#vaccine efficacy in children

[roomstudent]

Ensuring the Safety of Our Little Ones: Exploring the Efficacy and Benefits of COVID Vaccines for Children

Introduction to COVID vaccines for children 

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted all aspects of our lives, including the health and well-being of our children. As parents, it is our responsibility to ensure the safety and protection of our little ones in these challenging times. Vaccinating children against COVID is essential in safeguarding their health and preventing the spread of the virus. In this article, we will explore the efficacy and benefits of COVID vaccines for children, providing valuable insights into the importance of vaccination and addressing common concerns.

Understanding the importance of vaccinating children against COVID

Vaccinating children against COVID is crucial for several reasons. First and foremost, it helps protect them from the severe effects of the disease. While it is true that children generally experience milder symptoms compared to adults, there have been cases of severe illness and even death among young individuals. By vaccinating our children, we can significantly reduce their risk of developing severe complications from COVID.

Furthermore, vaccinating children is essential for controlling the spread of the virus. Although children may not exhibit severe symptoms, they can still contract and transmit the virus to others, including vulnerable individuals such as older people or those with compromised immune systems. By vaccinating our children, we can contribute to achieving herd immunity and minimize the overall impact of the pandemic.

COVID vaccine options for children - Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna

Currently, two COVID vaccine options are available for children: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. The FDA has authorized both vaccines for emergency use in children aged 12 and above. Pfizer-BioNTech is approved for children aged 12 and above, while Moderna is permitted for individuals aged 18 and older. These vaccines have undergone rigorous testing and have proven safe and effective in preventing COVID infection.

It is important to note that clinical trials are currently underway to determine the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines for younger children, including infants and toddlers. The results of these trials are highly anticipated and will provide valuable information regarding the vaccination of younger age groups. Currently, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has received emergency use authorization for children aged 12 and above, and the Moderna vaccine is authorized for individuals aged 18 and older.

Safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines for children

The safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines for children have been thoroughly evaluated through extensive clinical trials. These trials have shown that the vaccines effectively prevent COVID infection in children. In addition, vaccines have been proven to be safe, with minimal side effects.

The most common side effects reported in children who have received the COVID vaccine include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea. These side effects are generally mild and short-lived, lasting only a few days. Serious adverse events are infrequent.

Age recommendations for COVID vaccination in children

The CDC recommends COVID vaccination for children aged 12 and above using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. It is essential to follow the age recommendations healthcare professionals provide and adhere to the authorized use of vaccines.

The role of parents in ensuring their child's vaccination

As parents, we play a crucial role in ensuring the vaccination of our children. It is essential to stay informed about the latest recommendations and guidelines regarding COVID vaccines for children. Talk to your child's healthcare provider and address any concerns or questions. By actively participating in our child's vaccination, we can provide them with the best possible protection against COVID.

COVID vaccine schedules for children

COVID vaccine schedules for children may vary depending on the vaccine and age group. For children aged 12 and above, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is administered in two doses, given three weeks apart. Following the recommended schedule and ensure that your child receives both amounts for optimal protection.

Addressing common concerns about COVID vaccines for children

There are several common concerns surrounding COVID vaccines for children. One concern is the safety of the vaccines. As mentioned earlier, extensive clinical trials have shown that these vaccines are safe for children. Serious side effects are rare, and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Another concern is the long-term effects of the vaccines. While the long-term effects are still being studied, it is crucial to consider the immediate risks associated with COVID infection. The virus can have long-term consequences on a child's health, including organ damage and neurological complications. Vaccination offers a way to prevent these potential long-term effects.

Benefits of vaccinating children against COVID

Vaccinating children against COVID offers numerous benefits. Firstly, it protects against severe illness and complications. By vaccinating our children, we can reduce their risk of hospitalization and ensure their overall well-being.

Additionally, vaccinating children contributes to the overall control of the pandemic. It helps limit the spread of the virus, protecting vulnerable individuals and reducing the burden on healthcare systems.

Conclusion

Ensuring the safety of our little ones is of utmost importance, especially in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccinating children against COVID is crucial in protecting their health and preventing the spread of the virus. With vaccines like Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna authorized for emergency use in children, we have practical tools to safeguard our children's well-being. By staying informed, addressing concerns, and actively participating in our child's vaccination, we can contribute to the collective effort to end the pandemic. Let us prioritize the health and safety of our children by ensuring they receive the COVID vaccine when eligible.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Are there concerns about COVID vaccines for children? Common problems include vaccine safety and long-term effects. Clinical trials demonstrate the safety of these vaccines, and the immediate risks of COVID infection outweigh potential vaccine risks.

What are the benefits of vaccinating children against COVID? Vaccinating children offers numerous benefits. Firstly, it protects against severe illness and complications. By vaccinating our children, we can reduce their risk of hospitalization and ensure their overall well-being.

How are COVID vaccine schedules determined for children? Vaccine schedules depend on the specific vaccine and age group. For instance, Pfizer-BioNTech is administered in two doses, three weeks apart, for ages 12 and above.

Can children be vaccinated against COVID at pharmacies? Some pharmacies may offer COVID vaccination services for eligible age groups. It's advisable to check with local pharmacies for availability.

What measures can parents take to protect their children from COVID infection? Besides vaccination, parents should encourage hand hygiene, mask-wearing where appropriate, and social distancing to minimize the risk of COVID transmission.

Why is COVID vaccination important for children's overall well-being? COVID vaccination helps protect children from severe illness, contributes to the control of the virus's spread, and supports public health efforts in ending the pandemic.

What are some potential side effects of COVID vaccines in children? Common side effects reported in children receiving the COVID vaccine include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea. These side effects are generally mild and short-lived.

How do COVID vaccines contribute to achieving herd immunity? Vaccinating children is vital in attaining herd immunity by reducing virus transmission. This protects vulnerable individuals and helps control the pandemic's overall impact.

What guidance can healthcare professionals provide regarding COVID vaccines for children? Healthcare professionals can offer tailored advice based on your child's age, medical history, and health status. Consulting with a healthcare provider is recommended before making vaccination decisions.

Are COVID vaccines the only way to combat the pandemic? While vaccines play a pivotal role, adhering to safety measures, supporting public health efforts, and staying updated contribute to the collective fight against the pandemic.

How do COVID vaccines prevent the spread of the virus among children? COVID vaccines reduce the likelihood of infection and transmission among children, ultimately contributing to a decline in the overall reach of the virus in communities.

What is the significance of vaccination in reducing severe COVID outcomes for children? Vaccination significantly reduces the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and long-term complications in children who may contract the virus.

Are COVID vaccines available at pediatric clinics? Some pediatric clinics may offer COVID vaccination services, depending on local regulations and vaccine availability. Inquire with your child's healthcare provider for more information.

How do COVID vaccines benefit vulnerable populations, including children? Vaccinating children indirectly protects susceptible people, as children can transmit the virus to individuals at higher risk of severe illness.

Can children who had COVID in the past still benefit from vaccination? Yes, children who previously contracted COVID-19 can still benefit from vaccination. Vaccination offers additional protection against reinfection and potential variants.

What role do schools play in promoting COVID vaccination for children? Schools can serve as platforms to educate parents and students about the importance of COVID vaccination, fostering a safer learning environment for everyone.

What is the current status of global efforts to vaccinate children against COVID? International efforts are ongoing to extend vaccination to children worldwide, ensuring equitable access to protection against the virus.

