Search This Blog

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Oregon First State To Require Vaccination Proof For Maskless Entry Into Businesses, Workplaces, & Churches

 Authored by Samuel Allegri via The Epoch Times,

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) is requiring that people in workplaces, businesses, and religious sites show proof of COVID-19 vaccination in order to be allowed maskless entry to the facilities.

The state’s health authorities updated their masking guidance on May 19, following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rollback of strict mask mandates.

Businesses, employers and faith institutions now have the option to adjust their masking guidance to allow fully vaccinated individuals to no longer wear a mask in their establishments,” the OHA declared in a statement.

Businesses, employers and faith institutions doing so must have a policy in place to check the vaccination status of all individuals before they enter their establishment. Businesses, employers and faith institutions who do not create such policies will maintain the same masking guidance listed below, regardless of an individual’s vaccination status.”

The statewide policy is the first of the kind in the country and is raising concerns for those who don’t want to wear masks or take the vaccine due to a number of concerns including safety, side effects, efficacy, mistrust in pharmaceutical companies, and a lack of full FDA approval. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in late March flagged vaccine passport systems’ potential problems in an opinion piece, arguing they would create two tiers of unvaccinated and vaccinated people.

A spokesperson for business group Oregon Business and Industry, Nathaniel Brown, told the New York Times that they “have serious concerns about the practicality of requiring business owners and workers to be the enforcer.”

“We are hearing from retailers and small businesses who are concerned about putting their frontline workers in a potentially untenable position when dealing with customers,” Brown said.

On May 16, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that local governments, but not federal, will be driving “vaccine mandates” of this type.

“We’re not counting on vaccine mandates at all. It may very well be that local businesses, local jurisdictions will work toward vaccine mandates. That is going to be locally driven and not federally driven,” Walensky told NBC.

New York, which is offering free vaccination and incentives to get the shot, released in March an application that could act as a COVID-19 vaccine passport.

The application is named “Excelsior Pass,” and local authorities are thinking about requiring it for sports events, weddings, and businesses.

“New Yorkers have proven they can follow public health guidance to beat back COVID, and the innovative Excelsior Pass is another tool in our new toolbox to fight the virus while allowing more sectors of the economy to reopen safely and keeping personal information secure,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, said in a statement.

With the move, Oregon is the first state to implement a system that requires people entering workplaces, businesses, and religious sites to show proof of vaccination.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/oregon-first-state-require-vaccination-proof-maskless-entry-businesses-workplaces

mRNA vaccines induce more spike-specific antibody isotypes with more binding capacity than natural infection

 Jéromine Klingler, Gregory S. Lambert, Vincenza Itri, Sean Liu, Juan C. Bandres, Gospel Enyindah-Asonye, Xiaomei Liu, 

Kasopefoluwa Y. OguntuyoFatima AmanatBenhur LeeSusan Zolla-PaznerChitra UpadhyayCatarina E. Hioe

Talking to Professor Martin Landray

 Imagine saving a million lives. While the world was in the first throes of the pandemic and paralysed in the face of the seemingly unstoppable spread of the coronavirus, two Oxford professors, Peter Horby and Martin Landray, started a trial which is estimated to have saved around one million lives with a £5 medicine that is available across the world.

In an interview for Science blog, Professor Landray explains that he mooted the idea on 28 Feburary 2020, in an email to Sir Jeremy Farrar, the head of Wellcome. A few days later, they discussed it on a No 18 bus to Marylebone. Sir Jeremy suggested he join forces with Professor Horby, an expert in infectious diseases and epidemiology and a nodding acquaintance from Oxford’s medical science community. And the rest really is history.

Treatments for COVID-19 were urgently needed in early 2020, since there were no known treatments when the virus took hold. Oxford colleagues had quickly begun working on a vaccine, but Professor Landray, an expert in heart conditions and drugs trials, suggested that a trial be conducted with hospitalised patients to see if any existing medicines could be used in the fight against the worst effects of the virus. Speed was of the essence; treatments were needed rapidly whilst vaccines were being developed and rolled out – and they are still a crucial piece of the jigsaw needed to complement preventative measures and save lives.   

Within days, with backing from Oxford colleagues, they had set up and gained approval for the ground-breaking RECOVERY trial. By 19 March, they had recruited their first participant. Three months later, they had found the first proven effective treatment.

Simplicity was the key, according to Professor Landray, ‘Patients were very sick and we couldn’t burden the NHS with demands on their time....a streamlined clinical trial which was integrated with clinical care was the only way.’

