Home Blog Page 45

Fifteen Queensland resources communities to share $47 million

-


Fifteen resources communities are set to share in just over $47 million thanks to joint Palaszczuk Government and resources sector funding.

Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development Steven Miles announced the first round of projects from the $100 million Resources Community Infrastructure Fund (RCIF).

“20 projects will give 15 communities improved and additional local facilities for sport, recreation, social and mental health support, affordable housing, disability accommodation, education, healthcare and transport,” Mr Miles said.

“It’s a diverse range of projects to meet the diverse needs of resources communities across the state.”

The RCIF was created to improve economic and social infrastructure in resources communities in order to enhance wellbeing and access to services, support jobs and boost the economy as part of Queensland’s COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan. 

“The resource sector is vital to our economy and employs around 84,000 workers, directly supporting more than 15,000 Queensland businesses.

“Despite the challenges COVID-19 has brought, our resources sector has been able to continue operating throughout the pandemic, helping support our economy.”

Minister for Resources Scott Stewart said the Fund is a voluntary partnership between the Queensland Government, resource companies, and the Queensland Resources Council (QRC).

“The government has partnered with resource companies to see investments in the communities that support them,” Mr Stewart said.

“These communities are critical to rebuilding Queensland’s economy. And these new community infrastructure projects will create more jobs and more opportunities for regional Queenslanders.

“Not only will the 20 projects support even better facilities for their regions, they will also create more employment, creating an estimated 186 jobs for Queenslanders during construction.

“Projects will be delivered by councils and not-for-profit organisations providing tangible benefits for the community, including the resources sector workers and their families who live there.

Chair of the Expert Advisory Committee Tony Mooney said the committee really made sure the needs of resource communities were put first.

“Whether it’s a new public swimming pool, better places to play and watch sport or additional community support facilities, the committee wanted to properly consider the social and economic impact being made through this funding” Mr Mooney said.

“We are so glad that this has come to fruition and look forward to seeing these projects being delivered in their communities.”

Queensland Resources Council Chief Executive Ian Macfarlane welcomed today’s announcement of the first 20 projects to be delivered as part of RCIF Round 1.

“As the peak state body for coal, metal and gas explorers, producers and suppliers, the QRC is proud our industry has been able to contribute $70 million to the RCIF and work with the state government to support resources communities,” Mr Macfarlane said.

“We are always looking to ensure jobs for Queenslanders in the regions, and many of these projects do just that and more for our communities.”

BHP Mitsubishi Alliance Asset President Mauro Neves said BMA was proud to be a major contributor to the RCIF.

 “In addition to creating jobs and economic opportunities for central Queensland, we want to make the Bowen Basin a better place to live by investing in our communities,” he said.

 “Keeping our communities safe through the COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing priority for us. Through the RCIF, we can increase our support for the Bowen Basin and back the projects the locals want for their towns.”

All projects funded under RCIF Round 1 aim to improve economic and social infrastructure in our resource communities, to enhance wellbeing and access to services and to generate jobs.

RCIF was established by a voluntary partnership between coal and mineral companies, the Queensland Resources Council and the Queensland Government.

The Queensland Government has committed $30 million to the Fund with participating Queensland resources companies contributing the remaining $70 million.

Learn more about the Resources Community Infrastructure Fund

Attribution Queensland Government


Dan Andrews, Victorian’s adapt to the impacts of climate change

-

The Andrews Labor Government is empowering Victorian communities across the state to prepare and adapt to the impacts of climate change with the development of six new community-led action plans.

The Regional Adaptation Strategies provide practical ways for communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change through on-ground action.

Communities across six regions − Barwon South West, Gippsland, Grampians, Hume, Loddon Mallee and Port Phillip – have developed and will lead the implementation of the five-year strategies.

The strategies include preparing for and recovering from emergencies, caring for the natural environment, improving health and wellbeing, strengthening the economy and workforce, improving the resilience of our built environment, and embracing renewable energy.

As part of the implementation of the strategies, $1.5 million will be invested in 54 on-the-ground community-led projects that will commence this financial year to help local communities prepare and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Projects include a citizen science biodiversity monitoring program in Barwon South West, helping low-income households in Bass Coast and South Gippsland to reduce their energy costs and more support to empower Aboriginal communities and Traditional Owner Groups to identify climate adaptation actions.

The development of the strategies was funded by the Labor Government’s $9.32 million Supporting our Regions to Adapt program through the Sustainability Fund.

