Search This Blog

Thursday, February 4, 2021

World faces around 4,000 COVID-19 variants as mixed vaccine shots explored

 The world faces around 4,000 variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, prompting a race to improve vaccines, Britain said on Thursday, as researchers began to explore mixing doses of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca shots.

Thousands of variants have been documented as the virus mutates, including the so-called British, South African and Brazilian variants which appear to spread more swiftly than others.

British Vaccine Deployment Minister Nadhim Zahawi said it was very unlikely that the current vaccines would not work against the new variants.

“Its very unlikely that the current vaccine won’t be effective on the variants whether in Kent or other variants especially when it comes to severe illness and hospitalisation,” Zahawi told Sky News.

“All manufacturers, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford-AstraZeneca and others, are looking at how they can improve their vaccine to make sure that we are ready for any variant - there are about 4,000 variants around the world of COVID now.”

While thousands of variants have arisen as the virus mutates on replication, only a very small minority are likely to be important and to change the virus in an appreciable way, according to the British Medical Journal.

The so called British variant, known as VUI-202012/01, has mutations including a change in the spike protein that viruses use to bind to the human ACE2 receptor - meaning that it is probably easier to catch.

“We have the largest genome sequencing industry - we have about 50% of the world’s genome sequencing industry - and we are keeping a library of all the variants so that we are ready to respond - whether in the autumn or beyond - to any challenge that the virus may present and produce the next vaccine,” Zahawi said.

VACCINE RACE

The novel coronavirus - known as SARS-CoV-2 - has killed 2.268 million people worldwide since it emerged in China in late 2019, according to Johns Hopkins University of Medicine.

Israel is currently far ahead of the rest of the world on vaccinations per head of population, followed by the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, the United States and then Spain, Italy and Germany.

Britain on Thursday launched a trial to assess the immune responses generated if doses of the vaccines from Pfizer and AstraZeneca are combined in a two-shot schedule.

The British researchers behind the trial said data on vaccinating people with the two different types of vaccines could help understanding of whether shots can be rolled out with greater flexibility around the world. Initial data on immune responses is expected to be generated around June.

The trial will examine the immune responses of an initial dose of Pfizer vaccine followed by a booster of AstraZeneca’s, as well as vice versa, with intervals of four and 12 weeks.

Both the mRNA shot developed by Pfizer and BioNtech and the adenovirus viral vector vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca are currently being rolled out in Britain, with a 12-week gap between two doses of the same vaccine.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain/world-faces-around-4000-covid-19-variants-as-researchers-explore-mixed-vaccine-shots-idUSKBN2A40U0

Britain to test combining Pfizer, AstraZeneca vaccines in 2-shot regimen

 Britain on Thursday launched a trial to assess the immune responses generated if doses of the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer Inc and AstraZeneca Plc are combined in a two-shot schedule.

The British researchers behind the trial said data on vaccinating people with the two different types of coronavirus vaccines could help understanding of whether shots can be rolled out with greater flexibility around the world. Initial data on immune responses is expected to be generated around June.

The trial will examine the immune responses of an initial dose of Pfizer vaccine followed by a booster of AstraZeneca’s, as well as vice versa, with intervals of 4 and 12 weeks.

Both the mRNA shot developed by Pfizer and Biontech and the adenovirus viral vector vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca are currently being rolled out in Britain, with a 12-week gap between two doses of the same vaccine.

It is expected more vaccines will be added to the trial when they are approved and rolled out.

Recruitment for the study starts on Thursday, with over 800 participants expected to take part, the researchers said. That makes it much smaller than the clinical trials that have been used to determine efficacy of the vaccines individually.

The trial will not assess the overall efficacy of the shot combinations, but researchers will measure antibody and T-cell responses, as well as monitor for any unexpected side effects.

Matthew Snape, an Oxford vaccinologist who is leading the trial, said initial results could inform vaccine deployment in the second half of the year.

“We will get some results through, we expect, by June or thereabouts that will inform the use of booster doses in the general population,” he told reporters.

The trial is looking to recruit people over the age of 50 who may be at higher risk than younger people and have not been vaccinated already.

