Coronavirus updates August 2022

[missy]

The mRNA flu race​

For decades, researchers spanning government, academia and the pharmaceutical industry have sought to develop better flu vaccines. Though the shots have saved countless lives, the truth is they have never worked as well as public health officials would have liked. Better vaccines may be on the horizon. With the dramatic success of mRNA shots to combat Covid-19, the medical community has been anxious to put the same technology to use in the fight against influenza. Now we’re about to find out if that strategy will work. Two drug companies with effective mRNA Covid shots, Pfizer — which worked with BioNTech on its Covid vaccine — and Moderna are moving into final stage trials that could pave the way for more effective flu vaccines. Pfizer’s 25,000-participant US trial will aim to show superior efficacy over a more traditional vaccine – Sanofi’s Fluzone – by the end of the Northern Hemisphere’s flu season. If it does, Pfizer intends to bring the product to market next year or in early 2024. This morning, Pfizer announced that the first participants had been dosed in the late stage study. Moderna, meanwhile, launched its own 6,000-participant study in the Southern Hemisphere in June. That means it could beat Pfizer to the punch with some data – albeit from a smaller trial – and seek an accelerated approval next year. Moderna will also launch an efficacy study in 23,000 people in the Northern Hemisphere this fall. We already know mRNA speeds up vaccine manufacturing, but whether mRNA-based flu vaccines turn out to be more effective than existing shots still remains to be seen. “The Covid vaccine was a good proof-of-concept for mRNA,” says Annaliesa Anderson, Pfizer’s head of vaccine R&D. “What we need to show is superiority” over existing flu shots. The stakes for public health are high. In the best of years, flu vaccines only have about 60% efficacy. In a bad year, like this past flu season, efficacy was as low as 16%. One reason flu shots often underperform is because global health officials must make an informed guess on which strains to include months in advance of flu season to allow vaccine-makers enough time to produce them. But the influenza virus mutates quickly, often rendering shots less protective. And the faster pace of mRNA vaccine production would shorten the virus's window for change. Even before the pandemic, researchers had mRNA technology in their sights for a flu vaccine. Back in 2017, after surveying possible alternatives, Kathrin Jansen, Anderson’s predecessor at Pfizer, says she “got really, really excited that mRNA might be the right technology for influenza.” If a particularly virulent strain of flu emerged, mRNA shots could be adapted and produced more quickly to address it. That would also ease worries of about a pandemic influenza like the one in 1918 that claimed 50 to 100 million lives. She wasn’t the only one to have that thought. Moderna, then a little known biotech company, was already ushering in an mRNA flu shot for clinical trials and other companies were testing the waters too. If it works with the flu virus, mRNA will have the same advantages as its has for Covid vaccines. — Riley Griffin

 

[Lookinagain]

I'm getting the updated booster tomorrow. Pfizer. I'll report back. I have to go to a work function for three days beginning Monday. It will be the first group meeting I've attended since Covid began. So although I know the updated booster hasn't been thoroughly tested, I'm still feeling like it is probably better than being around 150 people who do who knows what every day. I'll still wear a mask (and will probably be only one of a few) and be circumspect about how much I'm around people when i can escape from the meetings. But I do feel a bit better about going knowing I'm getting an updated vaccine. Who knows. I think it's a cr*p shoot one way or the other, but I'll pick the booster over all the careless folks out there who I may be around.

So I just came back yesterday. I wore a mask 85% of the time. Couldn't wear it during meals or at the very limited time I spent in the social situations. I'm the manager of 4 states for my company and had to interact at least some. But I wore a mask as much as I could, when I had to sit at a meeting table, I wore a mask, for the group meetings (about 150 people) I stood at the back of the room instead of sitting next to people, and I wore a mask. Got the email today that someone at the conference tested positive. No separate email to managers on how to handle, or how to report to the part of the company that tracts this stuff. So I just told everyone that was at the conference to stay home, wear a mask for 10 days, but test after 5. One person felt that they had to go in so I told them to wear a mask and stay away from others. I got no direction from corporate about what to do for the folks who were there and now have no symptoms. The email only addressed symptomatic. Bad. Bad. Bad. IMO.

 

[MamaBee]

So I just came back yesterday. I wore a mask 85% of the time. Couldn't wear it during meals or at the very limited time I spent in the social situations. I'm the manager of 4 states for my company and had to interact at least some. But I wore a mask as much as I could, when I had to sit at a meeting table, I wore a mask, for the group meetings (about 150 people) I stood at the back of the room instead of sitting next to people, and I wore a mask. Got the email today that someone at the conference tested positive. No separate email to managers on how to handle, or how to report to the part of the company that tracts this stuff. So I just told everyone that was at the conference to stay home, wear a mask for 10 days, but test after 5. One person felt that they had to go in so I told them to wear a mask and stay away from others. I got no direction from corporate about what to do for the folks who were there and now have no symptoms. The email only addressed symptomatic. Bad. Bad. Bad. IMO.

How frustrating @Lookinagain! My husband’s former company told everyone that if they were vaccinated to just be on the watch for symptoms. They didn’t even say to test at five days. I’m glad he’s retired now. My son is now back at conferences..flying everywhere. It’s ridiculous..
Do you know if you were near the person that tested positive?

