vaccines

Has Omicron Rendered Vaccines Ineffective?

Early in the pandemic, when we realized that the CoV-2 virus was quickly producing mutated progeny, some of which were becoming more deadly and transmissible, some (including your humble blogger) warned that viral mutation could feasibly give rise to a variant that ignored immunity to previous iterations of the germ—in other words able to ignore the current vaccines. We have arrived—almost.

The so-called omicron variant partly avoids immunity conferred by the current vaccines (and by prior infection), meaning that we are seeing “break-through” infections in fully and partially  immune people. Popular news sources are running headlines declaring that vaccinated patients with COVID are filling hospital beds, leading many to leap to the conclusion that the vaccines have failed.

But, that is not fully accurate. Many vaccinated people are indeed getting infected with omicron, yet the vaccines are still quite effective, and much better than no vaccine. Let me explain.

First, about two-thirds of Americans are vaccinated—a definite majority of the population. This means that for a hypothetical virus that can fully evade immunity, there are more vaccinated than unvaxed viral “targets” available; meaning more vaccinated than unvaccinated people will be infected. The reality, however, is that the vaccines are still partly protective so that many vaccinated people still catch omicron COVID. Yet, compared to vaxed people, unvaccinated people remain at significantly greater risk of infection, hospitalization, and death. Numbers in my State of Wisconsin, bear this out.

Currently, 69% of the State adult population is vaccinated. According to the latest data* (as of January 15, 2022), out of 100,000 vaccinated people, 1573 caught COVID, 18.5 were hospitalized, and just under 4 died. In contrast, out of 100,000 unvaccinated people, 4,746 got infected, 176 were hospitalized, and 51 died. In other words, many more unvaccinated adults are feeling the effects of COVID, despite representing only 30% of the State population. Clearly, there were breakthrough infections in vaccinated people, but just as clearly, unvaccinated people fared way worse than they would have if they had the shot.

Yet, the headlines persist, proclaiming things like, “Similar numbers of vaccinated and vaccinated people hospitalized for COVID.”   Does this not show that the vaccines are no longer effective? Not at all. Because many more people are vaccinated and partly susceptible to the virus, more and more vaccinated people are showing up with infection, but at a much lower rate than unvaccinated people do. The graphic below illustrates how this works.

271755116_1826707090871556_6313046192857176474_n

The benefits of the vaccines also are reflected in national and world-wide numbers. The US has one of the lowest vaccination rates among developed countries such as the UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark, etc. And despite omicron’s “milder” nature, which means it kills fewer people but still kills, the COVID death rate in the less vaccinated US is greater than seen in more vaccinated countries, attesting to the efficacy of the shots. Also, new hospital admissions in the US have now reached an all-time high and far exceeding hospitalization rates in better vaccinated countries. Current data from New York State shows that hospitalization among the unvaccinated is 14x higher than among fully vaccinated people.

All of this demonstrates how effective the vaccines remain at preventing infection, hospitalization, and death from omicron-driven COVID. Places with higher vaccination rates, such as the UK and Canada, are not experiencing an increase in base case rates of patients admitted to the ICU or deaths, even with omicron cases skyrocketing. The US is.

Get your Fauci boo boo.

*Note on Wisconsin State data sources: State data mentioned here are from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Public Health Madison and Dane County, and the Wisconsin Hospital Association as reported Jan 15, 2022 in the Wisconsin State Journal.


Lions And Tigers And…Deer? Oh My!

First it was bats and humans, then domestic cats and dogs, farmed mink, and big zoo cats; now gorillas, hippos, and wild deer that have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 (CoV-2 for short) virus. Many of these animals have become ill and several have died of COVID-19, most recently three snow leopards in South Dakota and Nebraska zoos. This is quite a wanton virus.

Of course, before CoV-2 and COVID-19 were known to the world, we knew that bats, humans and a few other animals, notably civets and even camels, were ready hosts of several different strains of “‘rona” viruses. We also knew that domesticated animals are also susceptible to their own coronavirus diseases—in fact veterinary coronavirus vaccines have been in use for years. Humans are known hosts for several coronaviruses, including those that cause the common cold, as well as the viruses that cause SARS, MERS, and now COVID-19. And we know that humans often catch these germs from bats and other intermediate hosts as diverse as civets and camels. After we genetically identified CoV-2 and were able to follow its spread, we quickly noticed that domestic pets also could be infected. This was closely followed with news that seven big cats at the Bronx zoo had become infected, and that mink farms across Europe were hotbeds for CoV-2 spread between humans and the animals and back. In fact, mink farms became such a hotbed of CoV-2 zoonotic spread that a couple of European countries completely shut down mink farming and culled all their animals. Several US states have also sharply curtailed mink farming. PETA probably applauds.

More recently two snow leopards at the Lincoln, NE children’s zoo and one in a zoo in South Dakota died from COVID. The Lincoln zoo also had two infected Sumatran tigers who recovered after being treated with steroids and antibiotics to prevent secondary infections and pneumonia. How the animals were infected is uncertain, but the most likely scenario is that they caught the virus from a caretaker. The problem is, none of the caretakers tested positive for the virus. Bats? Something else?

Since April 2020, when a tiger tested positive at the Bronx Zoo, dozens of other animals in zoos around the world have caught COVID. This month, the Denver Zoo reported the first coronavirus cases in hyenas, and the St. Louis Zoo found eight positive cases among its big cats, including two snow leopards. Abroad, the virus has killed a lion in India and two tiger cubs in Pakistan. Big cats seem especially susceptible since three other snow leopards at the Louisville Zoo were infected last December, and another snow leopard tested positive at the San Diego Zoo in July. The virus doesn’t just infect our fuzzy friends either; two hippos, named Imani and Hermien, at a zoo in Antwerp recently tested positive for COVID-19. Zoo keepers were first alerted to a potential problem when they noticed that the colossi had “runny noses.”  One reckons that a runny nose for a hippo is a big deal. One also wonders who gets to dab that nasal maw in order to test for the virus.

In fact, zoo and domestic animal infections have become so prevalent that an animal COVID vaccine developed by Zoetis, a NJ-based veterinary pharma company and former Pfizer subsidiary, has been authorized by the USDA for experimental use. The Cincinnati Zoo, for one, has vaccinated  80 animals, from giraffes to apes, against COVID.