It builds on other Government climate change investments, including a $1.6 billion clean energy package, $100 million towards zero-emissions vehicles and $92 million for land restoration and carbon farming to help build the state’s resistance to climate change.

To view the strategies, please visit climatechange.vic.gov.au/supporting-local-action-on-climate-change.

Quotes attributable to Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change Lily D’Ambrosio

“Our climate is changing, and the effects are being felt across the state – that’s why we’re supporting communities to act now and adapt to the impacts of climate change.”

This is another example of how we’re delivering real action on climate change by supporting communities to deliver their local projects and build thriving and sustainable futures.”

Transcript Source Victoria Government


Palaszczuk Changes ahead for COVID close contacts

-


The Palaszczuk Government has today announced new response measures to COVID cases, commencing on 1 January 2022.

Minister for Health Yvette D’Ath said that these measures are consistent with Australia’s national plan for reopening.

“Queensland’s management of COVID-19 so far has meant we’ve experienced significantly less cases than other jurisdictions, and after hitting that 80 per cent vaccination target, our borders are re-opening,” Minister D’Ath said.

“To continue moving forward, we also need to acknowledge that the coming months will inevitably bring a rise in cases and increased community transmission.

“For every COVID positive person, there will also be close and casual contacts. Managing the testing, tracing and quarantine of these people – along with bolstering surge capacity in our hospitals – will be key in keeping businesses and borders open.

“As with the restrictions that are set to start on 17 December, what you have to do if you are a close contact will be all about your vaccination status.”

Requirements for casual contacts from 1 January 2022:

  • Get tested immediately and quarantine until receiving a negative result.
  • Encouraged to wear a mask outside the home for 14 days.

Requirements for vaccinated close contacts from 1 January 2022:

  • Quarantine for seven days.
  • Get a test immediately and on day five.
  • Move out of quarantine on day eight (if tested negative).
  • Precautionary measures including mask wearing outside the home and avoiding high-risk settings for days 8-14.
  • Vaccinated household contacts of close contacts do not need to quarantine, but will need a test on day one and five.
  • Unvaccinated household contacts of close contacts will need to follow the same quarantine and testing requirements as the close contact, unless they can separate from the contact.

Requirements for un-vaccinated close contacts from 1 January 2022:

  • Quarantine for 14 days.
  • Get tested immediately and on days five and 12.
  • Vaccinated household contacts of close contacts will need to quarantine for seven days, and get a test on day one and five, unless they can separate from the contact.
  • Unvaccinated household contacts of close contacts will need to follow the same quarantine and testing requirements as the close contact, unless they can separate from the contact.

Minister for Employment and Small Business Di Farmer said the new arrangements would minimise disruption for businesses while managing the risks of COVID-19.

“We acknowledge this is a new normal for everyone, and I know all business owners just want to do the right thing,” Minister Farmer said.

“This provides the clarity and certainty of what managing COVID in the workplace looks like.

“We’ll continue to support businesses through this transition and urge them to visit the Business Queensland website.”

Minister Farmer said it was crucial for Queensland businesses to continue using the Check-In Qld app.

“It’s more important than ever to be visiting and supporting small businesses, but it’s critical that people observe the current requirements and continue to use the Check-In Qld app so you can be notified for contact tracing purposes.”

From now until 1 January, current requirements for close and casual contacts continue to apply.

More information on new close and casual contact arrangements:

www.qld.gov.au/health/conditions/health-alerts/coronavirus-covid-19/current-status/queensland-restrictions-update/changes-to-requirements-for-close-and-casual-contacts

More information on the current contact tracing requirements, including active alerts:

www.health.qld.gov.au/tracing

America’s Real-Life Opioid Crisis

-

 Watch: Going Beyond the Script of ‘Dopesick’ and America’s Real-Life Opioid Crisis

KHN and policy colleagues at our parent organization KFF teamed up with Hulu for a discussion of America’s opioid crisis, following the Oct. 13 premiere of the online streaming service’s new series “Dopesick.”

The discussion explored how the series’ writers worked with journalist Beth Macy, author of the book “Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company That Addicted America,” and showrunner Danny Strong to create and fact-check scripts and develop characters. It quickly moved on to a deeper discussion of how the fictionalized version of the opioid epidemic portrayed in the Hulu series dovetailed with the broader reality KFF’s journalists and analysts have been documenting in their work for the past few years.