 

[Lookinagain]

How frustrating @Lookinagain! My husband’s former company told everyone that if they were vaccinated to just be on the watch for symptoms. They didn’t even say to test at five days. I’m glad he’s retired now. My son is now back at conferences..flying everywhere. It’s ridiculous..
Do you know if you were near the person that tested positive?

no, legally they can't tell you who that was. I know it wasn't any of my employees as they have to report that to me. And not from any of the close states as I spoke with those managers. But there were four other states represented. It must be an employee from one of those. Or from someone who came in from the corporate level. I spoke to a few of those, but not many. So I guess I just count the days.
And by the way, I'm just "pis**d. why not tell people to test before they came, and to take precautions while there? And then after, at least tell people to not to go into the office unless absolutely necessary and then wear a mask. I've told my staff to do that, but it should have come out of corp.

 

[missy]

Ugh, I am so sorry @Lookinagain. Hopefully the booster will keep you safe.

FWIW this is exactly why I am having my DH work from home. We are in a different situation than you of course but a few months ago everyone in Greg's office was told they had to go back to working in the office. They call it the company "culture". To be in the office. More like company cult if you ask me. Anyway I told him time to retire if they will not make an exception for him. They made an exception with no hassle. So he continues to work for as long as it works for us.

My point being there is absolutely no way to control being exposed to Covid if one is back at work and in the office and traveling etc. It's impossible. Most people are fine to take the risk and live their lives and I fault no one for that. It's been 30 months of pandemic caution and I get that people have to go on with their lives. And have to earn a living. But it is so frustrating to see this play out. I mean is it really necessary to do an in person conference and expose others to potentially getting Covid? We are still in a pandemic situation.

Sending you bucketloads of healing vibes and well wishes. May you remain healthy.

 

[MamaBee]

@Lookinagain They should have, at the very least, insisted they need to test before attending. It’s crazy that you weren’t given guidance. It seems they don’t have a policy.
My son’s law office represents a large corporation. Everyone had to present their vaccination card. Those who attended
had be up to date with their vaccinations..They also has to test before the conference. That helped a little..but of course the tests aren’t 100% accurate. My son still had to travel, etc.
They did try to do it right though..Most of
all optional dinners other than the conferences were held outside..casual..My son is the main speaker at these events so he has to be there. I worry for the two weeks after he gets home. In fact, he isolates from his family and tests before he goes home to them. They have two small children. Covid stinks..

 

[Lookinagain]

so far I feel okay, so that's good. Getting tested tomorrow as that is day 5. I did find out that one of the people who reports to me tested positive. I wouldn't have known that there was another except that I'm their manager so they have to tell me. So I assume there are a few others out there who have reported to their managers who then have to report to corporate. But I'll never know how many.

 

[MamaBee]

so far I feel okay, so that's good. Getting tested tomorrow as that is day 5. I did find out that one of the people who reports to me tested positive. I wouldn't have known that there was another except that I'm their manager so they have to tell me. So I assume there are a few others out there who have reported to their managers who then have to report to corporate. But I'll never know how many.

That’s great you still feel okay. Hopefully you will continue to feel well and test negative. I’ll keep my fingers and toes crossed..

 

[Calliecake]

Sending good health dust your way @Lookinagain for a negative test. I would want to get tested too.


There was something on our local news last week that due to having vaccines and now therapeutics to help with symptoms, they have eased up on requiring testing In our area. I liked it better when testing was required.

 

[missy]

Too cautious, too slow
A fresh broadside was launched last week against the WHO, no stranger to criticism during the coronavirus pandemic. This time it was delivered by the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, a body of experts established in mid-2020 and headed by Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs.

In its report on “lessons for the future from the Covid-19 pandemic,” they called the estimated 17.2 million coronavirus deaths “a profound tragedy and a massive global failure on multiple levels” exacerbated by world powers and governments that didn’t collaborate, act rationally or transparently to control the pandemic.

Specifically the experts pointed to the WHO’s sluggishness, arguing that it “acted too cautiously” on several important matters. Those included the agency’s inability to sound the alarm bell in a timely fashion on the virus’ human transmissibility, its hesitancy to declare the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, and its slowness to recommend the use of face masks and international travel measures to curb its spread.


Travelers heading to quarantine in the arrival hall at Hong Kong International Airport in Hong Kong, China, on Monday, Aug. 8, 2022. Photographer: Bertha Wang/Bloomberg
The criticism drew a lengthy reply from the WHO, which hit back at “several key omissions and misinterpretations” and the characterization of the speed and scope of the body’s actions, listing its own detailed time line of the measures it took to marshal a global response.

Nevertheless, the WHO echoed many of the commission’s conclusions and recommendations, mainly that it needs more money. The WHO has to be transformed and bolstered by a substantial increase in funding and greater involvement from heads of state, according to the experts led by Sachs.

To prevent the same scale of devastation from future global outbreaks, the commission advocated the creation of a Global Health Fund closely aligned with the WHO, which would aid disease control, pandemic preparedness and response and health scale up. Its cost: about $60 billion each year -- or 0.1% of the gross domestic product of high-income nations.

But with the world facing an juddering economic downturn, and with Covid largely out of the headlines and seen as yesterday’s crisis, the question is will anyone listen? — Chris Kay

 

[Arcadian]

@Lookinagain ugh...sorry you're dealing with this. Hopefully you will stay covid free. Even though my husband was in the house with me, I didn't catch it from him, so there is that. (also when I had it months ago, he didn't catch it from me either)

This particular variant is infectious but not nearly as bad to recover from as previous ones.