AstraZeneca’s shot is also being tested in combination with Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine, and British drugmaker’s research chief has said more studies on combining vaccines should be done.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-vaccine-mi/britain-trial-to-test-combining-pfizer-and-astrazeneca-vaccines-in-two-shot-regimen-idUSKBN2A400P

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Myths of Vaccine Manufacturing

 By Derek Lowe

In the last few days, the question of why more drug companies haven’t been enlisted for vaccine production has come up. It’s mostly due to this tweet:

The problem is, as far as I can see, this is simply wrong. There are not “dozens of other pharma companies” who “stand ready” to produce these mRNA vaccines. To me, this betrays a lack of knowledge about what these vaccines are and how they’re produced. Even though I’m not a pharma manufacturing person, I am indeed a pharma researcher in general. So I would be glad to fill in this gap, and here’s why it’s not possible to suddenly unleash dozens of companies to crank out the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

The first thing to understand is that these are not, of course, traditional vaccines. That’s why they came on so quickly. mRNA as a vaccine technology has been worked on for some twenty to twenty-five years now, from what I can see, and (as I never tire of mentioning) we’re very fortunate that it had worked out (and quite recently) several of its outstanding problems just before this pandemic hit. Five years ago we simply could not have gone from sequence to vaccine inside of a year. And I mean that “we” to mean both “we the biopharma industry” and “we the human race”.

At this point, let me briefly dispose of an even less well-founded take that’s been going around as well. I’ve seen a number of people say something like “We had the vaccine back in February! It only took until the end of the year to roll it out because of the FDA!” The main thing I’ll say about that idea is that no one who actually works on vaccines, in any capacity, has any time for that statement. Not all vaccine ideas work – we’re already seeing that with the current coronavirus, and if you’d like to talk to some folks about that, then I suggest you call up GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi and ask them what happened to their initial candidate, and while you’re at it, call up Merck and ask them what happened to their two. Note that I have just named three of the largest, most experienced drug companies on the planet, all of whom have come up short. So no, we did not “have the vaccine” in February.

One of the other reasons we didn’t have it back then is the whole problem of figuring out how to make the stuff, and that brings us back to today’s discussion. How do you make the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines? And what’s stopping “dozens of other pharma companies” from doing the same? Let’s get into those details, stopping briefly again to imagine asking James Hamblin above to actually start naming “dozens” of pharma companies. Anyone have a good over/under on how many names would get rattled off?

OK, let’s look at the actual supply chains. The single most informative piece I have seen on this is from Jonas Neubert – I’ve recommended it before, and this is absolutely the time to recommend it again. I also have to mention this detailed article at the Washington Post, which focuses on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and this one at KHN about manufacturing bottlenecks in general. You should also read this Twitter thread from Rajeev Venkayya, who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to vaccine manufacturing, too. All of these will cover details that I’m not even going to get to today!

It’s not in my nature, since I’m an early-stage drug research person myself, but I’m going to totally sidestep all the R&D questions behind the various components and just treat this as a manufacturing process that fell from the sky in its final form. To distill a huge amount of background and detail down into the simplified steps, we have:

Step One: Produce the appropriate stretch of DNA, containing the sequence that you need to have transcribed into mRNA. This is generally done in bacterial culture.
Step Two: Produce that mRNA from your DNA template using enzymes in a bioreactor.
Step Three: Produce the lipids that you need for the formulation. Some of these are pretty common (such as cholesterol), but the key ones are very much not (more on this below).
Step Four: take your mRNA and your lipids and combine these into lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). I have just breezed past the single biggest technological hurdle in the whole process, and below you will learn why it's such a beast.
Step Five: combine the LNPs with the other components of the formulation (phosphate buffers, saline, sucrose and such) and fill those into vials.
Step Six: get those vials into trays, into packages, into boxes, into crates, and out the door into trucks and airplanes 

OK, you have now produced the mRNA coronavirus vaccines and shipped them out into the world, so sit back and open a cold one. You will not reach that stage, though, without some significant challenges. Let’s take those step by step. The DNA production in Step One is not too bad. As the Neubert article details, Pfizer does this themselves in Saint Louis, and Moderna outsources this to the large and capable Swiss firm Lonza (update: a good part of the Lonza work is being done in Portsmouth, NH). DNA plasmid production on an industrial scale is pretty well worked out (and keep in mind that “industrial scale” for DNA means “a few grams”. It’s not something you can do in your garage – as with every step in this process there’s a lot of purification and quality control to make sure that you’re making exactly what you think you’re making and that it looks exactly within the same specs as the last time you made it. But that’s what biopharma manufacturing folks are good at, and there are a lot of people who can do it. That said, a goodly number of them are occupied doing that for just the vaccines, but if we needed more of this DNA, sure, we could produce more.