Providing perspective on the role of public health and treatment were KHN correspondent Aneri Pattani, who has reported extensively on opioid policy, substance use and mental health, and KFF senior policy analyst Nirmita Panchal, whose analytical work focuses on mental health and substance use.

The forum was moderated by Chaseedaw Giles, audience engagement editor and digital strategist at KHN who has written about hip-hop music’s relationship with opioid abuse. It was filmed in KFF’s Washington, D.C., conference centre to an audience of no one (courtesy of covid-19).

You can read a transcript of the forum by clicking here.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing

-

Can Prozac treat COVID? Perhaps, but a related drug may be better

-

The rise of Omicron, the latest SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, reminds us how quickly things can change during the pandemic.

Only a few weeks ago, we were hearing about a range of potential new COVID-19 antiviral drugs and antibody treatments. Now researchers are asking if such drugs will still work to treat Omicron, with its multiple new mutations. We’ll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks.

However, another approach to treating COVID is to “treat the host”. Rather than target the virus itself, this involves treating the body’s overwhelming response to the virus. This approach is less susceptible to new viral variants.

And for this, we have some progress with, at first glance, an unlikely group of drugs to treat COVID-19 – antidepressants. These include fluoxetine (for example, Prozac) and the related drug fluvoxamine (for example, Luvox). It’s early days yet. But here’s what we know so far.

How could antidepressants treat COVID?

The antidepressants under investigation are SSRIs or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. These commonly prescribed mood-altering drugs block “reuptake” of the naturally occurring chemical messenger, serotonin, by nerve cells in the brain; some antidepressants stop serotonin being broken down. These mechanisms leave more serotonin available to pass messages between nearby nerve cells.

There are two ways SSRIs could have an effect on COVID-19.

First, human biology is frugal

Biological “frugality” sets the scene. It takes a lot of effort for the body to make a single important molecule and a huge undertaking if you need hundreds of them. So, biology directs important molecules to multi-task.

For example, we all make serotonin by introducing a few changes to the chemical structure of the essential amino acid tryptophan, commonly present in food.

Serotonin is then tasked with being:

  • a messenger in the brain

  • a molecule to cause contraction in the gut

  • an inducer of platelet clotting, and

  • a modulator of how blood vessels work, including how they constrict and how they interact with the immune system.

The virus responsible for COVID-19 drives a devastating hyper inflammation in serious diseases. This involves many of the systems serotonin strongly regulates – inflammation, platelet clotting and proper functioning of blood vessels.

So there’s a potential link between drugs that influence serotonin and COVID-19.

Second, drugs can open different locks

Drugs often act as a “key” to open certain locks in the body. However, in some cases, the “key” is not that specific and can surprise us by opening additional, unrelated locks.

This is called a pleiotropic response and is the basis of using existing drugs for new purposes (repurposing).

This may also explain why a mood-altering drug may be effective in serious infection. As we’ll see later, it may open the lock to influence inflammation.

-
Image by S. Hermann & F. Richter from Pixabay 

Sometimes drugs act as ‘keys’ that open different, unrelated locks.Have people tried SSRIs for COVID?

There have been a number of clinical trials showing favourable COVID-19 outcomes for people taking SSRIs.

In a preliminary study, outpatients with COVID-19 symptoms treated with fluvoxamine were less likely to deteriorate over 15 days compared with those taking the placebo.

Another study found patients hospitalised for COVID-19 who took antidepressants – including the SSRI fluoxetine, and non-SSRI antidepressants – within 48 hours of admission were less likely to be intubated or die than those who didn’t take an antidepressant.

The latest evidence comes from a major independent study published online in late October. This found people diagnosed with COVID-19 who took fluvoxamine reduced their chance of symptoms deteriorating or needing to go to hospital, compared to those who took the placebo.

Although few studies have directly compared fluvoxamine with fluoxetine to treat COVID-19, the bulk of the best quality evidence suggests to date suggests fluvoxamine may have the greatest promise.

However, there are a number of studies on broader effects of other SSRIs including fluoxetine.

What could be happening?

It is likely our frugal biology is at work, in particular the influence of serotonin on platelets and blood clotting.

SSRIs may be reducing the incidence or size of blood clots, heart attacks and strokes we’d usually see in severe COVID-19.

SSRIs could also switch on anti-inflammatory pathways in the body, independent of any serotonin effect. Different SSRIs have different capacities to do this, which may explain why some SSRIs seem to have a greater effect on COVID-19 than others.

