIV, researchers have identified stable T cell vaccine targets in SARS-CoV-2.
  • These stable targets, known as highly networked epitopes, are highly likely to be stable in different variants of the virus.
  • The results provide a path forward for a broadly protective COVID-19 T cell vaccine.

Gaurav Gaiha, MD, DPhil, a member of the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, studies HIV, one of the fastest-mutating viruses known to humankind. But HIV’s ability to mutate isn’t unique among RNA viruses — most viruses develop mutations, or changes in their genetic code, over time. If a virus is disease-causing, the right mutation can allow the virus to escape the immune response by changing the viral pieces the immune system uses to recognize the virus as a threat, pieces scientists call epitopes. 

To combat HIV’s high rate of mutation, Gaiha and Elizabeth Rossin, MD, PhD, a Retina Fellow at Massachusetts Eye and Ear, a member of Mass General Brigham, developed an approach known as structure-based network analysis. With this, they can identify viral pieces that are constrained, or restricted, from mutation. Changes in mutationally constrained epitopes are rare, as they can cause the virus to lose its ability to infect and replicate, essentially rendering it unable to propagate itself.

When the pandemic began, Gaiha immediately recognized an opportunity to apply the principles of HIV structure-based network analysis to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. He and his team reasoned that the virus would likely mutate, potentially in ways that would allow it to escape both natural and vaccine-induced immunity. Using this approach, the team identified mutationally constrained SARS-CoV-2 epitopes that can be recognized by immune cells known as T cells. These epitopes could then be used in a vaccine to train T cells, providing protective immunity. Recently published in Cell, this work highlights the possibility of a T cell vaccine which could offer broad protection against new and emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 and other SARS-like coronaviruses.

From the earliest stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team knew it was imperative to prepare against potential future mutations. Other labs already had published the protein structures (blueprints) of roughly 40% of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and studies indicated that patients with a robust T cell response, specifically a CD8+ T cell response, were more likely to survive COVID-19 infection.

Gaiha’s team knew these insights could be combined with their unique approach: the network analysis platform to identify mutationally constrained epitopes and an assay they had just developed, a report on which is currently in press at Cell Reports, to identify epitopes that were successfully targeted by CD8+ T cells in HIV-infected individuals. Applying these advances to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, they identified 311 highly networked epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 likely to be both mutationally constrained and recognized by CD8+ T cells.

“These highly networked viral epitopes are connected to many other viral parts, which likely provides a form of stability to the virus,” says Anusha Nathan, a medical student in the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology program and co–first author of the study. “Therefore, the virus is unlikely to tolerate any structural changes in these highly networked areas, making them resistant to mutations.”

You can think of a virus’s structure like the design of a house, explains Nathan. The stability of a house depends on a few vital elements, like support beams and a foundation, which connect to and support the rest of the house’s structure. It is therefore possible to change the shape or size of features like doors and windows without endangering the house itself. Changes to structural elements, like support beams, however, are far riskier. In biological terms, these support beams would be mutationally constrained — any significant changes to size or shape would risk the structural integrity of the house and could easily lead to its collapse.

Highly networked epitopes in a virus function as support beams, connecting to many other parts of the virus. Mutations in such epitopes can risk the virus’s ability to infect, replicate, and ultimately survive. These highly networked epitopes, therefore, are often identical, or nearly identical, across different viral variants and even across closely related viruses in the same family, making them an ideal vaccine target.

The team studied the identified 311 epitopes to find which were both present in large amounts and likely to be recognized by the vast majority of human immune systems. They ended up with 53 epitopes, each of which represents a potential target for a broadly protective T cell vaccine. Since patients who have recovered from COVID-19 infection have a T cell response, the team was able to verify their work by seeing if their epitopes were the same as ones that had provoked a T cell response in patients who had recovered from COVID-19. Half of the recovered COVID-19 patients studied had T cell responses to highly networked epitopes identified by the research team. This confirmed that the epitopes identified were capable of inducing an immune reaction, making them promising candidates for use in vaccines.

“A T cell vaccine that effectively targets these highly networked epitopes,” says Rossin, who is also a co–first author of the study, “would potentially be able to provide long-lasting protection against multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2, including future variants.”

By this time, it was February 2021, more than a year into the pandemic, and new variants of concern were showing up across the globe. If the team’s predictions about SARS-CoV-2 were correct, these variants of concerns should have had little to no mutations in the highly networked epitopes they had identified.

The team obtained sequences from the newly circulating B.1.1.7 Alpha, B.1.351 Beta, P1 Gamma, and B.1.617.2 Delta SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. They compared these sequences with the original SARS-CoV-2 genome, cross-checking the genetic changes against their highly networked epitopes. Remarkably, of all the mutations they identified, only three mutations were found to affect highly networked epitopes sequences, and none of the changes affected the ability of these epitopes to interact with the immune system. 

“Initially, it was all prediction,” says Gaiha, an investigator in the MGH Division of Gastroenterology and senior author of the study. “But when we compared our network scores with sequences from the variants of concern and the composite of circulating variants, it was like nature was confirming our predictions.”