But we don’t. That’s not the rate-limiting step. Nor is Step Two, the transcription into mRNA. Pfizer and BioNTech do this in Andover, MA and at BioNTech facilities in Germany. They have manufacturing in Idar-Oberstein (a town I recall visiting in the cold rain one weekend in 1988 during my post-doc!) and last fall they bought another facility in Marburg which is just getting revved up for such production now. The Moderna mRNA step is also handled in Switzerland by Lonza. Now this is not so common as an industrial process, for sure, because it’s only relatively recently that people have been treating RNA species as actual drug substances themselves, worthy of scale-up manufacturing. If I had to ask someone else to make me some more bags of bespoke mRNA, I might turn to Alnylam (who have a manufacturing facility in Norton, MA although to be sure, they’re using it for their own drugs!), but doing so would not increase the number of vaccine vials coming out the other end of the process. RNA production is certainly closer to being rate-limiting than Step One, but it’s nothing compared to the real bottlenecks that are coming.

Now to the lipids in Step Three. This doesn’t have to be done in sequence like the DNA/RNA step, of course – the lipids needed for the formulation are an entirely different production process. As the Neubert article will show you, Pfizer and BioNTech are getting all of theirs from a UK company called Croda, with production likely going on in the town of Alabaster, Alabama, which (unlike Idar-Oberstein) I am certain that I have not visited. Now, each of these vaccines needs some odd lipids with positively charged groups on them; that’s a crucial part of the formulation. These are surely not trivial to make on scale, but they’re still small molecules with relatively straightforward structures. I’m sure that barrels of these things aren’t stacking up at the factory for lack of demand, but I don’t believe that they’re the limiting reagent in manufacturing, either. If you had to, you could surely get some other manufacturers up to speed on the process.

I’m going to skip ahead to Step Five and Step Six. These are surely running at a good clip, but they are more traditional functions of a drug company (or of any manufacturing company). It’s true that pharmaceutical vial fill-and-finish on this scale narrows you down to fewer players than would be involved in, say, canning tuna. But these folks are already involved. Pfizer is doing this in Kalamazoo and in Puurs, Belgium, and BioNTech is doing this in several locations in Germany and Switzerland, both at its own facilities and via at least two contract firms. Moderna, meanwhile, outsources this to some of the big players in the US and Europe: Catalent, Rovi, and Recipharm. Everyone in this part of the manufacturing business has known for months that a Big Vaccine Push has been coming, and has been cranking up vial manufacturing, bringing all available production lines up to speed, and signing deals all over the place with everyone who has any kind of advanced vaccine effort.

Ah, but now we get back to Step Four. As Neubert says, “Welcome to the bottleneck!” Turning a mixture of mRNA and a set of lipids into a well-defined mix of solid nanoparticles with consistent mRNA encapsulation, well, that’s the hard part. Moderna appears to be doing this step in-house, although details are scarce, and Pfizer/BioNTech seems to be doing this in Kalamazoo, MI and probably in Europe as well. Everyone is almost certainly having to use some sort of specially-built microfluidics device to get this to happen – I would be extremely surprised to find that it would be feasible without such technology. Microfluidics (a hot area of research for some years now) involves liquid flow through very small channels, allowing for precise mixing and timing on a very small scale. Liquids behave quite differently on that scale than they do when you pour them out of drums or pump them into reactors (which is what we’re used to in more traditional drug manufacturing). That’s the whole idea. My own guess as to what such a Vaccine Machine involves is a large number of very small reaction chambers, running in parallel, that have equally small and very precisely controlled flows of the mRNA and the various lipid components heading into them. You will have to control the flow rates, the concentrations, the temperature, and who knows what else, and you can be sure that the channel sizes and the size and shape of the mixing chambers are critical as well.