So, clinicians were asked to enter basic patient details on the trial website and, initially, the system randomly allocated one of four carefully-chosen drugs, each offering the potential to tackle the disease, or no additional treatment alongside oxygen and ventilator treatments. It was a classic randomised controlled trial – including a control sample who received no additional treatment beyond the usual care in their hospital – but one which had not been used in such circumstances before.

The medical profession in the UK responded with alacrity and enthusiasm, eager to help beat the virus. More than 4,000 medical professionals in every acute NHS hospital in the country took part and nearly 40,000 patients have now been enlisted.

A triumph for collaboration and research, by mid-June, dexamethasone, a commonly-available steroid, was found to be effective

‘Many clinicians grabbed the opportunity to help find solutions to this crisis,’ says Professor Landray. ‘And we couldn’t have done it without their support.’

A triumph for collaboration and research, by mid-June, dexamethasone, a commonly-available steroid, was found to be effective in patients on ventilators and those receiving oxygen. ‘It had very clear benefits,’ says Professor Landray, remembering the excitement around the finding. ‘We’d never seen anything like it.’

It was not a cure, but it prevented 30% of deaths and it quickly became standard care around the world – reversing previous thinking which had suggested that it shouldn’t be used because it was ineffective or might even be harmful. In early June, another drug, hydroxychloroquine, which had been hailed as a miracle cure, was found by the trial to be useless for hospitalised patients.

They announced the dexamethasone news at 1pm on 16 June 2020, says Professor Landray. He was still talking to the media at 11pm. Professor Horby travelled to No10 to present the news alongside the Prime Minister at a Government briefing.

‘He was wearing my tie as didn’t have one with him,’ laughs Professor Landray, who takes no chances. ‘I had brought in two.’

As the Deputy Director of Oxford University’s Big Data Institute, Professor Landray knows about large numbers. He is delighted by the success of the trial, especially the key role played by doctors, nurses, and patients in hospitals from the Western Isles to Truro, but he says, ‘What matters is that in 100 days, with all the people involved in the trial, a treatment was found.’

It has been a stunning success, and the professors were last week honoured to be elected as fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences, alongside a host of Oxford colleagues, for their exceptional contributions to the advancement of medical science, an accolade that recognises the impact of RECOVERY and the importance of their previous work.

The building which houses Oxford’s Big Data Institute and part of the Nuffield Department of Population Health exemplifies Professor Landray’s streamlined approach, which is not surprising, since he was involved in the design - very modern, with clean, geometric lines, light wood panels and open offices. In usual times, it is alive with 500 data scientists, ethicists, philosophers, and population health experts, all under one beautiful roof.

Professor Landray credits the strength of the medical community at Oxford for much of his success. ‘We are very fortunate in Oxford. There is huge strength and depth. There are the people at Oxford who have written landmark papers, the headline people from conferences. I am very lucky to have had people to help, support and mentor me.’ He adds, ‘Richard Doll (the man credited with proving that smoking causes lung cancer) was here when I first moved to Oxford.’

Professor Landray is an Oxfordshire local, who grew up and still lives in a village some half an hour’s drive from the city. He literally married the girl next door – although to be precise, of course, he says, ‘She lived about 50 yards away.’

Professor Landray knew early on that he wanted to be a doctor. ‘Medicine was all around us, my mother was a part-time anaesthetist, my father was the local GP – very much in the James Herriot style.’

Some of his earliest memories are of patients coming to the house and lying on the family sofa, so his father could examine them.

‘I never thought about doing anything else,’ says Professor Landray. Life as a local GP was not to be, though, since after medical school at Birmingham University, the young doctor never did take over from his father, becoming instead a clinical pharmacologist and heart specialist.

In fact, until the pandemic, he had not taken much of an interest in infections since 1980, when the young Martin wrote an article about germs for the local children’s newspaper. Clearly amused, he says, ‘It’s in the Bodleian, complete with a picture of a germ I drew myself. I didn’t publish another paper on infections until 2020.'

the professors were last week honoured to be elected as fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences
Professor Peter Horby (tieless) and Professor Martin Landray were last week honoured to be elected as fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences. Photo by John Cairns.
His interest focused more on clinical trials and chronic conditions than general practice. After qualifying and then teaching at Birmingham, while commuting from his Oxford village where his young family was based, the then Dr Landray moved to Oxford as a junior researcher.

He joined the group led by Professor Sir Rory Collins and Professor Sir Richard Peto, whose work on clinical trials for heart attack he had admired as a student.