For instance, fluvoxamine is a more powerful key to unlock the sigma-1 receptor, which has a significant role in controlling inflammation. Fluvoxamine may also increase melatonin, which has anti-inflammatory effects.

What we still want to find out

Despite promising clinical trials, in particular for fluvoxamine, researchers still want to know:

  • is this a class effect? In other words, would all SSRIs work? Although fluvoxamine is widely available, it is not on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines, whereas fluoxetine is. So we need to know if these drugs are interchangeable within the class of SSRIs, or even with antidepressants more broadly

  • we still don’t know the precise mechanism behind why these drugs seem to work. But how much more data would we need before we start treating these patients in hospital?

  • could fluvoxamine work for vaccinated people? Or is the potential mainly for those unvaccinated, and more likely to have severe disease?

  • we need further information on possible side-effects of using SSRIs in COVID-19 patients, particularly if we are using doses different to the standard antidepressant dose. However, since SSRIs are existing and commonly used drugs, we already know a lot about how they work in the body, and any possible adverse reactions.

That said, based on the results to date with fluvoxamine in particular, we consider it needs to be added to the list of candidate COVID-19 drugs for further testing and evaluation.

Omicron may not be the last variant of concern. And by “treating the host” with existing drugs – SSRIs being just one example – we can offer patients options that are not at the mercy of future, unknown variants.


SSRIs can be dangerous if used in a dose that is too high for a particular person. These drugs should only be prescribed by your doctor. The drugs also have a number of potential drug interactions, increasing the risk of serotonin syndrome, which can be life-threatening.The Conversation

Jennifer Martin, Professor of Medicine and Chair of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Newcastle and Richard John Head, Emeritus Professor, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Daniel Andrews Implementing Victoria’s New Pandemic Framework

-


As part of the Victorian Government’s new pandemic management framework, Premier Daniel Andrews has made a formal pandemic declaration applying to the State of Victoria from 11:59pm, Wednesday 15 December 2021 until 11:59pm, Wednesday 12 January 2022.

The declaration is made under section 165AB (1) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and replaces the current State of Emergency declaration, which expires at 11:59pm on 15 December and will not be extended.

The pandemic declaration was made after consultation with and consideration of advice from the Chief Health Officer (CHO) and Minister for Health. In making the declaration, the Premier was satisfied on reasonable grounds there was a serious risk to public health throughout Victoria arising from the coronavirus pandemic disease.

In advising the Premier to make a pandemic declaration, the CHO noted the widespread community transmission of coronavirus in Victoria and the presence of active cases in the community – a significant proportion of whom require supported care.

The CHO also advised protective measures were necessary to ensure the Victorian health system is not overwhelmed.

The initial pandemic declaration can be renewed within four weeks, if the Premier is satisfied on reasonable grounds the pandemic continues to be a serious risk to public health. After the first declaration, further pandemic declarations can be extended every three months.

The Statement of Reasons and the advice of both the CHO and Minister for Health will be tabled in Parliament. A copy of the pandemic declaration will be published in the Government Gazette.

Once a pandemic declaration has been made, the Minister for Health has the power to make pandemic orders he considers reasonably necessary to protect public health. These powers are similar to the CHO’s power to make public health directions and are in line with powers available in other jurisdictions across Australia.

The new pandemic framework has strengthened parliamentary oversight, with an independent joint investigatory committee and the ability for the Parliament to disallow pandemic orders.

Pandemic orders are made after the Minister for Health considers the CHO’s advice and other factors he considers relevant, including social and economic factors. The orders will be published on the Pandemic Orders Register on the Department of Health website.

Parliament and the Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee will oversee the operation of the new pandemic management framework.

Quotes attributable to Premier Daniel Andrews

“We’ve learned a lot over the past two years of this global pandemic – now, we’re applying these lessons to manage pandemics in the future, support our public health system, keep Victorians safe and keep our vaccinated economy open.”

Source: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au






Queensland Police, State border changes: what you need to know

-
Star Casino
Photo Blow the Truth

Queensland’s state border restrictions are easing, allowing travellers from Covid-19 domestic hotspots to enter the state without having to quarantine from Monday.

From 1am, December 13, anyone entering Queensland from domestic hotspots such as New South Wales and Victoria, will have to complete a border declaration pass.

Travellers can arrive by road or air provided they are fully vaccinated and can provide evidence of a negative Covid-19 PCR test in the previous 72 hours.

They will also have to obtain a Covid-19 test on day five after their arrival.

You must receive a negative Covid-19 result before applying for a border pass, unless you live within the border zone area.