Deer too. Oh my! It is one thing for zoo animals to acquire COVID—their captivity makes it easy to limit their interaction with other animals and humans to prevent spread of contagions, and they seldom complain that their rights are being infringed when they are quarantined. However, COVID in wild animals is a different story, as we have seen with bats and how easily they transmit the virus to humans. Scientists now have evidence that CoV-2 also readily propagates in white-tailed deer. In fact, the virus is already widespread in cervids across the US, which likely has significant implications for the long-term course of this pandemic.

In September of last year, genetic analysis of the gene that encodes the ACE2 protein (i.e., the viral receptors expressed on many cells in the body) in many different animal species suggested that CoV-2 could easily infect deer (and several other animals too). A survey of white-tailed deer in the Northeast and Midwest found that 40% had antibodies against the CoV-2 virus, indicating prior exposure. Between April and December 2020, veterinarians at Penn State found active CoV-2 infections in ~30% of deer tested across Iowa. Then during the winter COVID surge in humans from Nov. 23, 2020, to Jan. 10 of this year, ~80% of the tested deer were infected. The prevalence of the virus in deer was 50 to 100 times greater than in Iowa residents at the time (and the deer reportedly did not wear face masks). The study, published about two months ago, indicates that white-tailed deer have become a permanent reservoir for CoV-2. While it is not fully understood how the virus entered the deer population, genetic sequence analysis of nearly 100 viral samples found that the variants circulating in deer matched the variants circulating in people. This suggests that deer caught the virus from people multiple times in Iowa alone. How that happens is not known since people usually do not have close contact with live deer. More concerning is whether viral variants arising in deer readily pass back to people.

Bottom line. Clearly, a lot of different animal species can catch Cov-2 and spread it. It is clear that people can spread coronaviruses to pets and other animals, but the FDA says that the reverse, animal-to-human virus transmission, is not common. But, it clearly happens as we have seen with this pandemic, and with many other viruses that cause SARS, MERS, AIDS, Ebola, flu, etc., that spread from animals to humans. The prevalence of CoV-2 infection in so many species of mammals, especially in animals that have close contact with humans, suggests that several animal species, not just bats, can serve as permanent reservoirs for the virus and the jump to humans is something that can happen over and over. This is not unprecedented. It is what we see with influenza, which is carried back and forth between the Northern and Southern hemispheres with migratory birds, in which different flu viruses shuffle their genomes to create the new strains of flu for which we have to vaccinate against each year. This animal reservoir for flu makes it next to impossible to eliminate influenza, and similar animal hosts for CoV-2 likely would make it nigh impossible to eliminate COVID too. I raised this specter some months ago in these pages when reporting that pet dogs and cats can carry the virus. Our furry friends represent a viral reservoir that is in even closer contact with people than bats, deer, and fortunately, hippos and leopards.

We also have to be worried about the CoV-2 virus mutating in the different animal species that harbor and spread it. We know that happens in bats, which makes it almost certain that new strains of the virus will arise in deer and dogs too. We have already seen this on mink farms in the Netherlands and Poland. Farmworkers passed the virus to captive animals where it spread, mutated, and then spilled back into humans. In fact, zoonotic transmission from animals to humans probably happens thousands of times a year. Researchers from the EcoHealth Alliance and from Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, estimate that each year many people are newly infected with SARS-related coronaviruses. Many may get sick, but there are many reasons why most of these infections never grow into noticeable outbreaks (for example see my earlier blog post about unusual respiratory infection clusters in China and Los Angeles just before COVID). The researchers also created a detailed map of Asian habitats of 23 bat species known to harbor SARS-related coronaviruses then overlaid it with data on where humans live to create a map of potential infection hot spots. They found that close to 500 million people live in areas where bat-to-human transfer is likely, and this risk is highest in southern China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia. Other surveys done before COVID-19 showed that many people in Southeast Asia harbor antibodies against other SARS-related coronaviruses. Blending these data with data on how often people encounter bats and how long antibodies remain in the blood, the researchers calculated that ~400,000 undetected human infections with these viruses occur each year across the region.

That is just for bat-to-human transfer in Southern Asia. It now looks like we will have to also concern ourselves with zoonotic coronavirus transfer from Buddy and Bambi too.

For this reason, researchers are working to develop a universal coronavirus vaccine that will be effective against most viral strains and variants. I will write about this soon. Stay tuned.

Note: In order to have blog updates delivered to your email, see the simple Subscription Instructions here. Remember, you can easily unsubscribe when you want.


Naturally Immune? You Still Better Get A Vaccine

Over 43 million Americans have reported cases of COVID-19. Many of them likely have some level of immunity that can be quite protective, even without vaccination. Even before vaccines were available, individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had detectable T-cell responses, and reinfections were rare, at least prior to the emergence of the more contagious Delta variant. This is what people refer to colloquially as “natural immunity,” to distinguish it from immunity conferred by vaccination. Some people claim that natural immunity is better and preferable to vaccine immunity and that a history of infection should count as much as being vaccinated when considering vaccine mandates. Is all this true? Well, like what we have seen and heard during the pandemic, a lot of truths have been spread, same with lies and disinformation. The story around natural immunity follows this pattern. Let me try to sort all this out here with a focus on whether previously infected people should consider getting vaccinated.

Natural infection can confer immunity to COVID. Like most viruses, previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 does confer immune protection against future re-exposure to the virus. Several peer-reviewed studies conducted in the early months of the pandemic, before vaccines were available, found that people previously infected were around 80% less likely to test positive for the virus during the next viral surge. These included studies of healthcare workers in the UK, the Danish population, and patients at the Cleveland Clinic, a large health system in Ohio and Florida.

Other data from the UK Office for National Statistics showed that between May and August 2021, a prior infection offered around the same level of protection against the Delta variant as vaccination. (Note that very recent and preliminary observations in South Africa suggest that infection with the new Omicron variant is high in people previously infected with other CoV-2 variants. However, since Omicron is so new and data on it are very sketchy at this time, this review will not further comment on this variant.)

A recent large Israeli study found that people who had been fully vaccinated with two Pfizer shots were 13 times more likely to later get infected with CoV-2 than those who had a prior infection. It also suggested that immunity from infection was longer lasting than that from vaccination. The study also showed that natural immunity plus the vaccine offered protection that was even stronger than either natural or vaccine immunity alone. This is one of the very few studies suggesting that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity and has not been peer-reviewed. Furthermore, the subsequent rise of Delta since the end of this study confounds the issue a bit since Delta has been shown to be more infectious than the viruses the study subjects were exposed to. 