In the same time period, mRNA vaccines were being deployed and immune responses to those vaccines were being studied. While the vaccines induce a strong and effective antibody response, Gaiha’s group determined they had a much smaller T cell response against highly networked epitopes compared to patients who had recovered from COVID-19 infections.

While the current vaccines provide strong protection against COVID-19, Gaiha explains, it’s unclear if they will continue to provide equally strong protection as more and more variants of concern begin to circulate. This study, however, shows that it may be possible to develop a broadly protective T cell vaccine that can protect against the variants of concern, such as the Delta variant, and potentially even extend protection to future SARS-CoV-2 variants and similar coronaviruses that may emerge.

Reference: “Structure-guided T cell vaccine design for SARS-CoV-2 variants and sarbecoviruses” by Anusha Nathan, Elizabeth J. Rossin, Clarety Kaseke, Ryan J. Park, Ashok Khatri, Dylan Koundakjian, Jonathan M. Urbach, Nishant K. Singh, Arman Bashirova, Rhoda Tano-Menka, Fernando Senjobe, Michael T. Waring, Alicja Piechocka-Trocha,
Wilfredo F. Garcia-Beltran, A. John Iafrate, Vivek Naranbhai, Mary Carrington, Bruce D. Walker, Gaurav D. Gaiha, Accepted, Cell.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.029

Gaiha is an assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Additional authors include Clarety Kaseke, Ryan J. Park, Dylan Koundakjian, Jonathan M. Urbach, PhD, Nishant K. Singh, PhD, Rhoda Tano-Menka, Fernando Senjobe, Michael T. Waring, Alicja Piechocka-Trocha, PhD, Wilfredo F. Garcia-Beltran, MD, and Bruce D. Walker, MD, from the Ragon Institute; A. John Iafrate, MD, Vivek Naranbhai and Ashok Khatri from MGH; Mary Carrington, PhD, of NIH; and Arman Bashirova, NCI.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Massachusetts Consortium of Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR). Additional support was provided by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and Enid Schwartz (B.D.W.), and Sandy and Paul Edgerly. Roider is supported by the Heed Ophthalmic Foundation. Gaiha is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a Burroughs Wellcome Career Award for Medical Scientists and the Gilead HIV Research Scholars Program.  This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research.

Conflicts of interest: Roider and Gaiha have filed patent application PCT/US2021/028245.



Read original article here

Prince William ‘very protective’ over Kate Middleton after Meghan Markle, Prince Harry interview: report

Prince William is looking out for his wife, Kate Middleton.

The Duchess of Cambridge was mentioned during Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey when the former “Suits” actress clarified that she did not make Middleton cry around the time of her wedding to Harry, but that the reverse had happened.

Now, William, 38, is ready to protect his wife after the bombshell accusation.

“William is very protective of Kate and can get very angry,” Penny Junor, biography for the princes told People magazine recently.

PRINCE HARRY HAS SPOKEN TO PRINCE CHARLES, PRINCE WILLIAM, BUT ‘CONVERSATIONS WERE NOT PRODUCTIVE’: GAYLE KING

She added: “For Meghan to name Kate in a negative light is worse than being attacked himself.”

Prince William is reportedly feeling ‘very protective’ over his wife Kate Middleton after she was mentioned in Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s recent tell-all interview.
(Getty Images)

Markle’s big reveal during the interview was followed by an explanation that Middleton apologized after the incident.

“And I don’t say that to be disparaging to anyone, because it was a really hard week of the wedding, and she was upset about something,” the Duchess of Sussex said during her sit-down. “But she owned it, and she apologized and she brought me flowers and a note apologizing.”

The Palace seems to be unhappy with the interview and its subsequent fallout, as a source told the outlet that there was “anger” from the royals and their staff members following the occasion.

KATE MIDDLETON WAS MORTIFIED BY MEGHAN MARKLE’S CLAIM THAT SHE MADE HER CRY, ROYAL EXPERT CLAIMS: SHE’S ‘HURT’

“There were genuinely mixed emotions and deep sorrow and shock there too,” the insider added.

A source recently spoke to Entertainment Tonight as well, making similar claims about William’s defensiveness.

The source said that William is feeling “fiercely protective” over his wife and that he’s “unhappy” with Markle’s mention of Middleton.

It was previously rumored that around the time of her wedding, Meghan Markle made Kate Middleton cry, but the Duchess of Sussex has now claimed that the reverse happened.
(Getty)

Outside of namedropping Middleton, Markle and Harry were careful not to disclose the identities of other royal family members they discussed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

For instance, Harry said that he’ll “never” share information regarding a discussion that took place between himself and a member of the Institution regarding their “concerns” about the Prince’s then-unborn son’s skin tone.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

Markle, 39, also claimed that she was barred from receiving psychiatric help when she was facing suicidal thoughts but did not reveal who told her that was not an option.

Reps for William did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

Read original article here