How can parents address misinformation about COVID vaccines for children? Parents should rely on credible sources of information, consult healthcare professionals, and engage in open conversations to dispel misinformation and make informed decisions.

What resources are available for parents seeking more information about COVID vaccines for children? Parents can access reputable sources such as the CDC, WHO, and local health departments for accurate and up-to-date information on COVID vaccines for children.

Should I get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for my child? The choice between Pfizer and Moderna depends on the age of your child. Pfizer-BioNTech is authorized for children aged 12 and above, while Moderna is approved for individuals aged 18 and older.

Is the Pfizer COVID vaccine safe for babies? The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children aged 12 and above. Clinical trials for younger age groups, including infants and toddlers, are ongoing to determine safety and efficacy.

Do babies get Pfizer or Moderna? Children aged 12 and above are eligible for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Moderna is authorized for individuals aged 18 and older.

Should I get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for my child? Your choice between Pfizer and Moderna depends on your child's age. Pfizer-BioNTech is authorized for ages 12 and above, while Moderna is approved for individuals aged 18 and older.

Do babies get Pfizer or Moderna? Presently, children aged 12 and above can receive the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Moderna is authorized for individuals aged 18 and older.

Is the Pfizer COVID vaccine safe for babies? The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is authorized for children aged 12 and above. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing safety and efficacy for younger age groups.

Summary: Safeguarding Our Children with COVID Vaccines – Your Questions Answered

Amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, safeguarding our children's health has become paramount. As parents, we navigate a sea of questions about COVID vaccines for our little ones. This article addresses these concerns by delving into crucial questions that parents commonly ask, shedding light on the importance of vaccination, and providing valuable insights into Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines for children.

Choosing the Right Vaccine for Your Child One of the primary queries parents have is which vaccine – Pfizer or Moderna – is best for their child. This choice hinges on your child's age, as Pfizer-BioNTech is authorized for ages 12 and above, while Moderna is approved for individuals aged 18 and older. It's a decision that ensures both safety and effectiveness tailored to your child's stage of development.

Prioritizing Safety for Our Youngest Ones A pressing concern involves the safety of COVID vaccines for babies. While the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children aged 12 and above, ongoing clinical trials evaluate the safety and efficacy of these vaccines for younger age groups, including infants and toddlers. Rest assured; extensive practices underpin the safety of these vaccines for our precious ones.

Navigating Vaccine Availability for Children Parents often wonder whether their children will receive the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Children aged 12 and above can be vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech, while Moderna is tailored for those aged 18 and older. These vaccines are vital in reducing the risk of severe illness and transmission among our youth.

Promoting Well-Being Through Informed Choices, We address concerns about the potential long-term effects of COVID vaccines in children. While these effects are under study, the immediate risk of COVID infection outweighs hypothetical vaccine risks. The benefits of vaccination include protecting children from severe complications and minimizing the impact of the virus on their health.

Parents' Crucial Role in Vaccination Parents play an indispensable role in safeguarding their children's health. By staying informed, consulting healthcare professionals, and engaging in meaningful conversations about vaccination, parents empower themselves to make the best decisions for their children's well-being.

Contributing to the Collective Effort Amidst the myriad of questions, a common thread emerges – our collective effort to end the pandemic. Through vaccination, adhering to recommended safety measures, and supporting public health initiatives, we can overcome the challenges posed by COVID-19 and protect our children's futures.

As we navigate this complex landscape, we must rely on credible sources, such as the CDC, WHO, and local health departments, for accurate and up-to-date information. We pave the way for our children's safer, healthier future by staying informed, addressing concerns, and making informed choices.

[sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog]

hey john!

a common inside joke about the BCG vaccine has been going viral once again recently. it’s about how latin americans can always spot one another because of the vaccine scar they have on their arms, since we all got the shot as a baby and are usually crazily proud of it (is this a weird flex?).

there is countless memes going around, one of them shows a non latin-american pedro pascal fan calling it a sexy beauty mark after seeing him shirtless.

even though all of this is hilarious, it feels weird to see this subject come up without you being in it. I thought I would share just for the funsies, but also, do you guys not take this vaccine in the US? Is it just because TB doesn’t have a lot of cases yearly? Is it because of something else? Do you also have this sexy beauty mark?

Most people in North America do not, in fact, have this sexy beauty mark.

The BCG vaccine is more than 100 years old and remains the only vaccine for tuberculosis--even though we could've already developed new vaccines if the rich world gave a shit about TB.

BCG is effective at preventing death and serious illness from tuberculosis in young children, but it has very little (if any) efficacy in adolescents and adults. For this reason, it makes sense to give the vaccine in places where lots of kids contract TB. In the U.S., rates of active TB are low enough that young children hardly ever get infected, and so it wouldn't have much impact on our burden of tuberculosis.

So that's why some people have that sexy beauty mark and others do not!

[stupittmoran]

Top 10 headlines the media didn't tell you this week, Repost & FoIIow for more.

DeSantis vs Newsom debate turns into a sh*tshow as the Florida governor calls out San Francisco's human feces problem.

Elon Musk interview goes viral, causing mass cancelations of Disney Plus and other services.

Texas is suing Pfizer for misrepresenting COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and conspiring to censor the public.

KC Chief's fans plan to attend next game with black and red face paint after the media accused a child fan of racism.

Former official has been indicted on three grand jury charges for altering 2020 election results.

Reports of "White Lung" pneumonia affecting mostly children in China has been found in Massachusetts & Ohio.

BLM Leader endorses Trump for President in 2024, accuses democrats of racist policies.

CTIL files reveal how the government conspired to censor citizens and alter the 2020 election.

Joe Rogan says anyone who tells him to 'trust the experts' can suck his d*ck, Covid taught him that the so-called experts are bought and paid for.

James O'Keefe releases bombshell undercover report exposing China's operation of a biolab in California.

How many more Chinese biolabs are there in the United States?

BONUS: Speaker Johnson ramps up Biden impeachment, stating Biden has lied at least 16 times about his involvement in his family's business schemes.

If you appreciate this Top 10 recap, remember to Repost and FoIIow me for another week in a clown world 🤡🌎

[gumjrop]

Make your voice heard and ask the CDC to:

Recommend COVID vaccines for all ages and health statuses at least twice a year (spring vaccine access for all) AND

Support more frequent updates to the vaccines, adjusted for the latest variants.

Submit a public comment using our sample language below.

The committee is anticipated to vote on the following topic on day 1 of the meeting (October 23): “Use of additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised individuals and older adults following an initial dose of 2024–2025 vaccine”

Your comments make a difference. At this committee’s June 2024 meeting, public comments from our community led to the committee’s decision to make fall COVID vaccines available to people of all ages, rather than limiting eligibility to specific risk groups. Please join us in making your voice heard for spring COVID vaccine access for all, and at least twice a year access going forward.

Submit Written Comment

You can also register to give Oral Public Comment at the upcoming online CDC ACIP Meeting October 23-24 at: https://www2.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/acip_publiccomment.asp 

Submit written comments and/or register to make oral comments at the meeting by Friday October 18 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time.