More information about getting a Covid-19 test in New South Wales is available here, or testing information for Victoria is available here.

Residents living in the declared border zone will be able to move freely across the border without the need for a PCR test, however, they will still need to be vaccinated and have a valid border pass.

Unvaccinated border zone residents will be restricted to travel for essential reasons.

New border passes can be obtained on the here from midnight, Sunday night.

Road border traffic

Extensive delays are expected at state border crossings on Monday and Tuesday (December 13-14) with anticipation there will be high volumes of returning Queensland residents and travellers driving into the state.   

The Queensland Police Service will be conducting compliance activities at the road border checkpoints and motorists may be intercepted for verification of their declaration pass and supporting evidence.

We recommend the following for people crossing road borders:

  • Ensure your border pass is printed and clearly on display on your windscreen
  • Do not attempt to cross the border without a valid pass as you will be turned around
  • Consider travelling outside peak periods and after Monday if possible  
  • Plan for delays exceeding 60 minutes at high peak times
  • Remain patient and follow the directions of signage and officer’s directions

For more information, visit www.covid19.qld.gov.au.


Source:  The State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) 2021

Queensland Police Media · 200 Roma Street · Brisbane, Queensland 4000 · Australia
myPolice on Dec 10, 2021


Joe Biden attend a meeting on Response Team on the Omicron Variant


-

Remarks by Joe Biden in Meeting with Members of the White House COVID-⁠19 Response Team on the Omicron Variant


Joe Biden:  Hello, folks. 
I’m about to get a briefing from my COVID team on Omicron variant.  And we got some encouraging news from Pfizer yesterday.  Preliminary lab data has indicated — it shows that — that three doses of the Pfizer vaccine protects avents [sic] — protects against the Omicron 

And today, we’ve got even more good news from the FDA and the CDC: 16- and 17-year-olds are eligible for boosters.
So, my message is really very straightforward and simple.  If you got vaccinated six months ago — and I say to all of you in the press as well, not a joke — I say to all of you: If you got vaccinated six months ago, get your booster right away.
We’re seeing a lot more Americans do just that.  Fifty million — fifty million people are — now have gotten their booster shots.  And we’re getting people their booster shots at a record pace — roughly a million people a day.
And America is making progress: 200 million with two shots, and more kids vaccinated than any country on Earth.
And we got — we got a lot of work to do, but we’re going to get — we’re going to get through this.  We’re going to make it through this.  And we’re going to be okay, in my view.
And I’m about to get a briefing from my COVID team, as I said.  So, thanks.  And I’m going to get the meeting started now. 
 
Thank you.
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Health Experts Worry CDC’s Covid Vaccination Rates Appear Inflated

-

Phil Galewitz, Kaiser Health News

For nearly a month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s online vaccine tracker has shown that virtually everyone 65 and older in the United States — 99.9% — has received at least one covid vaccine dose.

That would be remarkable — if true.

But health experts and state officials say it’s certainly not.

They note that the CDC as of Dec. 5 has recorded more seniors at least partly vaccinated — 55.4 million — than there are people in that age group — 54.1 million, according to the latest census data from 2019. The CDC’s vaccination rate for residents 65 and older is also significantly higher than the 89% vaccination rate found in a poll conducted in November by KFF.

Similarly, a YouGov poll, conducted last month for The Economist, found 83% of people 65 and up said they had received at least an initial dose of vaccine.

And the CDC counts 21 states as having almost all their senior residents at least partly vaccinated (99.9%). But several of those states show much lower figures in their vaccine databases, including California, with 86% inoculated, and West Virginia, with nearly 90% as of Dec. 6.

The questionable CDC data on seniors’ vaccination rates illustrates one of the potential problems health experts have flagged about CDC’s covid vaccination data.

Knowing with accuracy what proportion of the population has rolled up sleeves for a covid shot is vital to public health efforts, said Dr. Howard Forman, a professor of public health at Yale University School of Medicine.

“These numbers matter,” he said, particularly amid efforts to increase the rates of booster doses administered. As of Dec. 5, about 47% of people 65 and older had received a booster shot since the federal government made them available in September.

“I’m not sure how reliable the CDC numbers are,” he said, pointing to the discrepancy between state data and the agency’s 99.9% figure for seniors, which he said can’t be correct.

“You want to know the best data to plan and prepare and know where to put resources in place — particularly in places that are grossly undervaccinated,” Forman said.