‘I remember reading the results of their trial of aspirin and clot buster drugs for patients suffering a heart attack,’ he says of the Second International Study of Infarct Survival (known as ISIS-2). ‘It changed the treatment of heart attacks overnight.

‘It was so simple, so elegant, and so powerful.’

It made a massive impression on the young medic. Professor Landray’s enthusiasm is palpable as he talks about the potential for other trials in other diseases, building on the success of the RECOVERY trial.

RECOVERY has shown that, by combining scientific rigour with large numbers of participants and streamlined processes that make it easy for clinicians and patients to participate, it is possible to find which drugs work best rapidly, even in the context of a pandemic. According to Professor Landray, the potential of these kind of trials could be enormous for the fight against disease, but it runs counter to the ways trials are currently conducted.

‘Trials often cost $1 billion,’ he explains. ‘It’s a massive investment....even for big pharma, it’s a big cost. [Unlike RECOVERY] many trials are too small, too short, and too complex.’

And, because of that, a lot of areas of medicine rely on the opinions of doctors, who sometimes prescribe treatments based on ‘educated guess work’, rather than the hard data provided by a RECOVERY-style trial.

Assessing treatments as part of a randomised controlled trial enabled the team to see which yielded positive results – and which did not. In some situations, doctors do not have access to such information. Professor Landray says, ‘There is a real risk in throwing drugs at people if we don’t know if they’re going to work.’

He hopes, ‘RECOVERY has changed all that....So many areas need better treatments, we need to work out what works...It has to be the future. It’s possible to do much better on a much larger scale,’ he says. ‘You need scale for the data.’

Research may occupy him, but Professor Landray is every inch the sort of reassuring doctor you would want to see if unwell. Treating patients is important to the professor, who spends a morning in clinic each week, seeing members of the public.

‘Everything starts and finishes with patients,’ he says.  

For more of the story, listen to: Inside Health, Recovery Trial, BBC Radio 4.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/million-reasons-talking-professor-martin-landray

New human coronavirus that originated in dogs IDd

 Researchers have identified and completed the genetic analysis of a newly discovered coronavirus – one that has evolved from a coronavirus that afflicts dogs to infect humans and may contribute to respiratory symptoms.

The discovery of the first dog coronavirus found to have crossed over to infecting people underscores the treacherous nature of coronaviruses and the need to monitor animal viruses as a way of predicting possible threats to public health, researchers say.

“At this point, we don’t see any reasons to expect another pandemic from this virus, but I can’t say that’s never going to be a concern in the future,” said Anastasia Vlasova, an assistant professor in The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES).

She conducted the study with Gregory C. Gray, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases of the Duke University School of Medicine, and Teck-Hock Toh, a professor at SEGi University in Sarawak, Malaysia.

In 2018, researchers analyzed the nasal swabs of 301 patients treated in an East Malaysian hospital for pneumonia. Eight patients, all but one of them children, were found to have been infected with the newly discovered coronavirus that the study’s researchers named CCoV-HuPn-2018. All eight patients were treated and released after four to six days in the hospital, where they were given oxygen to help them breathe.

In a study published today (May 20, 2021) in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, researchers describe the genetic characteristics of CCoV-HuPn-2018, suggesting it’s a new coronavirus that moved from infecting dogs to infecting people.

Vlasova and her colleagues plan to further study the CCoV-HuPn-2018 virus to determine how harmful it is – or could become – to people. It’s unknown if the virus can be passed from person to person, or how well the human immune system can fight it off.

“We don’t really have evidence right now that this virus can cause severe illness in adults,” Vlasova said, citing the fact that only one person in the study found to have been infected with the new coronavirus was an adult. “I cannot rule out the possibility that at some point this new coronavirus will become a prevalent human pathogen. Once a coronavirus is able to infect a human, all bets are off.”

Viruses change constantly. When a virus alters its genetic makeup enough to go from infecting only a certain type of animal to infecting people, a combination of factors determine how well the new virus can replicate and spread among people.

For an animal coronavirus to infect people, the virus must first enter the human body and recognize something on the surface of the cells, then bind to those cells.

“We know this virus can do that,” Vlasova said.

However, that transmission from a dog to a person may be a dead end for CCoV-HuPn-2018 if the virus does not replicate well once inside the person, or if the person’s immune system fends it off, Vlasova said.

Only about half of the genetic makeup of the newly discovered coronavirus is similar to that of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic, Vlasova said.