It’s important to submit a personalized comment, which can be brief. Ideas for a personalized comment:

How you, your family, or your community would be impacted by spring vaccine eligibility being restricted to only high risk groups (such as older age or immunocompromised status)

Barriers to vaccination your have faced, particularly if your eligibility was questioned or misinterpreted by a vaccine provider

How out-of-pocket costs are a barrier to getting the latest vaccines

Also feel free to take inspiration from or borrow the language in our sample public comment below.

Step-By-Step Submission Instructions:

Step 1. Go to the Regulations.gov to submit your comment.

Step 2. Type in your comment under the field, “Comment.”

Step 3 (optional). Submit a PDF or Word version of your comment under, “Attach Files.”

Step 4. Select either “Individual” or “Anonymous” depending on if you want to share your personal identifiable information that will be publicly available on the Federal Register.

Step 5. If selecting “Individual,” minimally provide your first and last name. If selecting “Anonymous” you can directly submit the comment without sharing your personal identifiable information. Click “Submit Comment.”

Example Comment:

Docket No. CDC-2024-0072-0001 COVID vaccination at least twice a year (at least every six months) must be recommended for people of all ages, regardless of health status. A restrictive approach to eligibility creates undue barriers for vulnerable people and discourages high risk people from getting needed vaccine boosters. People of all ages, including those who are aged 65 and older or immunocompromised, should have the opportunity to receive another COVID vaccine in the spring of 2025. The vaccine schedule should address waning efficacy in the months following vaccination [1-3] as well as emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 strains by recommending updated vaccination for all ages, at least every six months. Waning efficacy is seen with all COVID vaccine types, and recent research into the biological mechanisms of waning [4] supports that this effect occurs regardless of age or immunocompromised status. Recent vaccination is associated with a lower risk of developing Long COVID following a COVID infection [5] as well as a lower risk of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C) [6].  The CDC’s clear and unequivocal recommendation of COVID vaccination at least twice a year for all ages will influence recommendations by healthcare providers, and coverage by health insurance. Moreover, it will improve public awareness in people of all ages about the importance of recent vaccination (within the last six months) to provide the best protection as part of a multilayered approach to preventing illness. The CDC must ensure equitable and affordable access to updated vaccines and prevent limited access because of financial constraints or demographics. The CDC’s Bridge vaccine access program ended in August 2024 [7], leaving many uninsured and underinsured adults without COVID vaccine access. We ask you to advocate for free COVID vaccine access for all of us to reduce barriers and hesitation to vaccination. References: 1. Link-Gelles R. Effectiveness of COVID-19 (2023-2024 Formula) vaccines. Presented at: FDA VRBPAC Meeting; June 5, 2024. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/media/179140/download 2. Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, Vieira AM, et al. COVID-19 boosters versus primary series: update to a living review. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2023;11(10):e87-e88. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00265-5 3. Menegale F, Manica M, Zardini A, et al. Evaluation of Waning of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine–Induced Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2310650. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10650 4. Nguyen DC, Hentenaar IT, Morrison-Porter A, et al. SARS-CoV-2-specific plasma cells are not durably established in the bone marrow long-lived compartment after mRNA vaccination. Nat Med. Published online September 27, 2024:1-10. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03278-y 5. Fang Z, Ahrnsbrak R, Rekito A. Evidence Mounts That About 7% of US Adults Have Had Long COVID. JAMA. Published online June 7, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.11370 6.  Yousaf AR. Notes from the Field: Surveillance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children — United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7310a2 7. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html 

Full instructions for written and oral comment and meeting information can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/meetings/

You can also register to give Oral Public Comment at the upcoming online CDC ACIP Meeting October 23-24 at: https://www2.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/acip_publiccomment.asp 

You must register by October 18 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time

CDC’s ACIP meeting information on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/30/2024-22357/meeting-of-the-advisory-committee-on-immunization-practices 

Full Statement:

Vaccination with the latest updated vaccines continues to be foundational to a multilayered approach to COVID, providing protection against both acute disease and Long COVID. Far too few Americans have received the latest vaccines. As of October 11, 2024, only 11.2% of all adults and 26.7% of adults aged 65 and older had received an updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine. Data for children were unavailable at the time of this writing (October 15, 2024). COVID vaccination rates continue to lag behind influenza vaccination rates. As of July 27, 2024, only 9% of adults aged 65 and older received the recommended two doses of last year’s 2023-2024 vaccine.

Vaccine efficacy wanes significantly four to six months following vaccination, making updated vaccination important for all people as COVID continues to spread in our communities. Vaccine approaches that restrict access based on age or risk status put all of us at risk and leave those at high risk of severe consequences of COVID infection confused about whether they qualify to receive additional doses. These high risk patients may also face barriers as vaccine providers misunderstand the guidelines. A more frequent vaccination approach providing vaccination at least every six months as well as frequent updates to match current variants is needed to better protect all of us amid year-round COVID spread.

Recent vaccination is associated with a lower risk of developing Long COVID following a COVID infection as well as a lower risk of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C). Waning efficacy is seen with all COVID vaccine types, and recent research into the biological mechanisms of waning supports that this effect occurs regardless of age or immunocompromised status. 

The CDC’s Bridge Access Program, which previously provided COVID vaccines to uninsured and underinsured adults free of charge, ended in August 2024. The end of this program without replacement coverage puts people at risk, and public health officials must advocate for free vaccine access for all of us, including those who are uninsured and underinsured.

Submitted written comments or registration to make oral comments at the meeting must be received by the CDC no later than October 18 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time

[soath]

Apropos of absolutely nothing at all, oral and throat cancers from HPV don’t only occur in guys; anyone who engages in oral sex should be on the lookout for them! Symptoms include sudden loss of taste, swelling, numbness, a persistent sore throat, and pain. HPV can also cause cancers of the phallus, vulva, and anus. Because it’s a viral related cancer it can be especially dangerous for those with immune conditions, including HIV or some autoimmune diseases treated with immunosuppressants.

However the HPV vaccine is effective at preventing all of these cancers. In countries with high uptake many forms of cervical cancers have vanished among young people. The vaccine is most effective for younger children between 10-13 so if you have kids, siblings, nieces or nephews, push for them to get it! It’s also now recommended for adults up to middle aged. Even if you’ve already contracted one HPV strain, the vaccine may still be helpful. Although there’s increasing evidence of efficacy at just one dose, it’s most effective if you get all three in the series so don’t wait.

And if you’re eligible for Pap smears, get them. They might not be comfortable but they are one of the most effective medical tests invented in the twentieth century.

[darkmaga-returns]

A few readers of this afternoon’s column on Jimmy Kimmel took exception to the line, “We now know the vaccine didn’t really work.” Writes “Blissex”:

And here Matt Taibbi jumps the shark as high as he can and states something outrageous: the vaccines really worked well, with few and rare side effects and reasonable ability to suppress the virus, and it was very necessary to reduce the number of deaths, hospitalizations and even mild sicknesses, to allow the scaling down and end of the lockdowns.

I got the shot the first time. Then I got Covid. Then I learned, in part during work on the Twitter Files, that officials like Anthony Fauci misled the public about natural immunity (here’s Fauci in May, 2021 suggesting two doses of mRNA vaccine offered up to “ten times” more protection than natural antibodies), overhyped risks to healthy adults and children, and severely downplayed Covid’s infectiousness. It came out in congresional testimony that Fauci essentially made up guidances about social distancing, that the policy “sort of just appeared” and was not based on studies, because “that would be a very difficult study to do.”