In the most recent review of the current scientific evidence by the CDC, they concluded that both fully vaccinated and those previously infected with the virus have a low risk of re-infection for at least six months, but that the two forms of immunity appear to have different strengths. Vaccination with mRNA vaccines produced higher concentrations of neutralizing antibodies—the type that prevent the virus from entering cells—than natural infection, although, over time, the antibody levels waned in both groups. However, long lasting immune memory conferred by natural infection appeared to be stronger than that conferred by vaccination.

Over time, immune B cells typically evolve to produce antibodies that better recognize an antigen, and an earlier study published in Nature found that antibodies produced by naturally immune memory B cells continued to evolve at least a year after infection. In contrast, antibodies produced by memory B cells in vaccinated people did not change much over time. This would suggest that over time, antibodies produced by natural immunity gain greater ability to respond to re-infection with the virus than antibodies produced by vaccination. One possible reason for this difference in the evolution of the anti-viral antibodies was that pieces of virus remain in the body for weeks after infection and continue to engage the immune cells, whereas vaccine lipid nanoparticles quickly fade away providing less immune stimulation. 

On the other hand, vaccine immunity might be better. So, as we have seen, a few reports suggest that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity. However, more studies suggest the opposite and even show that not everyone who catches COVID-19 will have effective immunity to re-infection. A CDC study reported that 36% of previously infected people did not form any antibodies against the virus. This is in stark contrast to antibody formation reported in 100% of people who received just one dose of an mRNA vaccine. Furthermore, the CDC reported in August that COVID survivors who went unvaxed were more than twice as likely as vaccinated people to get infected again contrasting with the Israeli study I mentioned earlier. Yet another CDC study looking at data from ~190 hospitals in nine states confirmed that unvaccinated people who survived an infection several months earlier were more than five times more likely to get COVID again than vaccinated people.

The reason that natural immunity might not always be effective is because the natural exposure to the virus is highly variable. People naturally infected are exposed to widely different doses of virus via different routes and possibly to different viral strains, all of which conspire to confer different degrees of protection. In contrast, vaccinated people receive standardized doses of the same viral antigen via the same route of exposure, making them more likely to develop a uniform degree of immunity. Researchers found that some people who had been infected had high antibody levels to the virus, while others had low levels, reflecting this variability in natural infection. This was substantiated by a new study from the University of Pittsburgh that also found that in many cases antibody levels from a prior infection are not high enough to protect people from getting sick again. Then, an Oxford study found that both long term T and B cell immune responses were highly variable in naturally immune people. The investigators took monthly samples of blood from infected subjects and measured their T and B cell responses over time. Interestingly, the variability in their responses was clearly identified as early as one-month post infection. Those with the weakest immunity at one month (25% of the subjects) had no detectable antibodies after six months. This contrasts to vaccine immunity, which does fade a bit over six months, but still remains consistently strong months after full vaccination. 

Finally, new evidence from an NIH-supported study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle showed that antibodies from vaccinated people better recognized the mutated spike proteins from viral variants than antibodies from naturally immune people who had not been vaccinated. In other words, vaccinated people seem better able to respond to mutated spike proteins present in new viral variants.

The bottom line. In sum, while natural immunity can be effective, most evidence shows that vaccines typically give rise to consistently better antibody and long term T and B cell responses.

Having made this point, it is important to further note that a combination of both types of immunity, or so-called hybrid immunity, appears to be stronger than either alone. Researchers found that vaccination of naturally infected people boosted antibody and memory B cells to levels higher than seen in those with just either type of immunity. People with prior COVID-19 who received even one vaccine dose had half the risk of a breakthrough infection than unvaccinated people with prior COVID-19. Another study from researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine in New York found that a single dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines produced more antibodies in people who had previously had COVID-19 than two vax doses did in those who had never encountered the virus. It also found that people with prior infection report more unpleasant, but not serious side effects from vaccination. Vaccinating previously infected people also elicits important cross-variant neutralizing antibodies that better protect them against the known viral variants. Hybrid immunity also appears to work in the other direction: A study of vaccinated people who were then infected during a July 4 holiday weekend outbreak on Cape Cod found that they produced higher levels of antibodies and T-cells directed against the virus. In sum, vaccination helps those with natural immunity (and everyone they interact with) and vice versa

For these reasons, the CDC now recommends that people who have had COVID-19 be vaccinated because the shots plus natural immunity have been shown to offer better protection than natural immunity alone.


Lessons for COVID Vaccinations And Herd Immunity From Influenza And Rubella

Note: The following is modified from the blog post, “Rubella: We vaccinate for far less,” by Katelyn Jetelina, MPS, PhD who is an “epidemiologist, biostatistian, professor, researcher, wife, and mom of two little girls.” She writes a blog entitled, “Your Local Epidemiologist.”

 “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

 George Santayana

 

In the US, more than 300,000 kids aged 5-11 have been vaccinated with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, which has proven that the vaccine is safe and can benefit some kids. It prevents infection, COVID-19 disease, death, long COVID-19, and keeps kids in school. Admittedly, only a few kids develop serious COVID disease and fewer have died from it. Most infected kids only have mild, if any, symptoms. Vaccine skeptics use this fact to stridently argue against childhood COVID vaccines. So, why are we pushing to vaccinate children who rarely get seriously ill?

There are two reasons why we vaccinate anyone. The first reason is to protect the vax recipient from the disease; this is an individual-level benefit of the vaccine. The second is to protect a larger population by trying to retard disease spread; this is a population-level benefit of vaccines that is better known as herd immunity.

But, anti-vaxers only focus on the fact that childhood vaccines provide little individual-level benefit to children and wholly ignore the larger population-level benefit of the vaccines. As I have written before, vaccinating children who are at low risk for serious disease is still very important for reducing viral spread in order to  prevent more dangerous viral mutants from emerging. It also is important for reducing infection and disease in more vulnerable people in the population. It is these population-level benefits that are the most important reason to vaccinate low-risk children. Vaccinating children for a population-level benefit, rather than for individual-level benefit, is not at all new and is a very acceptable practice. Here are a couple of examples.

Influenza: A few decades ago, Japan mandated flu vaccines for all school kids. That vaccine slowed the spread of flu in schools leading to many fewer student illnesses and absences. More significantly, vaccinating all school kids also caused a sharp drop in flu deaths in older people like school teachers and staff, parents, and grandparents who have close contact with the kids.