Getting an accurate figure on the proportion of residents vaccinated is difficult for several reasons. The CDC and states may be using different population estimates. State data may not account for residents who get vaccinated in a state other than where they live or in clinics located in federal facilities, such as prisons, or those managed by the Veterans Health Administration or Indian Health Service.

CDC officials said the agency may not be able to determine whether a person is receiving a first, second or booster dose if their shots were received in different states or even from providers within the same city or state. This can cause the CDC to overestimate first doses and underestimate booster doses, CDC spokesperson Scott Pauley said.

“There are challenges in linking doses when someone is vaccinated in different jurisdictions or at different providers because of the need to remove personally identifiable information (de-identify) data to protect people’s privacy,” according to a footnote on the CDC’s covid vaccine data tracker webpage. “This means that, even with the high-quality data CDC receives from jurisdictions and federal entities, there are limits to how CDC can analyze those data.”

On its dashboard, the CDC has capped the percentage of the population that has received vaccine at 99.9%. But Pauley said its figures could be off for multiple reasons, such as the census denominator not including everyone who currently resides in a particular county, like part-time residents, or potential data-reporting errors.

Liz Hamel, vice president and director of public opinion and survey research at KFF, agrees it’s highly unlikely 99.9% of seniors have been vaccinated. She said the differences between CDC vaccination rates and those found in KFF and other polls are significant. “The truth may be somewhere in between,” she said.

Hamel noted the KFF vaccination rates tracked closely with CDC’s figures in the spring and summer but began diverging in fall, just as booster shots became available.

KFF surveys show the percentage of adults at least partly vaccinated changed little from September to November, moving from 72% to 73%. But CDC data shows an increase from 75% in September to 81% in mid-November.

As of Dec. 5, the CDC says, 83.4% of adults were at least partly vaccinated.

William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, said such discrepancies call into question that CDC figure. He said getting an accurate figure on the percentage of seniors vaccinated is important because that age group is most vulnerable to severe consequences of covid, including death.

“It is important to get them right because of the much-talked-about shift from worrying about cases to worrying about severe outcomes like hospitalizations,” Hanage said. “The consequences of cases will increasingly be determined by the proportion of unvaccinated and unboosted, so having a good handle on this is vital for understanding the pandemic.”

For example, CDC data shows New Hampshire leads the country in vaccination rates with about 88% of its total population at least partly vaccinated.

The New Hampshire vaccine dashboard shows 61.1% of residents are at least partly vaccinated, but the state is not counting all people who get their shots in pharmacies due to data collection issues, said Jake Leon, spokesperson for the state Department of Health and Human Services.

In addition, Pennsylvania health officials say they have been working with the CDC to correct vaccination rate figures on the federal website. The state is trying to remove duplicate vaccination records to make sure the dose classification is correct — from initial doses through boosters, said Mark O’Neil, spokesperson for the state health department.

As part of the effort, in late November the CDC reduced the percentage of adults in the state who had at least one dose from 98.9% to 94.6%. It also lowered the percentage of seniors who are fully vaccinated from 92.5% to 84%.

However, the CDC has not changed its figure on the proportion of seniors who are partly vaccinated. It remains 99.9%. The CDC dashboard says that 3.1 million seniors in Pennsylvania were at least partly vaccinated as of Dec. 5. The latest census data shows Pennsylvania has 2.4 million people 65 and older.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.


-

How Fauci and the NIH Got Ahead of the FDA and CDC in Backing Boosters

-

 

By Sarah Jane Tribbleand Arthur Allen

In January — long before the first jabs of covid-19 vaccine were even available to most Americans — scientists working under Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases were already thinking about potential booster shots.

A month later, they organized an international group of epidemiologists, virologists and biostatisticians to track and sequence covid variants. They called the elite group SAVE, or SARS-Cov-2 Variant Testing Pipeline. And by the end of March, the scientists at NIAID were experimenting with monkeys and reviewing early data from humans showing that booster shots provided a rapid increase in protective antibodies — even against dangerous variants.

Fauci, whose team has closely tracked research from Israel, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, said in an exclusive interview with KHN on Wednesday that “there’s very little doubt that the boosters will be beneficial.” But, he emphasized, the official process, which includes reviews by scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, needs to take place first.

“If they say, ‘We don’t think there’s enough data to do a booster,’ then so be it,” Fauci said. “I think that would be a mistake, to be honest with you.”