I agree with defamed reporter Alex Berenson: this medicine is more like a “therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed in advance of illness.” For people in a high-risk category, it can be useful, lifesaving. But it’s a substance you stick in my arm that allows me to get the targeted disease almost immediately, and doesn’t stop me getting it from or giving it to my kids. If that’s a “vaccine,” I’m a Chinese jet pilot.

More to the point, I’m struck by the thematic consistency of the lies about the shot, which somwhow all served the same propagandistic purpose. I’d bet good money that if the incoming administration digs in the right places, they’ll find it in writing somewhere that winding up nitwits like Kimmel to sadistic J’Accuse! routin

[covid-safer-hotties]

Do At-Home COVID-19 Tests Still Work? - Published Sept 6, 2024

These days, many people use at-home COVID-19 tests when they feel ill, rather than going out to get tested by a professional. (That’s when they bother to test at all.) But for all their convenience, the antigen tests commonly used at home have never been as accurate as PCR tests done in a lab—and the continued mutation of the virus raises additional concerns about their performance.

Rapid COVID-19 tests have never been perfect. How are they holding up as new variants emerge?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to monitor the efficacy of the diagnostics it regulates—and as of August 2023, the FDA said none of the antigen tests on the market were expected to have reduced performance against Omicron or its subvariants. (All of the variants that have emerged since late 2021, including recent ones like KP.3.1.1, are relatives of the original Omicron strain.)

The FDA has also collaborated with a U.S. National Institutes of Health task force set up to monitor how variants affect tests. In 2022, well into Omicron's dominant era, that team concluded that DIY diagnostics continued to work well. Task force member Richard Creager wrote in an email to TIME that the tests still seem able to catch the Omicron spinoffs that are circulating now. “The rapid tests are having no issue detecting the variants,” he wrote, noting that the protein that antigen tests look for has remained fairly stable as the virus changes.

Even if tests have remained constant, our immune systems haven’t. Early in the pandemic, an infected person's “viral load”—the amount of virus in their system—tended to peak around the time their symptoms began. So if someone self-tested on the first or second day they felt sick, they likely had enough virus in their body for a rapid test to detect it.

Now that most everyone has prior immunity from multiple vaccines or infections, the timeline seems to be extended. Viral load now tends to peak around day four or five of symptoms, according to a study published in early 2024. That’s likely because the immune system is primed for action by its previous encounters with the virus, so it responds faster, even before lots of virus has built up in the body. A quicker immune response may mean a faster onset of symptoms.

“If your body has seen the virus before, you’re going to react to it and have an immune response more quickly,” explains study co-author Dr. Nira Pollock, co-director of the Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory at Boston Children’s Hospital. “That immune response can show up as symptoms.”

From an immune perspective, that’s a good thing. But it can complicate testing, because it means someone may not test positive for COVID-19 until they’ve already been feeling sick for days. In their recent study, Pollock and her co-authors estimated that a COVID-19 antigen test is somewhere between 30% and 60% accurate at detecting an infection on someone’s first day of symptoms, but up to 93% accurate on day four.

Based on such findings, Pollock and other researchers cautioned in a recent review article that people who are symptomatic shouldn’t assume they’re COVID-free based on a single negative antigen test result. Although it's a hard sell for people who no longer take precautions, the ideal scenario is for someone to stay isolated—or at least wear a mask when around other people—and test again around day four of symptoms.

“The instructions for these tests are to do serial testing,” Pollock says. “If you’re symptomatic, you should test early. But if you’re negative, you need to repeat it, because the amount of virus in your nose may not be high enough yet to detect.”

One other factor to consider: tests don’t last forever. Many people stockpiled tests when they were previously available for free through government programs and insurance, and those kits may have since expired. (You’ll soon be able to order four more free tests through the government.) The FDA’s website provides up-to-date guidance on determining how long your kits last.

Expired tests can still work, says Dr. Zishan Siddiqui, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He co-authored a 2023 study on Abbott’s popular BinaxNOW tests, which found no major accuracy differences between unexpired tests and those that were five months past expiration. (Siddiqui’s other research suggests unexpired BinaxNOW tests accurately detect COVID-19 cases more than 80% of the time.)

But, although Siddiqui says he isn't too worried about using expired tests, it’s good to remember that their performance can suffer if they’re long past their recommended use dates. If the control line on your test strip doesn’t show up or looks distorted, that’s a good indication that it’s too old to use, he says. Even in Siddiqui's study, which found that expired tests still work, the lines on the old tests showed up more faintly than on fresh tests, making them harder to read.

Whether your tests are old or brand new, it’s good to use some healthy skepticism when interpreting their results. “I trust these tests,” even as the virus evolves, Siddiqui says—but a single result doesn’t always tell the whole story. If you have COVID-like symptoms but test negative, it’s best to be cautious and retest in a few days.

[mariacallous]

Today, the US Supreme Court will hear a case that will determine whether the government can communicate with social media companies to flag misleading or harmful content to social platforms—or talk to them at all. And a lot of the case revolves around Covid-19 conspiracy theories.

In Murthy v. Missouri, attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri, as well as several other individual plaintiffs, argue that government agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), have coerced social media platforms to censor speech related to Covid-19, election misinformation, and the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy, among others.

In a statement released in May 2022, when the case was first filed, Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt alleged that members of the Biden administration “colluded with social media companies like Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to remove truthful information related to the lab-leak theory, the efficacy of masks, election integrity, and more.” (The lab-leak theory has largely been debunked, and most evidence points to Covid-19 originating from animals.)

While the government shouldn’t necessarily be putting its thumb on the scale of free speech, there are areas where government agencies have access to important information that can—and should—help platforms make moderation decisions, says David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights organization. The foundation filed an amicus brief on the case. “The CDC should be able to inform platforms, when it thinks there is really hazardous public health information placed on those platforms,” he says. “The question they need to be thinking about is, how do we inform without coercing them?”

At the heart of the Murthy v. Missouri case is that question of coercion versus communication, or whether any communication from the government at all is a form of coercion, or “jawboning.” The outcome of the case could radically impact how platforms moderate their content, and what kind of input or information they can use to do so—which could also have a big impact on the proliferation of conspiracy theories online.

In July 2023, a Louisiana federal judge consolidated the initial Missouri v. Biden case together with another case, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children's Health Defense, et al v. Biden, to form the Murthy v. Missouri case. The judge also issued an injunction that barred the government from communicating with platforms. The injunction was later modified by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which carved out some exceptions, particularly when it came to third parties such as the Stanford Internet Observatory, a research lab at Stanford that studies the internet and social platforms, flagging content to platforms.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine nonprofit, was formerly chaired by now presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The group was banned from Meta’s platforms in 2022 for spreading health misinformation, like that the tetanus vaccine causes infertility (it does not), in violation of the company’s policies. A spokesperson for CHD referred WIRED to a press release, with a statement from the organization’s president, Mary Holland, saying “As CHD’s chairman on leave, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out, our Founding Fathers put the right to free expression in the First Amendment because all the other rights depend on it. In his words, ‘A government that has the power to silence its critics has license for any kind of atrocity.’”

Different arms of the government have been in touch with social media companies for years, particularly regarding threats to elections or emergencies, like the Covid-19 pandemic. In the wake of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company was “actively working with the US government on its ongoing investigations.”