Kids are walking incubators for respiratory viruses and readily spread their germs to others. Infected children essentially are virus vectors much like mosquitoes are vectors for malaria and yellow fever. Therefore, in Japan, the flu vaccine effectively shut down a major vector of influenza infection for at-risk older people. That is an undeniable and important population-level benefit of vaccinating school kids against the flu.

Rubella: Now, let us take a deeper dive into rubella, or German measles, and its vaccine, which is the “R” in the MMR shot. It is especially enlightening to compare the natural history of rubella to what we are learning about COVID-19.

Both COVID and rubella are caused by airborne viruses that spread when infected people cough, sneeze, or even talk. As with COVID, rubella symptoms in children are quite mild. They include its tell-tale measles-like rash, sore throat, low grade fever, mild pink eye, and general discomfort. But, about 25 to 50% of infected children will not experience any symptoms. Likewise, many CoV-2 infected kids also do not develop symptoms. But, asymptomatic kids infected with either rubella or CoV-2 readily spread their viruses to friends and family; hence, they can be significant vectors delivering both viruses to people at-risk for serious disease.

Over the last two years, we have learned that COVID mostly (with significant exceptions) causes serious illness and death in older people or for those with certain other health conditions. Similarly, while rubella only causes mild disease in most children, it is incredibly dangerous for developing fetuses. A woman infected with rubella during the first 3 months of pregnancy has a 90% chance that the fetus either will not survive or will develop Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS), characterized by deafness, blindness, heart defects, and/or severe brain damage. In the early 1960s, a rubella outbreak began in Europe and spread to the US. In 1964-65 ~12.5 million total cases were reported in America affecting nearly 50,000 pregnancies. More than 11,000 of the infected mothers miscarried, or delivered still-born babies. Of the >20,000 infants born alive to infected mothers, the majority had severe illnesses: 2,100 died shortly after birth, 12,000 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 had permanent mental disabilities.

The rubella outbreak proved hard to contain because, as with COVID, infected asymptomatic people make it hard to know when someone is spreading the virus. Rubella also is just as contagious as COVID. Both viruses have an R0 = 6-7 meaning that each infected person will infect, on average, 6-7 other people. For comparison, flu’s R0 = 2-3, which means it is about half as contagious as the other two viruses. It, therefore, is not surprising that like rubella, the COVID outbreak is proving hard to contain.

Soon after the 1960s rubella pandemic began, a safe and effective vaccine was quickly developed and approved for use in Europe and North America (this is reminiscent of the quick development of the COVID vaccines). Early on, there was a robust international debate on who should get the rubella vaccine. There were two schools of thought:

  1. Despite the fact that rubella only caused mild problems in kids, some proposed vaccinating all children hoping to provide indirect population-level protection for pregnant women and their at-risk fetuses.
  2. Others argued that because children were only minimally affected they should not be subjected to the vaccine and that only women of childbearing age should be vaccinated. This, proponents argued, would more specifically protect those most at risk.

Ultimately, it was found that countries that chose #2 were not able to sufficiently reduce the virus, because it still spread unfettered among children. This strategy did not reduce the rates of CRS. Eventually, option #1, vaccinating low-risk children (like what we are moving toward with the COVID vaccine) was adopted world-wide. Vaccination rates of school kids reached ~85% in the US, which last experienced a serious rubella outbreak in 1995. In 2004, transmission of rubella was eliminated in the United States and in 2015, it was eliminated in all the countries of North and South America.

Soon, the MMR vaccination was mandated for children in all 50 states. It is important to realize that these mandates were not to protect kids from the mild disease but to protect the at-risk population, or fetuses. In other words, we vaccinate kids against rubella not so much to protect them, but to provide a significant population-level benefit to others.

Today, because of broad rubella vaccination of low-risk children, we see an annual average of just 10-15 cases of CRS in the US that are traced back to international travel to countries with poor rubella vaccination rates. In contrast, in countries with low vaccination rates, about 120,000 children are born each year with severe CRS birth defects and even more die in utero.

Bottom Line: This country, and indeed all of the Americas and most of Europe came together to eliminate endemic rubella through broad population-level vaccination programs targeting low-risk groups responsible for spreading the virus to the high risk population. Japan saw the same effect with influenza. They focused on broadly vaccinating a low-risk population (school kids) and saw great benefits in the high-risk older population. As we approach a broad COVID vaccination strategy that includes giving the shot to low-risk children, it very likely will have a population-level benefit and help protect those most at-risk for serious disease.

It is important to note that the population-benefit conferred by the COVID vaccine also applies to all of us and not just to children. When we are vaccinated, not only does it protect us, it also provides significant protection to at-risk people around us. That, in fact, is called “herd immunity.”

Note: In order to have blog updates delivered to your email, see the simple Subscription Instructions here. Remember, you can easily unsubscribe when you want.


The History Of Vaccine Mandates In The US

Note: In order to have blog updates delivered to your email, see the simple Subscription Instructions here. Remember, you can easily unsubscribe when you want.

As employers and the President are pushing vaccine mandates because too many have refused them, voices are crying out for their perceived rights saying “my body my choice.” They do not like their bosses or the government telling them to get vaccinated. This is a clash between individual rights and public health measures designed to save lives and to protect the larger community. Who gets to make the key decisions? How far can the government and employers go? Do individual rights trump community safety?

On Sept. 9, Biden announced the most sweeping vaccine requirements in American history, ordering that businesses with 100 or more employees ensure that all their workers are either vaccinated or get tested weekly for the coronavirus. The new rules also require vaccinations for federal workers and for federal contractors, as well as for workers at healthcare facilities that receive funding from Medicare and Medicaid. This will affect about 100 million people.

The authority for these government mandates, claims Biden, is a 1970 federal statute that gives the Secretary of Labor authority to issue a six month Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to protect workers from “grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful.” His move has triggered a political and legal battle, with many Republican governors vowing to fight the mandates in court. The mandates raise several new questions regarding this vague statute: Is a virus a “…toxic or physically harmful substance?” Does COVID-19 present a “grave danger?” Has the executive branch exceeded its authority in offering a solution to a problem previously reserved to the states? Do these mandates violate the 14th Amendment by depriving workers of their personal liberties? It is important to note that Biden’s mandates do not actually make vaccines compulsory: The government may levy a fine or forbid a child from attending school, but no American will be forced to get an unwanted jab. This has not always been the case.