Although only eight patients in the study were found to have been infected with the CCoV-HuPn-2018 virus, the study’s researchers say that this or highly similar viruses likely have circulated much further than that among dogs and people in Malaysia.

“A one-time sampling is not going to tell you with accuracy how prevalent it is,” Vlasova said. “The sampling has to be repeated and done over a period time to see how many people become infected.”

If confirmed through further epidemiological studies, this new coronavirus could be the eighth coronavirus shown to trigger illnesses in people.

“If you had mentioned this 20 years ago, that a virus that affects dogs could change to be able to infect people, many would have been skeptical,” Vlasova said.

Even though this new coronavirus comes from a dog, it may not be necessary for people to change how they interact with their dogs in light of this study, Vlasova said.

“But I would definitely be watching a little more how much I allow my babies around dogs,” she said. Seven of the eight people hospitalized in Malaysia and found to be infected with the CCoV-HuPn-2018 virus were children, one as young as 5 1/2 months old.

The CCoV-HuPn-2018 virus has different symptoms from the dog virus it came from, which caused gastrointestinal problems in dogs such as diarrhea and upset stomach. People infected with the CCoV-HuPn-2018 virus experience a respiratory illness that does not include the gastrointestinal issues.

“We are likely missing important animal viruses that are beginning to adapt to humans,” Gray said. “We need to conduct such virus discovery work among people with pneumonia and also among people who have intense exposure to animals so that we get early warning of a new virus which may become a future pandemic virus.”

The potential threat posed by the viruses of dogs or cats, which also suffer illnesses from coronaviruses, has not been studied widely, though it should be, Vlasova said. Monitoring animal viruses is a way of protecting public health, she said.

“We primarily put the emphasis on studying emerging disease in humans – not animals,” Vlasova said. “That’s a big flaw in the current approach.”

https://news.osu.edu/new-human-coronavirus-that-originated-in-dogs-identified/

Health plan management software provider Convey Holding Parent files for a $100 million IPO

 Convey Holding Parent, which provides Medicare-focused software and service solutions, filed on Friday with the SEC to raise up to $100 million in an initial public offering.


The company, which is also known as Convey Health, is a leading healthcare platform that utilizes technology and processes to improve government-sponsored health plans, including Medicare Advantage. Convey partners with payors to deliver purpose-built technology and services that enhance its clients' workflows, addressing health plan needs including product development and sales, member experience management, clinical management, core operations, business intelligence, and analytics.

The Fort Lauderdale, FL-based company was founded in 2003 and booked $301 million in revenue for the 12 months ended March 31, 2021. It plans to list on the NYSE under the symbol CNVY. Convey Holding Parent filed confidentially on March 24, 2021. BofA Securities, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and Barclays are the joint bookrunners on the deal. No pricing terms were disclosed.

More immunocompromised Americans than we think--a problem with COVID-19 vaccines

 The COVID-19 pandemic has held an extra layer of uncertainty for immunocompromised people, who in some cases face an increased risk of contracting severe disease. As the Washington Post recently reported, researchers are also concerned about whether vaccines offer sufficient protection for certain immunocompromised people, like transplant recipients and people with blood cancers—leaving them potentially at-risk for a serious case of COVID-19 as the CDC’s new unmasking guidelines come into effect. 

Some people categorized as immunocompromised have conditions that affect the way their immune systems function, while others take medications that prevent their immune system from operating the way it normally would. A new study published in the journal JAMA Network Open aimed to quantify the second group. The study found that out of a group of over 3 million insured US patients between ages 18 and 64, 2.8 percent were on immunosuppressive drugs.

“When scientists were looking at these immunosuppressive medications and deciding the importance of their role in the pandemic, there wasn’t really a lot of data available on just how many Americans were immunosuppressed,” says lead author Beth Wallace, a rheumatologist at the University of Michigan. 

“The research gives us a sense of how much of the population is immune compromised specifically due to medications,” says Emily Ricotta, an epidemiologist at the NIH who was not involved in the research. “A lot of the time, when people think ‘immune compromised’ they think HIV, or some rare disease, or possibly cancer. But ‘immune compromised’ can actually mean many things, especially if it is due to medications.” And all together, these populations are exactly who herd immunity—now considered an unlikely outcome by many epidemiologists—is meant to protect. 

“There’s a lot of patients in the country that are immune-suppressed due to drug use,” says Jeffrey Sparks, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the research. “And it was, I thought, very important to quantify exactly how many adults within these age brackets are immune-suppressed.”