In a statement before the House Judiciary Committee in 2020, FBI director Christopher Wray noted the ways in which terrorist organizations and foreign countries could weaponize social media to spread disinformation and undermine trust in democratic institutions. “Over the last year, the FBI has met with top social media and technology companies several times, provided them with classified briefings, and shared specific threat indicators and account information, so they can better monitor their own platforms,” he said at the time.

But there's a difference between providing information and requiring content moderation.The US solicitor general’s brief even notes that the plaintiffs were unable to “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged.”

The case could not be surfacing at a more critical moment. Generative AI has only amplified existing election threats when it comes to disinformation, even as tech companies have shrunk their trust and safety teams and rolled back some of their earlier protections.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia highlighted the Murthy v. Missouri case as one of the four major threats to election integrity going into the 2024 presidential election. “All throughout the Trump administration there was voluntary sharing [between the government and social media platforms], so if the NSA or CISA found evidence of foreign malign influence, that could be shared,” said Warner.

David Greene, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the most likely outcome is that the court will issue a new test to assess whether the government was, in fact, coercive against social platforms, and pass the case back down to a lower court to rule on again.

“I think the Supreme Court will look at the nature of how the information is transmitted rather than what the content is itself,” he says.

[so-true-overdue]

Vaccines: Marvels of Modern Medicine

In a world where misinformation thrives like a stubborn weed, vaccines stand as the resplendent blooms of scientific triumph. Their unequivocal efficacy, backed by a preponderance of empirical evidence, underscores their paramount importance in safeguarding public health. Let us embark on a journey through the labyrinth of immunization, armed with the sword of truth and the shield of facts.

The annals of history are replete with pandemics that decimated populations, from the bubonic plague to the Spanish flu. Yet, in the 21st century, we possess an arsenal of vaccines that have relegated many erstwhile scourges to the annals of medical antiquity. Smallpox, once a formidable adversary, has been eradicated through the concerted efforts of global vaccination campaigns. Polio teeters on the precipice of extinction, thanks to the persistent administration of vaccines.

Consider this: the World Health Organization estimates that immunizations avert approximately 2-3 million deaths annually. These are not mere numbers; they represent the lives of children, parents, and grandparents who would have otherwise succumbed to diseases such as measles, tetanus, and influenza. Yet, despite this monumental success, there persists a pernicious undercurrent of vaccine hesitancy, driven by unfounded fears and a gross misapprehension of statistical realities.

The adverse reactions to vaccines, often cited as a rationale for avoidance, are statistically infinitesimal when juxtaposed against their prophylactic benefits. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that severe allergic reactions occur in about one in a million doses of vaccines. To put this into perspective, the likelihood of being struck by lightning is roughly one in 500,000—twice as high. Meanwhile, the complications arising from vaccine-preventable diseases, such as pneumonia, encephalitis, and even death, are exponentially more frequent and severe.

In the context of herd immunity, the pertinence of widespread vaccination cannot be overstated. Herd immunity functions as a bulwark against outbreaks, protecting the immunocompromised and those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. It is a communal endeavor, a parry against the insidious onslaught of infectious diseases, and a testament to the altruism inherent in human society.

In summation, vaccines are not merely a medical intervention; they are the linchpin of public health. The empirical data unequivocally affirms their safety and efficacy, rendering the arguments of the naysayers not only baseless but perilously irresponsible. Let us, therefore, embrace the wisdom of science, fortify our defenses, and consign vaccine-preventable maladies to the pages of history, where they rightfully belong.

[nathanielaaron]

German Media Realise Their Health Minister is an International Laughingstock

The Covid Inquiry is Insulting the Victims of Lockdown

Boris Johnson is Still in Denial About Lockdowns

Bristol University Axes the National Anthem from Graduation Ceremonies Amid Students’ Claims it is “Old-Fashioned” and “Offensive to Some”

Labour Parliamentarians Back Kemi Badenoch on Stopping Children Changing Gender at School

U.K. Government’s Veto of Scotland’s Gender Reforms Ruled Lawful by Top Court

News Round-Up

German Media Realise Their Health Minister is an International Laughingstock

By Eugyppius

I know that some of you are impatient with my posts about German politics, and particularly my repeated pieces on our retarded Health Minister. I get that this can seem like inside baseball, and that all of you suffer under the very similar idiocies of your own Covid politicians. But, I just can’t help myself. Lauterbach is a special case, a truly monumental idiot who in his boundless incompetence and stupidity vastly exceeds his peers. It is my aim to make him the international symbol of pandemic derangement. I want pictures of this human incarnation of everything that is wrong with masking children and force-vaccinating millions printed next to future dictionary entries on Covidianism. We have seen the enemy, and it is this sad, stupid, Smeagol-looking loser, who thinks Eric Feigl-Ding is an authority and that clip-on bowties are fashionable.

You must understand that Lauterbach is not only the dumbest federal politician Germany has ever had. He also ranks among the least competent, most bafflingly idiotic people ever to have attained prominence of any kind. He is a drunken tweeter who as Cabinet Minister once declared war on Russia. He is a dim salt-phobic eccentric whose own ex-wife declared him unfit for the responsibilities of a Cabinet position. He is a tireless advocate of mask mandates who in May 2021 was photographed totally maskless on a train to Hamburg.

He has written one of the saddest, most derivative and pointless Ph.D. dissertations I have ever read. He poses as an epidemiologist while routinely misinterpreting even the simplest scientific studies. His most memorable science fail was a tweet citing a “new American Mega [sic!] Study” showing that mask efficacy is “very great and uncontested”. His link led to a bizarre pre-print that was so bad, some concluded it had to be a hoax. When a serology study emerged showing that 95% of Germans had Covid antibodies, he denied the results meant the pandemic was over, inadvertently questioning the entire premise of mass vaccination. He spent much of early 2022 demanding that ever more people get fourth doses and even said he himself was quadruple vaccinated. Three months later he announced he had tested positive for Covid, declared his symptoms to be substantial, and then violated Berlin quarantine rules to attend a press conference, where he was stupid enough to flash his digital vaccine pass to the cameras. The QR code revealed that he had only ever received three jabs. His Ministry insisted he’d merely failed to register his second booster with the CoronaWarn app, but the next year he doubled down on his stupidity, allowing the press to photograph his physical vaccine records, showing only three doses were registered there as well.

At one point he proposed to exempt the recently vaccinated from indoor mask rules, saying that he hoped this would encourage further vaccine uptake. After polls showed that disturbingly large numbers of Germans were willing to accept quarterly vaccination for the privilege of mask exemptions, he said he’d withdraw the incentive if too many people took advantage of it. This summer, with the political relevance of Covid fading, he opened a new front against summer weather, announcing an initiative to call old people and remind them to drink water whenever temperatures get too high.

There has been such an unrelenting tidal wave of Lauterbachian moronicity that it has proven impossible to keep track of it all. He is an endless source of comedic content, a political lolcow who stumbles from embarrassing gaffe to embarrassing gaffe without ever seeming to notice. Last year, he appeared on national television and ranted bizarrely about the Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis and the Great Barrington Declaration. He seemed to be drunk, or perhaps under the influence of some medication, as he mashed his words about “certain scientists who are shared exponentially on social media”:

So there is exponential growth in viruses, and there is also an exponential growth in false information. You only need a few scientists for this… In the case of Corona, for example, there was a scientists who used to do very good work but has now drifted off course. A Stanford scientist, Ioannidis, made a declaration, the Great Barrington Declaration, which basically said that the virus is not that dangerous, that it’s not killing people, that flu can be more dangerous and so on, a lot of things that just aren’t right. And this has been quoted incredibly often by these people, who are out there, and there are just far too many of them, who would like to hear the relieving message, “it’s not really that bad, we don’t have to do anything”.