There are historical precedents for vaccine mandates and even for forced vaccination.

In February 1991, five Philadelphia children died from measles, a disease that was mostly eradicated in the US, due to vaccination. Measles once sickened millions of kids, each year hospitalizing ~50,000 and killing close to 500 before a successful vaccine was developed in 1963. After that, cases dropped dramatically as all states mandated measles shots for school children. Vaccine hesitancy and resistance were rare because people saw the tangible success of the measles vaccine.

But, in Philadelphia that winter of 1991, the serious cases of measles came from a single source, a church cult that rejected “…all means of healing apart from God’s way.” Church members took no medicines, owned no thermometers, and saw no doctors. Rejecting all birth control, they raised large families in close quarters, a recipe for the measles epidemic, which they cooked. Trying to contain the threat to the rest of the city, officials worked through the courts to gain access to the homes of the congregants and received the authority to vaccinate the children against the wishes of their parents. In this public health emergency, defending the parents’ anti-vax actions was close to impossible. Even the ACLU took a pass.

Vaccine mandates even appeared during the Revolutionary War. George Washington mandated that all his troops be immunized against smallpox, even against their will. He described smallpox to Virginia’s Governor Patrick Henry as “more destructive to an Army in a Natural Way, than the Enemy’s Sword.” As I wrote earlier in these pages, smallpox had doomed the Colonial Army’s assault on Quebec in 1775, and it threatened Washington’s main force. Washington’s mandate proved a brilliant gambit and smallpox largely disappeared from the ranks. Some historians point to the mandate as a major factor in winning the war against the Brits.

During that war, smallpox vaccination entailed a primitive vaccination procedure known as variolation. That involved opening a lesion from an infected person and scraping its contents into the arm of a recipient. It was effective, but the vaccinated person became quite ill for a couple of weeks, and about 3% of them died from the pox. Later, in 1796, the English scientist Edward Jenner discovered a much safer method of immunization using cowpox, a virus similar to smallpox that did not cause significant disease in people. But the new smallpox vaccine got a mixed reception in the US as some resisted it for reasons of personal safety based on the variolation experience. They rationalized, “what good could possibly come from polluting the body with dangerous foreign matter?” Or, “Why challenge the plans of the Creator?” Still, Jenner’s vaccine was a clear improvement over variolation and drove a steady decline in smallpox outbreaks throughout the 19th century. States began passing laws mandating smallpox vaccinations for school children, and some forcibly vaccinated prisoners, paupers, and orphans.

In 1905, the issue of vaccine mandates reached the Supreme Court in the seminal case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Henning Jacobson, a Lutheran pastor in Cambridge had defied a city ordinance requiring smallpox vaccinations during an outbreak. He refused to pay a $5 fine so he was arrested. Jacobson posited that “healthy and law-abiding” people like himself (even though he was disobeying the law at the time) posed a minimal danger to the community. He argued that even if his refusal to be vaccinated led to him spreading the smallpox virus, the only victims would be others “who failed or refused to be vaccinated.” In other words, he reasoned that it would be ok to not get the vax because the vaxed would be safe, but wholly ignored the rights to safety of those who were not vaxed. 

It is an argument that is repeated today about the CoV-2 vax. Using modern science that was not available in the early 20th century, experts have repeatedly refuted this argument, explaining that many people who want the vax cannot be fully vaccinated because they are immunocompromised, or allergic to the vaccine’s contents, or do not have access to the vaccine. Also, we now know that the more RNA viruses, like the coronavirus, are allowed to spread, the greater the chance more deadly variants can appear. Jacobson’s contention that the decision to vaccinate solely belongs to the individual, not to the state, employers, or to medical authorities remains a central tenant of today's anti-vaxers.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Jacobson. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, asserted that “the liberty secured by the Constitution does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Rather, he argued, the Constitution rests upon “the fundamental principle of the social compact…that all shall be governed by certain laws for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men.” Jacobson had not only broken the law, the court suggested he also had violated the principle upon which a well-ordered society depends. We are not wholly independent the court ruled. The greater good of the community can trump individual rights.

Using Jacobson as precedent, the Supreme Court in 1922, upheld a local ordinance in San Antonio requiring proof of smallpox vaccination for people entering “public schools or other places of education.”  

Later, during World War II, the US military made vaccines mandatory for a host of diseases, such as typhoid, yellow fever and tetanus, and it still mandates certain vaccines for troops in certain deployments. Soon after the war very successful vaccines were developed against several childhood diseases like polio, measles, mumps and chickenpox. Guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jacobson, all 50 states put laws on the books mandating many of these vaccinations for school children. Even today, many school districts and colleges mandate certain vaccines for students and staff. Hospitals, too, often mandate certain vaccines for their staff. Until lately, vaccine mandates have not generated much angst and anger.

Why is this? Perhaps vaccines have done their job too well: Many of them have erased the tragic evidence of why they were needed in the first place. The world no longer deals with small pox, thanks to the vaccine. Almost no one in this country has seen someone ravaged by polio, or a child hospitalized with measles, or who lost his hearing due to chicken pox, all thanks to vaccines. Yet, now with COVID-19, anti-vaccine anxieties have found their way into the political mainstream, especially among conservatives. An estimated 80 million American adults remain unvaccinated against COVID and represent potential factories for producing the next deadly coronavirus variant, which is very preventable.

As I have addressed before in these pages, many factors fuel resistance to the life-saving shots, including doubts about their quick development and their possible long-term effects. But a growing distrust of professional expertise, including medical science, has also played a role, which is unwarranted. Who are you going to believe, a medical scientist like me with nothing to gain in the debate (except the safety of my friends, family, and self), or someone who read a web post from folks who are selling nostrums they claim will protect you, like Dr. Steve Hotze, or from one of America’s Frontline Doctors whose web site claimed that gynecological problems were caused by having sex with demons? Do you jump on the side of those who tout that their individual freedoms have been abridged, but who do not consider the freedoms from disease of the greater community, and whom the courts already have decided against?

Almost 300 years ago, Benjamin Franklin struggled over whether to have his sons variolated against smallpox. In his “Autobiography,” he worried that well-meaning people were tragically misjudging the calculus between the risks and benefits of the procedure, as he had once done, with a tragic result. He wrote, “In 1736, I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the smallpox….I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of the parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.”