These will be special-purpose bespoke machines, and if you ask other drug companies if they have one sitting around, the answer will be “Of course not”. This is not anything close to a traditional drug manufacturing process. And this is the single biggest reason why you cannot simply call up those “dozens” of other companies and ask them to shift their existing production over to making the mRNA vaccines. There are not dozens of companies who make DNA templates on the needed scale. There are definitely not dozens of companies who can make enough RNA. But most importantly, I believe that you can count on one hand the number of facilities who can make the critical lipid nanoparticles. That doesn’t mean that you can’t build more of the machines, but I would assume that Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna (and CureVac as well) have largely taken up the production capacity for that sort of expansion as well.

And let’s not forget: the rest of the drug industry is already mobilizing. Sanofi, one of the big vaccine players already (and one with their own interest in mRNA) has already announced that they’re going to help out Pfizer and BioNTech. But look at the timelines: here’s one of the largest, most well-prepared companies that could join in on a vaccine production effort, and they won’t have an impact until August. It’s not clear what stages Sanofi will be involved in, but bottling and packaging are definitely involved (and there are no details about whether LNP production is). And Novartis has announced a contract to use one of its Swiss location for fill-and-finish as well, with production by mid-year. Bayer is pitching in with CureVac’s candidate.

This is all good news, but it’s a long way from that tweet that started this whole post off. There are not “dozens of companies who stand ready” to produce vaccines and “end this pandemic”. It’s the same few big players you’ve already heard of, and they’re not sitting around and watching, either. To claim otherwise is a fantasy, and we’re better off with the facts.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/02/myths-of-vaccine-manufacturing

Oxford AstraZeneca Data, Again

 By Derek Lowe

We have some more data to mull over with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. The situation so far has been pretty confused, with various efficacy numbers appearing from different people in different venues. It’s fair to say that the rollout of the clinical data has not gone smoothly, and that it’s done the effort no favors. As many will recall, the current big questions are whether a lower first dose of the two-dose protocol is more effective (as appeared from some of the earlier data) and what the interval between the two doses (lower dose or standard dose) should be, since the UK government has been looking at getting a higher percentage of the population vaccinated with the first shot by delaying the second.

The earlier report showed 54.9% efficacy in the group that got two standard doses four weeks apart (95% confidence interval of 32.7% to 69.7%). That number improved to 66.7% when the low dose/standard dose cohort was added in, because that smaller group itself showed 90% efficacy (95% CI of 67% to 97%). This new preprint reports on 1293 participants who had a 12-week interval between two standard doses. Efficacy in this group was 82.4% (95% CI of 62.7% to 91.7%), which would seem to be a notable improvement. That’s not a very large sample, and the confidence intervals between the four-week and the twelve-week group still overlap in the 60% efficacy range, but you can make a case (and AstraZeneca certainly is) that this shows better overall effects.

Another key piece of data is the efficacy seen during that 12-week period: 76% (95% CI of 59% to 86%), which is basically the same as when analyzed after the second dose. The preprint makes the point (and I agree with them) that the second dose is likely to be needed for longer-lasting protection, because it really does raise antibody titers significantly, but it certainly looks like the protection from a single dose with a longer delay is worthwhile, and that the delay will not hurt things (and may well make the overall efficacy higher).

Why should this be? The answer is “immunology”, and that’s not just the last refuge of scoundrels. Historically, it appears that longer delays in a two-dose regime can make things better, make them worse, or not make much difference, and the only way to be sure is to go out and get the clinical data. So even though this is not a large 12-week data set, I’m glad to see it. I think that the UK’s move to get as many first doses into the population as they can was the right one, and it’s good to see some data that at least don’t undermine it.

What about the low-dose/standard dose business, though? This preprint offers a possible explanation: it turns out that the cohort that got the lower dose at first also had a longer delay before getting the second dose. So it’s possible that the apparent increase in efficacy was driven less by the lower first dose than by the longer gap between the doses. We can’t rule out an effect from both, though – the data are just not in a shape to do that. Overall, the complaints that I (and many others!) have had about the data collection and rollout for this vaccine are still valid: we’re learning what could be important things about this candidate from analysis of small subgroups, some of which were themselves the results of mistakes and miscommunication during the trials. And the release of that data has been just as patchy and noisy – you really would have expected better from AstraZeneca.