The support for an extra dose of covid vaccine clearly emerged, at least in part, from an NIH research dynamo, built by Fauci, that for months has been getting intricate real-time data about covid variants and how they respond to vaccine-produced immunity. The FDA and CDC were seeing much of the same data, but as regulatory agencies, they were more cautious. The FDA, in particular, won’t rule on a product until the company making it submits extensive data. And its officials are gimlet-eyed reviewers of such studies.

On boosters, Americans have heard conflicting messages from various parts of the U.S. government. Yet, Fauci said, “there is less disagreement and conflicts than seem to get out into the tweetosphere.” He ticked off a number of prominent scientists in the field — including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock and covid vaccine inventor Barney Graham — who were on board with his position. All but Graham are members of the White House covid task force.

Another task force member, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, said her agency was tracking vaccine effectiveness and “we’re starting to see some waning in terms of infections that foreshadows what we may be seeing soon in regard to hospitalizations and severe disease.” As to when so-called boosters should start, she told PBS NewsHour on Tuesday, “I’m not going to get ahead of the FDA’s process.”

Differences in the scientific community are likely to be voiced Friday when the FDA’s vaccine advisory board meets to review Pfizer-BioNTech’s request for approval of a third shot. Indeed, even the FDA’s official briefing paper before the meeting expressed skepticism. “Overall,” agency officials noted, “data indicate that currently US-licensed or authorized COVID-19 vaccines still afford protection against severe COVID-19 disease and death.” The agency also stated that it’s unclear whether an additional shot might increase the risk of myocarditis, which has been reported, particularly in young men, following the second Pfizer and Moderna shots.

Part of the disagreement arose because President Joe Biden had announced that Americans could get a booster as soon as Sept. 20, a date Fauci and colleagues had suggested to him as practical and optimal in one of their frequent meetings just days before — though he cautioned that boosters would need CDC and FDA approval.

Now it appears that that decision and the timing rest with the FDA, which is the normal procedure for new uses of vaccines or drugs. And Fauci said he respects that process — but he thinks it should come as quickly as possible. “If you’re doing it because you want to prevent people from getting sick, then the sooner you do it, the better,” Fauci said.

Researchers at the NIH typically focus on early-stage drug development, asking how a virus infects and testing ways to treat the infection. The job of reviewing and approving a drug or vaccine for public use is “just not how the NIH was set up. NIH does relatively little research on actual products,” said Diana Zuckerman, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton and president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research in Washington, D.C.

“It’s no secret that FDA doesn’t have the disease experts in the way that the NIH does,” Zuckerman said. “And it’s no secret that the NIH doesn’t have the experts in analyzing industry data.”

‘Data in Spades’

Yet no other infectious disease expert in any branch of the U.S. government has Fauci’s influence. And while other scientific leaders support boosters, many scientists believe Fauci and his colleagues at the NIAID — some of the world’s leaders in immunology and vaccinology, men and women in daily contact with their foreign peers and their research findings — are leading the charge.

Fauci was hard-pressed to give exact dates for when his thinking turned on the need for boosters. The past 18 months are a blur, he said. But “there’s very little doubt that the boosters will be beneficial. The Israelis already have that data in spades. They boost, they get an increase by tenfold in the protection against infection and severe disease.”

In July, Israel, which started vaccinating its population early and used only the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, began reporting severe breakthrough cases in previously vaccinated elderly people. Israel’s Ministry of Health announced boosters July 29. Fauci noted that Israel and — to a lesser extent — the U.K. were about a month and a half ahead of the U.S. at every stage of dealing with covid.

And once Israel had boosted its population, the Israeli scientists showed their NIH counterparts, hospitalizations of previously vaccinated people, which had been rising, dropped dramatically. Emerging evidence suggests boosters make people far less likely to transmit the virus to others, an important added benefit.

To be sure, members of the White House covid response team — including Fauci and former FDA Commissioner David Kessler — had begun preparing a timeline for boosters months earlier. Kessler, speaking to Congress in May, said that it was unclear then whether the boosters would be needed but that the U.S. had the money to purchase them and ensure they were free.

Fauci explained that “practically speaking, the earliest we could do it would be the third week in September. Hence the date of the week of September the 20th was chosen.” The hope was that would give regulators enough time. The FDA’s advisory board meeting Friday is set to be followed next week by a gathering of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee, which offers recommendations for vaccine use that can lead to legal mandates.

Tuesday, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, Israel’s head of public health services, told a Hebrew-language webinar that her country’s booster launch came at a critical time. She provided supporting data that Israeli scientists are bringing to the FDA meeting Friday.