Unvaccinated People Are 11 Times More Likely To Die Of COVID-19

People who were not fully vaccinated this spring and summer were ~10 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 11 times more likely to die of COVID-19, than those who were fully vaccinated, according to one of three major studies published mid-September by the CDC.

That study did not distinguish between which vaccine the vaccinated cohort received. But, a second study compared the different vaccines and found that the Moderna vax was somewhat more effective in preventing hospitalizations than the Pfizer and J&J vaccines. This assessment was based on the largest US study to date of the real-world effectiveness of all three vaccines, involving about 32,000 patients seen in hospitals, emergency departments and urgent-care clinics across nine states from June through early August. While the three vaccines were collectively 86 percent effective in preventing hospitalization, protection was higher among Moderna vaccine recipients (95 percent) than among those who got the Pfizer (80 percent) or J&J vaccines (60 percent). That finding echoes a smaller study by the Mayo Clinic Health System in August, which showed the Moderna vaccine to be more effective than the Pfizer vax at preventing infections from the Delta variant.

Vaccine effectiveness against infection dropped from 90 percent last Spring, when Delta had not yet gained significant traction, to less than 80 percent from mid-June to mid-July, when Delta began out-competing other viral variants. Importantly, effectiveness against hospitalization and death showed barely any decline during the entire period. Thus, all vaccines remain quite effective and useful in protecting against illness.

Get one!

Why there is a difference in preventing infection between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines was discussed earlier in these pages.


Don’t Forget The Drugs: An Update

In these pages last March, I reminded readers to be thankful for the vaccines that prevent COVID-19, but to not forget the antiviral drugs that are being developed that might treat the disease. Both vaccines and antivirals are part of the same quiver of weapons we have to fight the pandemic. In that blog post, I mentioned an experimental drug, molnupiravir that was being developed by Merck and Ridgeback Therapeutics. Well, they just posted an encouraging update. It continues to show success at preventing serious disease when given to high-risk people early after infection. Its only side effects were similar to the placebo, meaning it is very safe. In animal studies, the drug also was effective against different CoV-2 variants, including Delta, and against other coronaviruses including SARS and MERS. Molnupiravir is a “prodrug,” which means that it has no activity on its own; rather it is metabolized after ingestion to an active drug that was developed in the early 2000s to treat hepatitis C.

This is a significant step for being able to easily protect high-risk patients at home. The pill that patients take on their own cuts their risk of hospitalization or death by ~50%. The results were so encouraging that the study was halted after consultation with the FDA. Early termination of studies like this is only done when interim data analyses show such good efficacy of a treatment that it would be unethical to continue enrolling subjects, some of whom would receive placebo, thereby being denied an effective therapy.

The drug slows the spread of the virus in infected people by forcing the enzyme that copies the viral genetic material into making so many mistakes the virus cannot reproduce. That, in turn, reduces the patient’s viral load, shortening the infection and damping the type of over-exuberant immune response (cytokine storm) that causes serious problems in many COVID patients. It was not effective when given to already hospitalized, or advanced, patients. It is on track to be approved by the FDA by the end of the year, and would be the first proven and approved oral antiviral drug for treating COVID-19 (neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine have been proven or approved).

The FDA has already cleared another antiviral drug, remdesivir, for treating COVID-19, but it is only used to treat advanced patients who are already hospitalized (interestingly remdesivir was also originally developed to treat hepatitis C and it is also used to treat Ebola). Several lab-produced monoclonal antibody treatments have also been approved by the FDA for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 and they are more successful than molnupiravir at preventing advanced disease. But both remdesivir and the antibody treatments require an intravenous infusion done in a health care setting, making them more complicated and more expensive than just taking a pill at home, which is a decided advantage of molnupiravir. Finally, one of the more effective approved drugs against COVID-19 is the steroid, dexamethasone, but that is only given to very sick patients since its side effects are significant. Therefore, there is much room in the anti-COVID quiver for effective, simple-to-administer drugs such as molnupiravir. Both Pfizer and Roche also have other antiviral drugs that block viral replication in advanced stages of development. Stay tuned.

As of October 5, 2021, the Milken Institute tracker shows that there are 331 “treatments” for COVID-19 in development worldwide. This effort recently got a $3.2 billion boost from the US Antiviral Program for Pandemics, which is a rejuvenated initiative that was started during the MERS outbreak in 2012, but was tabled after MERS fizzled out. Then there is the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) program, also sponsored by NIH. These programs focus on developing non-vaccine therapies designed to treat not prevent the disease and they include studies of medicines currently used to treat other diseases (including ivermectin, which has yet to be proven effective) as well as studies of new drugs.

While the news about molnupiravir is encouraging, health experts are concerned that the news also could increase complacency regarding vaccines in the vax-hesitant. It is important to realize that prevention (vaccination) is almost always preferable to treatment (drugs).

Get the vax.

Note: In order to have blog updates delivered to your email, see the simple Subscription Instructions here. Remember, you can easily unsubscribe when you want.


HIV And Coronaviruses: A Bad Combo

Africa is the continent least vaccinated for COVID-19 and it also has been where several CoV-2 variants have arisen: Beta in South Africa, most recently C.1.2 (not yet given a Greek letter designation) also from South Africa, and Eta in Nigeria. A possible reason for the appearance of these variants is because Africa is also home to the most immunocompromised people. HIV is common in Africa and tuberculosis is rampant on the continent.

One HIV-positive woman in South Africa was reported to carry active CoV-2 infection for 216 days, during which time it mutated 30 times according to Tulio de Oliveira, who runs gene-sequencing centers at two South African universities. This is concerning since South Africa has the world’s largest HIV epidemic. It is estimated to have 8.2 million people infected with HIV. While most of these take antiretroviral drugs, which keep the virus at bay, many do not. And neighboring countries, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Eswatini also have very high HIV infection rates. The burden of HIV, TB and other chronic diseases is higher in these countries than in other countries around the world due to extreme poverty and poor health care for millions of Africans. When these people also become infected with CoV-2, they grow and shed the virus longer than someone with a good immune system and good health care. That means that the virus has longer to mutate in an infected, immunocompromised person.