The rant escaped notice at the time, but was recently unearthed by my Twitter friend @tomdabassman, who uploaded the clip with English subtitles. He tagged Stanford medical professor and Great Barrington Declaration co-author Jay Bhattacharya, who could hardly believe his eyes. Almost everything in Lauterbach’s rant was wrong, and he said so in a tweet that has now been viewed almost a million times:

Now, for better or worse, Germany looks up to America and prizes American academic culture. When a Stanford professor criticises the German Health Minister, the German press take notice.

First was a modest article in the Berlinzer Zeitung – ‘Harsh criticism from abroad: “Lauterbach seems not have any inkling”‘

Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya doesn’t see [Lauterbach’s statements] as a laughing matter. He wrote on Monday that he’s sorry the Germans had such an unqualified health minister during the Covid pandemic.

He countered Lauterbach’s statements with four points: firstly, Professor John Ioannidis is far from being an outmoded scholar and is one of the most frequently published and cited scientists on the subject of Covid. Secondly, he neither wrote nor signed the Great Barrington Declaration. Thirdly, even this declaration did not declare the virus to be harmless …. Fourthly, Bhattacharya says that “Lauterbach seems to have no idea of the damage his lockdown policy has done to the poor, children and the working class. Germany has worse Covid results than neighboring Sweden”.

The original tweet with the Lauterbach video has already been viewed 500,000 times; the tweeting Health Minister has not yet responded publicly to the Stanford professor’s message.

Then came Bild, the largest-circulation newspaper in Germany, with the headline ‘Stanford Professor has harsh criticism for Lauterbach‘:

In his Covid policy, Karl Lauterbach repeatedly talks about science, arguing with studies and articles. But, of all people, a renowned Covid scientist is now sharply criticising the German Health Minister!

Stanford Professor Jayanta Bhattacharya (50), an expert in health economics, has accused Lauterbach on X of being “incredibly misinformed about Covid science”.

The reason for the outrage: an RBB interview with Lauterbach from March 12th 2022.

In an interview excerpt shared by Bhattacharya, Lauterbach complained about an “exponential growth not only in viruses, but also in false reports. … In the case of Corona, for example, there was a scientists who used to do very good work but has now drifted off course: a Stanford scientist, Ioannidis,” Lauterbach says. He is referring to John Ioannidis (58), Professor of Medicine and Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health at Stanford University.

Statements that Bhattacharya won’t let stand!

“Professor John Ioannidis is not ‘worn out’ and is one of the most published/cited scientists on Covid,” he says… Furthermore, Ioannidis neither wrote nor signed the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’. And the Stanford professor clarifies in his counterattack on Lauterbach that the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’ never claimed that the virus was “not dangerous.” … “Lauterbach seems to not have any inkling of the damage his lockdown policies did to the poor, to children, and to the working class,” says Bhattacharya. AND: The Stanford professor even calls Lauterbach “unqualified”.

Major blogs and online magazines like Reitschuster and Tichys Einblick have picked up the story, with headlines about how badly informed Bhattacharya finds Lauterbach to be. News.de calls Bhattacharya’s “public reprimand” a “bitter slap in the face” for the Health Minister; Der Westen says much the same, as does the television broadcaster ProSieben.

We desperately need more of this. I call upon Jay Bhattacharya to continue his attacks on the German Health Minister. He is a moronic pseudointellectual fraud and a menace, and the German people need to hear this from Stanford professors like him. Perhaps the other authors of the Great Barrington Declaration could add their voices too. Surely John Ioannidis would also like to weigh in.

This piece originally appeared on Eugyppius’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.

COMMENTS

The Covid Inquiry is Insulting the Victims of Lockdown

By Will Jones

What gives the relatives of Covid victims the sole right to the moral high ground, asks Allison Pearson in the Telegraph. Lockdowns were devastating, and their victims were often far younger than those of Covid. Yet the Covid Inquiry puts the spotlight on the former while largely ignoring the latter. Here’s an excerpt.

I really must stop watching the Covid Inquiry, it’s bad for the blood pressure. Even the element of drama is lacking because we all know how this story ends: Lady Hallett, shaggy blonde bob shaking sorrowfully, will find that chaotic, ‘shopping-trolley’ Boris locked down too late (even though notably un-chaotic Germany only locked down two days earlier than us). Bad Boris also raised commonsense objections to lockdown and refused to keep the population masked and social distancing in perpetuity, as recommended by Susan ‘Stalin’s Nanny’ Michie of the SAGE scientific advisory group. 

Given the choice between Boris’s hale-fellow magnanimity and Michie’s joyless authoritarianism, I know which I would choose, but that is very much not the preference of this appalling establishment sham. 

Relatives of those who died from Covid are allowed to be present (holding up laminated photos of the deceased) which gives proceedings the feel of a tribunal in Revolutionary France hellbent on personal revenge rather than what they should be; a rational and honest assessment of whether shutting down the country was justified. 

After the former Prime Minister apologised on Wednesday – “I understand the feelings of these victims and their families, and I am deeply sorry for the pain and the loss and the suffering,” said Boris – four protesters stood up, holding signs which said: “The dead can’t hear your apologies.” 

What gives those people the right to sole occupancy of the moral high ground? Of course their losses are terribly sad, but the median age of death from Covid (about 83 years) was not that different to the normal life expectancy for men and women before the pandemic. What about younger people killed or traumatised by lockdown? 

Where are the photos of the formerly happy girl who developed anorexia in 2020 and tragically took her own life (as recounted by the girl’s mother to a rightly upset Julia Hartley-Brewer on her Talk TV show)? How about the one million youngsters currently on a waiting list for mental-health services, a shocking queue that would stretch from London to Manchester? 

Any portraits perchance at the Inquiry of the bereaved at funerals who were not allowed to console each other, not even when they lived in the same house for goodness sake? Or the pregnant women who went through miscarriages alone because, apparently, having the father with them was too much of a Covid risk? 

How about the distraught, self-isolating spouses of confused and lonely care home residents who could not visit while staff trooped in gaily with their Tesco carrier bags? What about the grown men and women who still cry into their pillow at night fretting that their darling mum or dad died thinking they had abandoned them? 

Worth reading in full.

COMMENTS

Boris Johnson is Still in Denial About Lockdowns

By Will Jones

When he appeared at the Covid Inquiry this week, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson had a golden opportunity to get to the heart of the issue and denounce lockdown as unnecessary and harmful. But he blew it, says Dr. Jay Bhattacharya in UnHerd. Here’s an excerpt.

As a vocal Covid dissident and lockdown opponent throughout the pandemic, watching the U.K. Covid Inquiry these past few weeks has been a depressing experience. One gets the sense that both the people leading the inquiry and the vast majority of those questioned — the architects of the U.K.’s disastrously failed Covid policy — have learnt nothing. 

At one point on Wednesday, Boris Johnson had a golden opportunity to get to the heart of the problem. The lead inquiry lawyer, Hugo Keith KC, asked the former Prime Minister whether the late March 2020 order to lock down the country was “absolutely necessary”. This was Johnson’s golden opportunity to confess the cardinal error of the U.K.’s pandemic strategy: that it imposed lockdown in the first place.