Some U.S. scientists have discussed limiting the boosters mostly to those over 60, Alroy-Preis noted, but “if you don’t keep it under control, it’s like a pot on the flame. If you don’t start lowering the flames of the pandemic, you can’t control it.”

Real-Time Science

Scientists tracking the coronavirus are swimming in data. Hundreds of covid studies are published or released onto pre-publication servers every day. Scientists also share their findings on group email lists and in Zoom meetings every week — and on Twitter and in news interviews.

Kessler, chief science officer of the White House covid response team, said the case for boosters is “rooted in NIH science” but includes data from Israel, the Mayo Clinic, the pharmaceutical companies and elsewhere.

As Fauci put it: “Every 15 minutes, a pre-print server comes out with something I don’t know.”

The SAVE group, active since February, was organized by NIH officials who in normal times track influenza epidemics. The 60 to 70 scientists are mostly from U.S. agencies such as the NIH, CDC, FDA and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, but also from other countries, including Israel and the Netherlands.

“This is very much the basic scientists who are in the weeds trying to figure things out,” said Dr. Daniel Douek, chief of the human immunology section within NIAID. Douek said the larger SAVE group meets every Friday but several subgroups meet several times a week, focusing on different aspects of the virus, such as early detection of viral variants and testing suspicious variants for their ability to evade vaccine-induced immunity and sicken vaccinated mice and monkeys.

The sharing of data and information is free-flowing, Douek said. SAVE is “an amazing thing.”

Dr. Robert Seder, an NIH senior investigator, was in a group testing the booster theory long before America’s “Summer of Delta.” The researchers injected rhesus macaque monkeys with the Moderna vaccine for the “express purpose of looking at the immune responses over a long period of time.”

“Are they durable? And would you need to boost?” Seder said. 

Matthew Frieman, a participant and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said the data makes it clear that the time for boosters is approaching. Biden’s booster announcement “may have gotten ahead of the game, but the trajectory is pointing toward the need for boosters,” Frieman said. “The level of antibody you need to protect against delta is higher because it replicates faster.”

While SAVE is an elite group, it’s not the only forum for discussing late-breaking data, said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. “We all saw the same data out of Israel,” she said. Dean, like many other scientists, found that data unconvincing.

Monday, an international group of scientists led by Dr. Philip Krause, deputy chief of the FDA’s vaccine regulation office, and including his boss, Dr. Marion Gruber, published an essay in The Lancet that questioned the need for widespread booster shots at this time.

Krause and Gruber had announced their retirements from the FDA on Aug. 30 — at least partly in response to the booster announcement, according to four scientists who know them. Gruber, who will remain at the agency until later this fall, is listed as a participant in Friday’s meeting.

The Lancet paper argues that vaccine-based protection against severe covid is still strong, while evidence is lacking that booster shots will be safe and effective. University of Florida biostatistician Ira Longini, a co-author on the Lancet paper, said it would be “immoral” to begin widespread boosters before the rest of the world was better vaccinated. As the disease continues its global spread, he noted, it is likely to develop deadlier and more vaccine-evasive mutants.

Longini was also skeptical of an August study, which Israeli scientists are to present to the FDA on Friday, that NIH officials had touted as strong evidence in support of boosters. On an Aug. 24 call with Israeli officials, Fauci urged them to publish that data, and a version appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

That study found that people receiving a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were 11 times more likely to be protected from covid infection than those who had gotten only two doses. But the study observed people for less than two weeks after their booster vaccinations kicked in. Biostatisticians felt it had irregularities that raised questions about its worth.

“I don’t want to say the study isn’t correct, but it hasn’t been reviewed and there are possible biases,” said Longini, who helped design the 2015 trial that resulted in a successful Ebola vaccine and now works on global covid vaccine trials.

Fauci emphasized that no single study or piece of data led Biden or the members of the White House covid response team to conclude that boosting was necessary. The compilation of evidence of waning immunity combined with reams of research was a factor. Now the crucial decisions are in the hands of the regulators, awaiting the FDA and CDC’s judgment on how the nation should proceed.

“It isn’t as if,” Fauci said, “one day we’re sitting in the Oval Office saying, ‘You know, Mr. President, I think we need to boost.’ And he says, ‘Tony, go ahead and do it.’ You can’t do it that way. You’ve got to go through the process.”

Journalist Nathan Guttman contributed to this report.

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.-