But there is something good to say about their data collection: since the UK study that’s included in these numbers tested its subjects by nasal swab every week, regardless of any symptoms, we can actually get a read on something that everyone’s been wondering about: transmission. It’s become clear from all the successful trials that vaccination (whether by mRNA, the several different viral vectors, or recombinant protein) is extremely effective at keeping people out of the hospital and at preventing people from dying from the coronavirus. This is very good news, and it deserves to be highlighted. But are those severe cases just being converted to lesser ones, with other lesser cases then being converted to asymptomatic ones, and in that case has the number of people walking around shedding infectious virus really changed?

The swab data say that it has. It appears that the vaccine reduced the number of people showing PCR positivity by 50 to 70%. The actual numbers were -67% after the first dose and -54% overall, but I wouldn’t read anything into that difference, because the confidence intervals for those two measurements completely overlap. So it looks like everything is shifted: hospitalized cases end up being able to stay at home with more moderate symptoms, people who would have had moderate symptoms end up asymptomatic, and people who would have been asymptomatic end up not testing positive at all. Oh, and people who would have died stayed alive. There’s that, too.

If you just look at efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection, you get a really low number (16% efficacy, confidence interval banging into the zero baseline). But my interpretation of that is that the overall number of asymptomatic patients didn’t change too much, because as just mentioned, the “would have been asymptomatic” group is not showing infection at all, and their numbers have been replaced by people from the “would have been showing symptoms” cohort, who are now just asymptomatic. And since transmission would seem to depend on viral load (among other factors), reducing viral load across the population (as shown by the significant decrease in PCR positivity) would certainly be expected to slow transmission. As Eric Topol noted at the time, this same effect had been noticed in the Moderna data in December. So with the numbers we have now, I feel pretty confident that yes, as one would have hoped, these vaccines also reduce transmission of the virus in the population. I believe that we should soon see this in a large real-world way in the Israeli data, where a significant part of the population has now been vaccinated.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/03/oxford-astrazeneca-data-again

Avoid painkillers before getting COVID-19 vaccine

 People should avoid taking pain relievers such as ibuprofen right before getting a COVID-19 vaccine, which may affect the body's immune response, experts told USA Today

The CDC and World Health Organization both recommend against the preventive use of pain relievers before getting a vaccine, USA Today reported. But the organizations say it's fine to take pain relievers after getting a vaccine if symptoms develop. 

A study published in the Journal of Virology found that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen, can reduce the production of antibodies. Pain relievers may reduce inflammation triggered by the immune system, according to USA Today

A 2016 study from Duke University found children who took pain relievers before getting various vaccines had fewer antibodies than those who didn't, USA Today reported. 

But there haven't been enough studies to draw a definitive conclusion on painkillers' effects on vaccine efficacy. There's no data showing a reduced immune response if patients take painkillers after getting a vaccine, experts told USA Today

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/avoid-painkillers-before-getting-covid-19-vaccine-experts-say.html

Arizona ranks as ‘least safe’ state in pandemic: study

 Arizona remains a national hot spot for the pandemic.

Deaths continued to rise by 5% as a 14-day average, which isn’t surprising since the peak in deaths normally lags behind a peak in infections.

Meanwhile, hospitalizations last week had dropped by 6% over the past two weeks — another sign that a surge in infections perhaps triggered by family gatherings during the holidays has subsided.

The rollout in vaccinations that confer 95% protection with minimal side effects continues slowly. The websites of Apache, Navajo and Gila counties last week reported the clinics don’t have enough new doses to schedule additional appointments.

Even people in high-risk groups find themselves now in the frustrating and frightening position of making daily calls or website visits to the sites in hope of an appointment to get the two shots in the course of a month that confers protection against the virus.

Gila County had completed at least the first round of inoculating front-line medical workers, teachers and public safety workers, before running out of vaccine and shifting the job of scheduling vaccine clinics to health partners like Banner through the state appointments system. Remaining people in the 1A and 1B groups — including teachers and those older than 75 — were advised to just keep checking online for an open appointment. On Jan. 25, the site said no appointments were available.