Instead, he averred that the U.K. had “no other tool” than lockdown available. Under questioning about his involvement in pandemic decision-making in January and February 2020, the ex-PM’s mea culpa centred on his regret that he had not “twigged” the seriousness of the Covid threat earlier.

One major problem with this reasoning is that by the time February 2020 rolled around, Covid was almost certainly more widespread than anyone realised because it had arrived earlier than anyone realised. In 2019, Chinese authorities delayed reporting the existence of the virus to the world. Studies of antibodies in stored blood and stored wastewater from across the globe — including Italy, the U.S., Brazil and elsewhere — found traces of Covid’s presence in autumn 2019, long before the world knew about it. Even a January 2020 lockdown would have been too late: our fate was sealed once the virus was abroad in the world.

“The inquiry has been marked by a studied lack of curiosity about the great control group of the pandemic: Sweden,” Dr. Bhattacharya continues. “But Sweden did better than nearly every other country on earth in protecting human life. It has among the world’s lowest cumulative age-adjusted all-cause excess deaths since the start of the pandemic. And it accomplished this feat without lockdown.”

Worth reading in full.

For the full story on early Covid spread, see here and here.

COMMENTS

Bristol University Axes the National Anthem from Graduation Ceremonies Amid Students’ Claims it is “Old-Fashioned” and “Offensive to Some”

By Will Jones

Bristol University has axed the National Anthem from its graduation ceremonies with some students claiming it is “old-fashioned” and “offensive to some”. The Mail has the story.

The anthem has not been played since last year’s ceremony with the university saying it regularly updates its graduation ceremonies. 

God Save The King will now only be played when a member of the Royal Family is present. 

Some students at the 147-year-old university have suggested the National Anthem was culled because it is “irrelevant”, “old-fashioned” or might even be “offensive to some”.

It comes just weeks after the university vowed to remove slave trader Edward Colston’s emblem from its logo, after his statue was toppled during a Black Lives Matter protest in the city in June 2020.

Layla Daynes, 21, told the Sun: “The monarchy isn’t really relevant to my generation, so it wouldn’t be missed.”

Free Speech Union director Toby Young asked: “Why are Britain’s most prestigious universities openly contemptuous of the country’s history and heritage?”

Worth reading in full.

If the point of multiculturalism – which many of the university bosses who make these decisions would swear by – is that we are supposed to be united as a nation despite sometimes massive differences in cultural outlook, how is axing the National Anthem – a prominent symbol of our nation as one people that transcends our differences – supposed to help with that? The suspicion must be that decisions like this are motivated primarily by hatred of country and its history than any honourable motive. Sidelining the National Anthem makes little sense even for the adherents of the multicultural creed – unless the point is just to do Britain down for its supposed ‘systemic racism’ and historic ‘colonialism’.

COMMENTS

Labour Parliamentarians Back Kemi Badenoch on Stopping Children Changing Gender at School

By Will Jones

Tony Blair’s former Education Secretary Estelle Morris, who now sits in the Lords as a Labour peer, has backed Kemi Badenoch on trans rights by saying children should not be encouraged to change gender. The Telegraph has more.

Estelle Morris said pupils should be taught in biology lessons that there are only two sexes.

Speaking in a debate in the House of Lords, she warned that if teachers allowed children to “socially transition”, by referring to them by a different pronoun or name, it could cause them “psychological damage”.

She added that parents should always be informed if a child was struggling with their gender identity.

The comments go much further than the official Labour position, which so far has simply called on the Government to publish advice to schools on gender issues.

A group representing lesbian members of the Labour Party backed Equalities Minister Mrs Badenoch after she warned of an “epidemic” of gay children being told they were transgender.

The Lesbian Labour Group said: “How come a Tory minister can be right and Labour is so wrong?”

The Government has still not published long-awaited guidance for schools on how to deal with children who say they want to change gender, such as whether they should be allowed to take part in sports with children from the opposite biological sex.

I shudder to think what a Starmer-led Government will allow in our schools – it’s been bad enough under the Tories, whose ‘war on woke’ has often felt like little more than empty words from an administration powerless against the Blob.

Worth reading in full.

COMMENTS

U.K. Government’s Veto of Scotland’s Gender Reforms Ruled Lawful by Top Court

By Will Jones

Scotland’s highest court has ruled the U.K. Government acted lawfully by vetoing Nicola Sturgeon’s self-ID gender laws in a humiliating defeat for First Minister Humza Yousaf. The Telegraph has more.

The 

[dilladude1]

I found this on NewsBreak: Reports: FDA Violated Own Safety and Efficacy Standards in Approving COVID-19 Vaccine for Children

I found this on NewsBreak: Reports: FDA Violated Own Safety and Efficacy Standards in Approving COVID-19 Vaccine for Children

[follow-up-news]

An independent advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration voted Thursday to recommend a shot that protects infants from RSV by vaccinating their mothers while pregnant.

The 14-person panel unanimously recommended the shot, made by Pfizer, based on its efficacy and voted 10-4 to recommend it based on its safety. 

If the shot is eventually approved by the FDA, it would be the first vaccine that confers protection against respiratory syncytial virus to babies.

“Before the pandemic, RSV was the No. 1 cause of infant hospitalization in the United States, so this is a big deal,” said Dr. Ofer Levy, the director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

[darkmaga-returns]

The FDA stated that they will provide FULL FDA approval for the H5N1 vaccines if a public health emergency is declared without receiving safety or efficacy data from clinical trials.

Karen Kingston

Oct 23, 2024

October 23, 2024: On October 10, 2024, members of the WHO, FDA, CDC, NIH, as well as U.S. infectious disease pediatricians, held a 6.5 hour meeting to discuss the current status and further development of vaccines for an emerging 2024-2025 H5N1 global flu pandemic. According to the WHO, the H5N1 flu has a case fatality rate of 52%.

Jerry Weir, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation Research (CBER) clearly stated multiple times that the FDA will provide full FDA approval for H5N1 (or other H5 strands) flu vaccines if a public health emergency is declared without receiving safety or efficacy data from clinical trials.

“The scenario assumes that any strain changes recommenced by VRBPAC would be implemented during a declared pandemic, but would not require clinical data prior to the approval… In any case during the pandemic we would use the strain change and the safety, immunogenicity and even effectiveness data will come post-approval.”

- Jerry Weir, PhD, Director CBER/FDA

Full FDA Vaccine License Approval Allows for Mass Mandates

Full FDA approval (vs emergency use authorization) of US BioPharma biological license applications (BLA) will allow federal and state governments, as well as employers, to mandate the H5N1 vaccines for adults and children alike.

Take a listen to this 2.5 minute video of Jerry Weir and Dr. Paul Offit from the October 10, 2024 H5N1 pandemic meeting.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

Vaccine hesitancy driven by covid-19 antivaxxers is also effecting other vaccination, driving down efficacy. Mask up and get vaxed!

By Mary Van Beusekom, MS

The effectiveness of the seasonal flu vaccine against hospitalization among high-risk groups during the 2024 seasonal flu season in five Southern Hemisphere countries was low (35%), down from 50% in 2023 but not outside the expected range, which may portend similar efficacy during the upcoming Northern Hemisphere flu season if similar A(H3N2) viruses predominate, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers report.