In wealthier countries in the West, a rich debate is ongoing about whether to add another shot (booster) to already vaccinated people. One of the biggest arguments against this is that those booster vaccines are needed much more in poorer, and woefully under-vaccinated countries, such as those in Africa. The concern is that our boosters come at the expense of basic immunization of these impoverished countries, which facilitates the generation of troublesome viral variants. On the other hand, if CoV-2 is running rampant because the health care infrastructure in these countries is not up to delivering those vaccines, maybe it would be better making sure that richer countries are as protected as possible.

These are the proverbial two horns of a dilemma. Which horn would you choose?


The Differences Between The Moderna And Pfizer mRNA Vaccines

Since the vaccines rolled out, people, including me, have talked about the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as simply being interchangeable versions of mRNA vaccine technology platforms. They both use part of the CoV-2 viral mRNA sequence to temporarily express parts of the viral spike protein on muscle cells in order to stimulate a protective immune response against the live virus. Since mRNA is very unstable and would quickly degrade if it were injected by itself, both vaccines encapsulate it in lipid nanoparticles, or liposomes, which both protects the mRNA and helps it fuse to cell membranes and insert the genetic material into the cells where it is translated into the protein. So, the Pfizer and Moderna technologies are very similar.  But they are not identical. At first blush, the differences appear subtle, but we are learning that they seem to manifest themselves in different, not-so-subtle biological ways. Let’s take a look at the how the vaccines differ.

The formulation: The lipid nanoparticles that carry the mRNA are a bit different between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine platforms. While the exact formulations are proprietary intellectual property owned by each company, we do have a little bit of information about how they are similar and how they differ. Both platforms are concoctions of several different lipids designed to spontaneously assemble in aqueous solutions into small, “artificial cells” that encapsulate the mRNA payload. The lipids in both vaccines include polyethylene glycol (PEG), which can have multiple effects on the properties of lipid nanoparticles; they can affect particle size and particle stability. Certain PEG modifications can also prolong the blood circulation time of nanoparticles by reducing clearance of the liposomes by the kidneys and by scavenger immune cells called phagocytes.

The Pfizer vaccine also contains two proprietary lipids known as ALC-0315, and ALC-0159 as well as cholesterol, all in a very precise ratio. The Moderna vaccine platform consists of lipids that are not as well-known publically because the company is in litigation over the intellectual property with Arbutus, which developed the lipids that were licensed by Moderna.

Basically, viruses are naturally occurring liposomes encapsulating genetic material. The nanotechnology community has long been trying to create “artificial” virus-like nanoparticles that do not replicate or spread like a live virus in order to deliver fragile molecules, like mRNA, to cells for therapeutic reasons. Therefore, the goal of therapeutic liposomes is to create a virus-like lipid bilayer membrane (see figure) in order to deliver a drug or vaccine payload to cells. Mixing amphiphilic fatty acids, which are lipids where one end is water soluble (hydrophilic), while the other end is not (hydrophobic), in an aqueous solution allows them to spontaneously assemble into virus-like nanoparticles, or mini-cells. A water soluble payload (mRNA in this case) is captured in the central blue area and is protected by the outer lipid membrane. When these artificial cells bump into a live cell, the lipids on the two membranes fuse dumping the therapeutic payload into the cell’s cytoplasm.

There are endless combinations of amphiphilic lipids which can form such pseudo-cells, the properties of which can be modified depending on which lipids are used. For example, the selection of lipids used in both vaccines give the surface of the liposomes a mild positive charge, which facilitates their ability to stick to the negatively charged membranes of live cells.

What all this means is that the specific lipid formulation used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines affects the delivery of mRNA to cells, but we do not have enough detail to be able to suss the effects of the different liposome compositions on the efficacy of the vaccine. Those details mostly remain trade secrets. Liposome_scheme-en

lipid nanoparticle mimics a cell bilayer membrane

mRNA sequence. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines use mRNA that encodes part of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which sits on the surface of the virus and binds with the ACE2 receptor on the cell surfaces of many tissues. mRNA molecules are chains of four nucleosides arranged in a gene-specific sequence code that cells then translate into a specific protein. However, when a foreign mRNA is injected into a body, the mRNA itself can be recognized by the immune system and neutralized before it can enter a cell and express its cognate protein. For this reason, both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have been modified to incorporate a synthetic non-natural nucleoside, 1-methylpseudouridine, which reduces the ability of the immune system to recognize the foreign mRNA and improves its stability and expression of its protein.

The spike molecule consists of two protein subunits, the first of which is responsible for the initial binding with ACE2, while the second promotes the fusion between the virus and the cell membranes. The mRNA sequence incorporated into the Moderna vaccine, mRNA-1273, specifically encodes the pre-fusion form of the second spike protein subunit that is found on the surface of the virus before it binds to the ACE2 cell receptor. The mRNA sequence is modified to produce a spike protein with two amino-acid substitutions at positions 986 and 987 on the protein that help to keep it in the pre-fusion state. In contrast, the mRNA utilized by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (BNT162) only encodes part of the spike protein on the first subunit that specifically binds to the ACE2 receptor. Thus, the two vaccines drive immunity to different parts of the spike protein molecule.

Perhaps more importantly, the dose of mRNA in the two vaccines differs. The Moderna vax delivers a 3-fold higher dose (100 mcg) of mRNA compared to the Pfizer vaccine (30 mcg). This  means that more spike protein antigen to stimulate an immune response is expressed from the Moderna shot.

What does it all mean? Initially, these differences in lipid composition, mRNA sequence, and mRNA dose do not seem to affect vaccine effectiveness. Both are extremely effective at protecting against COVID-19 within a few months after the second shot. But, over time, differences in the effectiveness of the vaccines are showing up.

Last month, the Mayo Clinic released a preprint of a large study of 645,109 patients after vaccination. This assessed the level of protection from infection in people vaccinated with the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, or who were unvaccinated between January–July, 2021. Both vaccines continued to be very effective at preventing hospitalization, ICU admission, and death relative to unvaccinated people over the period of the study. However, prevention against mild to moderate COVID-19 was somewhat lower for both vaccines in July compared to January. Vaccine immunity faded a bit over that time. Importantly, the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine faded faster over this time compared to the Moderna vaccine. A more recent CDC analysis of COVID-19 emergency room or urgent care visits for ~33,000 people between June-August 2021, when the Delta variant was predominant in the US, showed that overall the vaccines were 86% effective at protecting against serious COVID-19. But, vaccine efficacy for those who received the Moderna vaccine was 92%, while those receiving the Pfizer vax showed 77% protection.