Apache and Navajo counties as of last week hadn’t started on the high priority groups like teachers and public safety workers, much less other high-priority essential workers and those older than 75.

The high infection rates statewide and the relatively slow rollout of the vaccination program have earned Arizona status as the “least safe” state for COVID-19 in the nation on the Wallet Hub website, based on a variety of measurements. The site’s scoring system gave top-ranked Alaska a score of 95.43 and Arizona a score of 8.20.

Ironically, the Arizona Republican Party censured Republican Gov. Doug Ducey for pandemic-related restrictions on businesses, although the state has fewer restrictions than almost any other state and lifted restrictions faster last spring than almost any other state. Ducey has refused to issue a statewide mask mandate, despite recommendations from the federal government.

The Wallet Hub site considered five factors to determine Arizona’s ranking among 50 states and the District of Columbia. As of Jan. 20 on a running six-day average, Arizona’s rates were 10 or 14 times worse than the “safest” state in most of the categories:

Vaccination rate: 42nd

Rate of positive tests: 51st

Hospitalization rate: 51st

Death rate: 50th

Transmission rate: 49th

Generally, the states with the lowest vaccination rates were also the states with the highest rate of new cases, deaths and hospitalizations on a per-capita basis, according to the compilation. The figures suggest problems with the vaccine rollout go hand in hand with policy failures in slowing the spread of the virus.

As of Jan. 25, according to state and federal reports, the state had reported 728,000 cases and 12,239 deaths.

The high infection rates have spread across the state. Graham County had the highest rate — 167 average daily cases per 100,000 over the past two weeks. Neighboring Greenlee County had the lowest — 38 per 100,000.

Gila County fell somewhere in the middle, with 97 cases per 100,000 — about the same as the statewide average of 93.

Some 19 million people have now received at least one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, the only two so far approved in the U.S. The first shot confers about 60% protection from the virus. About 3.2 million have gotten the second dose, which boosts the protection to about 95%, with minimal side effects. Reported side effects include a day or so of flu-like symptoms — with some rare cases of more serious allergic reactions also reported. However, the virus itself has far more serious effects — including the death of 1% or 2% of those who have tested positive. A larger number of people have probably been infected and recovered without ever getting a test, which means the death rate may be lower.

Federal health officials on Sunday estimated that by this week perhaps 2 million people a day will be getting inoculated, up from about 1 million a day a week or so ago.

Arizona’s in the bottom 25% when it comes to the percentage of vaccine doses received that have actually been administered, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control.

Epidemiologists say that the pandemic won’t be substantially controlled until about 80% or 90% of the population has either been vaccinated or recovered from an infection. Health experts hope to pass that threshold sometime this summer, providing people prove more willing to get the vaccine.

When Payson schools offered all teachers and school staff a free shot just after Christmas about one-third of those eligible decided not to get vaccinated. Nursing homes also report that a large percentage of the staff have opted not to get the free vaccine.

If that plays out in the whole population, even mass vaccination may not prove enough to stop the spread of the virus to people who have refused to get the shot or to unvaccinated populations — like children.

https://www.paysonroundup.com/covid-19/study-arizona-ranks-as-least-safe-state-in-pandemic/article_16a6fb76-3439-5465-bc72-a52dc7fc9240.html

CDC: Schools 'can safely reopen even if teachers aren't vaccinated for COVID-19'

 The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says schools can safely reopen even if teachers are not vaccinated for the coronavirus.


As some teachers' unions balk at resuming in-person instruction before teachers are inoculated, Dr. Rochelle Walensky says, "Vaccination of teachers is not a prerequisite for safe reopening of schools." Walensky cited CDC data showing that social distancing and wearing a mask significantly reduce the spread of the virus in school settings.

White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients called on Congress to pass additional funding to ensure schools have the resources necessary to support reopening.



President Joe Biden has pledged to ensure nearly all K-8 schools will reopen for in-person instruction in the first 100 days of his administration.

Teachers are prioritized as "essential workers" under the CDC's vaccination plans, though many have yet to receive doses as the nation continues to face a supply shortage of the vaccine.