The interim estimates, published late last week in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), come from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, where an average of only 21.3% of patients hospitalized for flu from March to July 2024 (the Southern Hemisphere flu season) had received the flu vaccine.

"While Southern Hemisphere data cannot predict exactly what will happen in the Northern Hemisphere, what we can say is that if we see similar influenza viruses (strains or clades) circulating this season in the Northern Hemisphere, we can expect similar vaccine effectiveness against influenza-related hospitalizations," lead author Erica Zeno, PhD, epidemic intelligence service officer with the CDC’s Influenza Division, told CIDRAP News in an email.

This flu season, the United States is using trivalent (three-strain) vaccines with the same components as those in Southern Hemisphere vaccines, Zeno said.

On August 29, the CDC forecasted that the upcoming flu season "will be similar to or lower than that of the 2023-2024 season rate of 8.9 weekly laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations per 100,000, with moderate confidence," it wrote. "However, past seasons have varied widely in the number of illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths, depending on the subtypes circulating, population immunity to different subtypes, and vaccine effectiveness against circulating subtypes."

Campaign targeted high-risk groups The researchers used a test-negative, case-control design to analyze data from a multinational surveillance network to generate estimates of interim vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization with flu-related severe acute respiratory illness (SARI).

The study population was made up of 11,751 SARI patients from three Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) vaccination target groups: young children (58.3%), older children and people with underlying medical conditions (14.5%), and older adults (27.2%). Case-patients had SARI and tested positive for flu, while control patients had SARI and tested negative for flu and COVID-19.

Data were pooled from 30 hospitals in Argentina, 2,477 in Brazil, 13 in Chile, 5 in Paraguay, and 10 in Uruguay beginning 2 weeks after each country's flu vaccination campaign. Vaccination status was confirmed using national electronic vaccination records.

All countries used World Health Organization (WHO)–recommended egg-based Southern Hemisphere formulations. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay used trivalent (three-strain) vaccines containing antigens from A/Victoria/4897/2022 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, A/Thailand/8/2022 (H3N2)–like virus, and B/Austria/1359417/2021 (B/Victoria lineage)–like virus, while Paraguay used quadrivalent (four-strain) vaccines that also contained the B/Yamagata lineage–like virus.

Vaccination rate lower than prepandemic norms The five countries reported 11,751 flu-related SARI cases and an average low seasonal flu vaccination rate. "The documented influenza vaccination coverage levels (21.3%) were below pre–COVID-19 norms," the researchers wrote. "This finding is consistent with postpandemic declines in vaccination coverage across the Americas associated with vaccine misinformation, hesitancy, and disruptions in routine immunization services, prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic."

The adjusted VE was 34.5% against hospitalization, 36.5% against the predominant A(H3N2) influenza substrain, and 37.1% against the A(H1N1)pdm09 substrain. VE was 58.7% among patients with chronic conditions, 39.0% among young children, and 31.2% among older adults.

"The vaccine effectiveness estimated is within the confidence interval of prior H3N2 (34%–53%) and H1N1 (18%–56%) for this Southern Hemisphere network," Zeno said. "It is lower than what was observed in the United States last season, but that was on the high-end of the historic range."

As of July 19, too few influenza B cases were available to estimate VE, the authors said. Adjusted VE against SARI from any flu virus was 42.2% in Argentina, 30.3% in Brazil, 56.9% in Chile, and 61.0% in Uruguay; VE was not calculated for Paraguay because of insufficient data. A sensitivity analysis excluding Brazil estimated an adjusted VE of 56.5%.

In total, 32.7% of SARI patients tested positive for flu, and 98.6% of identified viruses were influenza A. Only 0.7% of patients were infected with influenza B, all of which were of the B/Victoria lineage. Of 61.9% of subtyped influenza A viruses, 68.3% were A(H3N2), and 31.7% were A(H1N1)pdm09. Most (59.2%) of the case-patients were older adults, followed by people with chronic conditions (50.4%), and the lowest proportion of cases (16.0%) occurred among young children.

Vaccination can reduce illness severity, death "While flu vaccine effectiveness can vary from season to season, we know that influenza vaccination can offer significant protection for people who get vaccinated and is the best protection against influenza," Zeno said. "Importantly, influenza vaccination also can reduce severity of illness in people who get vaccinated but still get sick."

Vaccination is one of the most effective interventions to prevent flu-related complications, including death, the authors said. "Annual influenza vaccination should be encouraged for young children, persons with comorbidities, and older adults," the authors wrote. "To enhance this year’s modest influenza vaccine protection against hospitalization, providers should treat patients with suspected or confirmed influenza as soon as possible with antivirals."

"Influenza vaccine postintroduction evaluations and knowledge, attitudes, and practices surveys might identify additional reasons for low coverage and strategies for improved coverage for the next Southern Hemisphere season," they added.

[havegaysex]

Comment period Ends June 17th 2024 Copied directly from the People's CDC website https://peoplescdc.org/2024/06/13/acip/ Also feel free to take inspiration from or borrow the language in our sample public comment below. Docket No. CDC–2024–0043 Updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccines must be recommended for people of all ages, regardless of health status. A restrictive approach to eligibility would create undue barriers for vulnerable people and discourage high risk people from getting needed vaccine boosters. The vaccine schedule should address waning efficacy in the months following vaccination [1-3] as well as emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 strains by recommending updated vaccination for all ages, at least every six months. Recent vaccination is also associated with a lower risk of developing Long COVID following a COVID infection [4] as well as a lower risk of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C) [5]. The CDC’s clear and unequivocal recommendation of updated COVID vaccination for all ages will influence what healthcare providers recommend, and what health insurances cover. Moreover, it will improve public awareness regarding the need for updated vaccination. The CDC must ensure equitable and affordable access to updated vaccines and prevent limited access because of financial constraints or demographics. The CDC’s Bridge vaccine access program is slated to end August 2024 and must be extended to ensure uninsured and underinsured people have access to the updated vaccines this fall [6]. References: 1. Link-Gelles R. Effectiveness of COVID-19 (2023-2024 Formula) vaccines. Presented at: FDA VRBPAC Meeting; June 5, 2024. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.fda.gov/media/179140/download Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, Vieira AM, et al. COVID-19 boosters versus primary series: update to a living review. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2023;11(10):e87-e88. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00265-5 Menegale F, Manica M, Zardini A, et al. Evaluation of Waning of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine–Induced Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2310650. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10650 Fang Z, Ahrnsbrak R, Rekito A. Evidence Mounts That About 7% of US Adults Have Had Long COVID. JAMA. Published online June 7, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.11370 Yousaf AR. Notes from the Field: Surveillance for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children — United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7310a2 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html Full instructions for written and oral comment and meeting information can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/index.html You can also register to give Oral Public Comment at the upcoming June 26-28 online CDC ACIP Meeting at: https://www2.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/acip_publiccomment.asp You must register by June 17 at 11:59pm Eastern Standard Time CDC’s ACIP meeting information on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/24/2024-11439/meeting-of-the-advisory-committee-on-immunization-practices

Why? WHY??

U.S. CDC taking comments on potentially limiting COVID vaccine availbility by age or health status. Never mind that the vaccine is crucial to limiting long-term effects that could lead to immunocomprimisation. 🤬🤬🤬

You can comment here.