Similar results were found in another study of 196 vaccinated elder nursing home residents in Canada. Compared to those who received the Moderna vaccine, residents who received the Pfizer shot mounted a 3.89-fold lower antibody response. A Belgium study published August 30, also found that the Moderna vaccine stimulated ~3 times the antibody response as the Pfizer vax. This study looked at 1,647 vaccinated workers at a Belgium hospital. Finally, a Qatar study largely found the same thing; that the Moderna vaccine stimulated a more robust antibody response.

What accounts for the different responses to the different vaccines over time? That is impossible to pinpoint at this time. It could be due to the higher dose of mRNA in the Moderna vaccine. The difference in response over time could also be due to the different mRNA sequences the vaccines contain, or due to the slight differences in the chemical composition of the lipid nanoparticles. Or, any combination of the above could drive quantitatively different immune responses.

Most importantly, though, both vaccines continue to work amazingly well against serious COVID disease, hospitalizations and death. Even while the more infectious Delta variant rages around the world in the face of slowly fading vaccine efficacy, about 95% of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths today are in unvaccinated people.

Note: In order to have blog updates delivered to your email, see the simple Subscription Instructions here. Remember, you can easily unsubscribe when you want.


Long Term Side Effects Of COVID Vaccines

In his nearly 30 years studying vaccines, Paul Goepfert, M.D., director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, has never seen any vaccine as effective as the three COVID vaccines — the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, and the adenovirus-based vaccine from Johnson & Johnson that are currently available in the US. He refers to the 90 percent reduction in infections, and 94 percent protection against hospitalization the vaccines confer. 

Despite this undeniable success, most Americans who have not been vaccinated report long-term safety as a major concern. Nearly a quarter of respondents in Gallup surveys in March and April 2021 said they wanted to confirm the vaccine was safe before getting the shot. And 26 percent of respondents in a survey of parents with children ages 12-15 by the Kaiser Family Foundation in April 2021 said they wanted to “wait a while to see how the vaccine is working” before deciding to get their child vaccinated. 

There are several reasons to not worry about such long term consequences of the vaccines. Vaccines are very temporary medicines, making them different from medicines that people take every day, potentially for years, that can have long term safety issues. Further, decades of vaccine history, plus months of data from more than a billion people around the world who have received the current COVID vaccines starting last December, provide powerful real-life proof that there is little chance that any new dangers will arise more than a couple of weeks following the COVID shot. 

Consider the following:

1. Vaccines are eliminated within hours to a couple of days. Unlike many drugs, which are taken daily and chronically, vaccines are generally one (maybe two)-and-done. Medicines you take every day for months or years can cause side effects that only reveal themselves over time. 

Vaccines are designed to deliver a payload that is quickly eliminated by the body. This is particularly true of the mRNA vaccines as I wrote earlier. mRNA is a very unstable molecule that degrades rapidly (within hours) due to ubiquitous enzymes generally known as RNases. So, after a shot, the vaccine lingers just long enough to stimulate an immune reaction, and then the body’s normal mechanisms eliminate it within hours. The only long term effect after the vaccine is eliminated is the immunological memory it leaves behind.

2. Vaccine side effects, if any, show up within hours to a couple of weeks, never longer: No vaccine has ever shown a side effect that appeared more than two months after injection. This is why the FDA requires only two-months of of followup data after injection for Emergency Use Authorization (or six months as an extra precaution for Full Approval).

That is not to say that there have never been safety issues with vaccines. But in each instance, these issues appeared very soon after vaccination. When the oral polio vaccine was first introduced in the US in 1955, it used a crippled form of the polio virus that in very rare cases, about one in 2.4 million recipients, became activated and caused polio. Cases of vaccine-induced polio occurred between one and four weeks after vaccination, none after one month.

In 1976, it was found that in approximately one in 100,000 patients, a vaccine against swine flu was associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, in which the immune system attacks the nerves causing temporary paralysis. These cases occurred in the eight weeks after being vaccinated (in contrast the flu itself causes Guillain-Barré Syndrome 17 times more frequently than the vaccine). Eight-weeks is the longest post-vaccine delay for the appearance of a side effect for any vaccine.

3. Real life experience with COVID vaccines: By the time the COVID vaccines were approved for emergency use in the US in December 2020, we already knew what the short-term side effects were from the clinical trials on tens-of-thousands of people. The side effects seen in these studies, and later confirmed in the real-world experience of vaccinating hundreds of millions of people, were mostly simple tolerability issues, like arm pain, temporary fatigue and headache. These side effects occur a day or two after the vaccine and last 24-36 hrs.

As of June 12, 2021, more than 2.33 billion COVID vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, according to the New York Times vaccinations tracker. And as hundreds of millions of people are vaccinated, we can begin to detect the extremely rare side-effects that would not be seen when only tens of thousands of patients had been vaxed. This has not revealed any side effect occurring after two-four weeks following the shot. Thus, the close scrutiny of these hundreds of millions of vaccine recipients make the COVID vaccines perhaps the most studied vaccine in the history of medicine.

We also now know that a few people receiving the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine experienced a clotting disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenia. This occurred in just 79 people among more than 20 million people receiving this vaccine in the UK. A smaller number of cases have occurred with Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine as well. These side effects only happened 1-2 weeks following the shot (and clotting problems occur much more frequently following infection). An even rarer side effect, myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, has been reported in people receiving Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. This effect was found in about one in a million vaccinated people. None of these cases appeared more than a month after the vaccination.

Finally, on July 12, 2021, the FDA announced that in rare cases (100 reports out of 12.8 million shots given in the US), the J&J vaccine might be associated with Guillan-Barré Syndrome. All of these cases appeared about two weeks after injection.

Bottom line: All of this can be boiled down to this: There are no “long term safety issues” with these or any other vaccine. If you don’t have a side effect 2-8 weeks after the injection, you will not have any further vaccine-related problem down the road.

I challenge anyone to name any vaccine that has had side effects more than a few weeks following the shot.

Therefore, it is mind-boggling that people are avoiding COVID vaccines based on an unwarranted hypothetical concern over long term safety, but they are not at all worried about the reality of COVID mortality and the devastation of “long COVID” symptoms seen in 10% of infected people. That is irrational.

Stay tuned:  A multi-post blog series on the “long COVID” or “long haulers” will soon begin in these pages.

Note: In order to have blog updates delivered to your email, see the simple Subscription Instructions here. Remember, you can easily unsubscribe when you want.