Folks in the study considered immunocompromised took medications that ranged from common steroids to chemotherapy drugs and medicines that target a very specific pathway in the immune system, such as TNF inhibitors. The researchers used data from Clinformatics Data Mart, an insurance claims database, to examine data from anonymized patients ages 18 to 65 who were covered by Optum, a company associated with the insurance company UnitedHealth Group. The researchers focused on the years 2018 and 2019.

The study found that around two-thirds of the patients considered to be immunocompromised in that time period were prescribed oral steroids, and that over 40 percent took oral steroids for over 30 days. The most frequently-prescribed medications included the steroid prednisone, followed by methotrexate, an immune system suppressant used to treat many autoimmune conditions and certain cancers, and the steroid methylprednisolone. The most common diagnoses associated with drug-related immunosuppression were cancer, immune-mediated conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease and autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, and skin conditions like eczema and psoriasis.

While many immunosuppressive drugs may not significantly affect COVID-19 risk, Wallace says, “certain medications, most notably steroid medications, like prednisone, do seem to increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19.” Of note, some steroids, particularly dexamethasone, have been effective at treating severe COVID-19, but being on steroids at the moment of infection seems to put people on a negative trajectory, says Sparks. 

The researchers note that there is still a lot they don’t know. For one, we don’t know exactly how immunosuppressive drugs affect susceptibility or outcomes of COVID-19, says Sparks. There are varying degrees of immunosuppression, and different medications and dosages might affect disease risk and vaccine response differently. Whether it’s the drug or the reason they’re using the drug that puts people at risk is also under a bit of debate, Sparks notes. “And we’re also filling in the picture about how it might affect vaccine response,” he says. But early research suggests that steroids known as glucocorticoids, as well as a few other specific medications, “seem to really blunt the response of vaccines.” (Experts recommend that immunocompromised people still get a COVID-19 vaccine, and researchers are examining potential fixes like booster shots or monoclonal antibodies.) 

There are also several factors that limit their findings. Claims data, Wallace says, makes it difficult to know exactly why certain drugs were prescribed, or at what precise dose they were taken. People over 64 and under 18 are not included, and data on inpatient medications is limited because of the way those claims are billed. The study was also limited to a group of people who had health insurance. The study’s limitations could result in either overestimation or underestimation of immunocompromization in the community, notes Ricotta. 

For Wallace, the big takeaway is that, particularly nowadays, providers may need to exercise caution when prescribing oral steroids—to consider whether there’s adequate data supporting their use for a given condition, and to consider the minimum dose and duration when prescribing them. Chemotherapy treatments or medications like methotrexate are typically only prescribed when needed, she says. But many doctors prescribe steroids fairly liberally, she says, for short-term conditions like bronchitis or allergic reactions that might have other viable treatments. 

“In the pandemic era,” Wallace says, “it’s important for providers to practice steroid stewardship.”

https://www.popsci.com/health/immunocompromised-covid-19-vaccine/

No HIPAA violation for most businesses to ask for vaccination status: lawyer

 A healthcare attorney said that it does not violate HIPAA for a business to ask its customers or employees for their vaccination status.

HIPAA, which stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, strictly applies to healthcare providers and related industries. Examples include hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, insurance companies and billing agencies.

“Other types of entities, like restaurants, like this law firm, like the grocery store, are not HIPAA-covered entities under the HIPAA law and their actions are generally not governed by HIPAA,” explains healthcare attorney Maureen McGlynn with CCB Law in Syracuse.

McGlynn says she routinely gets calls from people who think their HIPAA rights were violated, but weren’t. “I think it is misunderstood,” she says.

McGlynn’s legal explanation corrects inaccurate accusations people on social media made against a cafe and candy shop in Auburn, accusing the owners of a HIPAA violation when requiring proof of vaccinations to eat or drink inside their business.

The owners made clear people who are not vaccinated are welcome to take their order to tables outside or take the food to-go.

An employment attorney adds that employers are bound by additional privacy restrictions, but vaccines are not covered.

“Under anti-discrimination laws, you cannot ask employees about their medical conditions and asking whether they’ve been vaccinated is not a medical related inquiry,” says employment lawyer Laura Spring with CCB Law.

When it comes to asking for vaccine status or requiring vaccines, employers do have to follow federal and state-ordered exemptions.

Spring says, “If someone has a medical disability or they have a religious preference, then the employer is under an obligation to see if they can accommodate that issue.”

https://www.rochesterfirst.com/coronavirus/it-does-not-violate-hipaa-for-most-businesses-to-ask-for-vaccination-status-lawyer-explains/