Overall, Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations are down in the United States, but much of that is from vaccinations. When you look at only those who are not vaccinated, the rates are still high in many areas of the country. Dan Keating and Leslie Shapiro for The Washington Post show the differences.
Category Archives: Vaccination
The United States vaccination rate was rolling for a while there, but it has slowed down. Sema Sgaier for NYT Opinion talks about why that is, breaking it down to four general types of people who are hesitant or don’t plan on getting vaccinated:
After conducting a national survey of U.S. adults, we grouped people into distinct profiles based on their shared beliefs and barriers to getting the vaccine. This approach, borrowed from the marketing world, is called psychobehavioral segmentation. It will allow health officials to target their strategies in ways that ignore demographic categories, like age and race. In the United States, we used this approach to identify five distinct personas: the Enthusiasts, the Watchful, the Cost-Anxious, the System Distrusters and the Covid Skeptics.
The last two groups will be harder to convince, but for the watchful and cost-anxious, I hope they look at the numbers.
The risk of side effects is very low (especially when you compare to the everyday things we do to live), your risk of infection or hospitalization goes way down when you get vaccinated, and you don’t have to pay anything.
Danielle Ivory, Lauren Leatherby and Robert Gebeloff for The New York looked at voting from the 2020 election and vaccination rates at the state and county levels. The strength of correlation is surprising. The existence of the correlation is not.
For The New York Times, Keith Collins and Josh Holder look at the relationship between country wealth and vaccination rates. Wealthier countries made deals with drug makers earlier, which means poorer countries are not able to secure as many vaccines.
Lauren Leatherby and Amy Schoenfeld Walker reporting for The New York Times:
“Every state is improving,” said Claire Hannan, the executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers. “We still don’t have enough to vaccinate everyone over 75, so it doesn’t necessarily feel different for people who are trying to find the vaccine, but we are in a much better place now.”
Vaccines provide light at the end of the tunnel, but when we finally get to the end depends on the speed at which we vaccinate. The Washington Post considers Joe Biden’s pledge for 100 million shots in his first 100 days in the context of herd immunity and calendar days.
I appreciate the time spent explaining the intersection of these two lines.
100 years ago, an influenza (flu) pandemic swept the globe, infecting an estimated one-third of the world’s population and killing at least 50 million people. The pandemic’s death toll was greater than the total number of military and civilian deaths from World War I, which was happening simultaneously. At the time, scientists had not yet discovered flu viruses, but we know today that the 1918 pandemic was caused by an influenza A (H1N1) virus. The pandemic is commonly believed to have occurred in three waves. Unusual flu-like activity was first identified in U.S. military personnel during the spring of 1918. Flu spread rapidly in military barracks where men shared close quarters. The second wave occurred during the fall of 1918 and was the most severe. A third wave of illness occurred during the winter and spring of 1919.
Here are 5 things you should know about the 1918 pandemic and why it matters 100 years later.
1. The 1918 Flu Virus Spread Quickly
500 million people were estimated to have been infected by the 1918 H1N1 flu virus. At least 50 million people were killed around the world including an estimated 675,000 Americans. In fact, the 1918 pandemic actually caused the average life expectancy in the United States to drop by about 12 years for both men and women.
In 1918, many people got very sick, very quickly. In March of that year, outbreaks of flu-like illness were first detected in the United States. More than 100 soldiers at Camp Funston in Fort Riley Kansas became ill with flu. Within a week, the number of flu cases quintupled. There were reports of some people dying within 24 hours or less. 1918 flu illness often progressed to organ failure and pneumonia, with pneumonia the cause of death for most of those who died. Young adults were hit hard. The average age of those who died during the pandemic was 28 years old.
2. No Prevention and No Treatment for the 1918 Pandemic Virus
In 1918, as scientists had not yet discovered flu viruses, there were no laboratory tests to detect, or characterize these viruses. There were no vaccines to help prevent flu infection, no antiviral drugs to treat flu illness, and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with flu infections. Available tools to control the spread of flu were largely limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI’s) such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limits on public gatherings, which were used in many cities. The science behind these was very young, and applied inconsistently. City residents were advised to avoid crowds, and instructed to pay particular attention to personal hygiene. In some cities, dance halls were closed. Some streetcar conductors were ordered to keep the windows of their cars open in all but rainy weather. Some municipalities moved court cases outside. Many physicians and nurses were instructed to wear gauze masks when with flu patients.
3. Illness Overburdened the Health Care System
An estimated 195,000 Americans died during October alone. In the fall of 1918, the United States experienced a severe shortage of professional nurses during the flu pandemic because large numbers of them were deployed to military camps in the United States and abroad. This shortage was made worse by the failure to use trained African American nurses. The Chicago chapter of the American Red Cross issued an urgent call for volunteers to help nurse the ill. Philadelphia was hit hard by the pandemic with more than 500 corpses awaiting burial, some for more than a week. Many parts of the U.S. had been drained of physicians and nurses due to calls for military service, so there was a shortage of medical personnel to meet the civilian demand for health care during the 1918 flu pandemic. In Massachusetts, for example, Governor McCall asked every able-bodied person across the state with medical training to offer their aid in fighting the outbreak.
As the numbers of sick rose, the Red Cross put out desperate calls for trained nurses as well as untrained volunteers to help at emergency centers. In October of 1918, Congress approved a $1 million budget for the U. S. Public Health Service to recruit 1,000 medical doctors and more than 700 registered nurses.
At one point in Chicago, physicians were reporting a staggering number of new cases, reaching as high as 1,200 people each day. This in turn intensified the shortage of doctors and nurses. Additionally, hospitals in some areas were so overloaded with flu patients that schools, private homes and other buildings had to be converted into makeshift hospitals, some of which were staffed by medical students.
4. Major Advancements in Flu Prevention and Treatment since 1918
The science of influenza has come a long way in 100 years! Developments since the 1918 pandemic include vaccines to help prevent flu, antiviral drugs to treat flu illness, antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections such as pneumonia, and a global influenza surveillance system with 114 World Health Organization member states that constantly monitors flu activity. There also is a much better understanding of non-pharmaceutical interventions–such as social distancing, respiratory and cough etiquette and hand hygiene–and how these measures help slow the spread of flu.
There is still much work to do to improve U.S. and global readiness for the next flu pandemic. More effective vaccines and antiviral drugs are needed in addition to better surveillance of influenza viruses in birds and pigs. CDC also is working to minimize the impact of future flu pandemics by supporting research that can enhance the use of community mitigation measures (i.e., temporarily closing schools, modifying, postponing, or canceling large public events, and creating physical distance between people in settings where they commonly come in contact with one another). These non-pharmaceutical interventions continue to be an integral component of efforts to control the spread of flu, and in the absence of flu vaccine, would be the first line of defense in a pandemic.
5. Risk of a Flu Pandemic is Ever-Present, but CDC is on the Frontlines Preparing to Protect Americans
Four pandemics have occurred in the past century: 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009. The 1918 pandemic was the worst of them. But the threat of a future flu pandemic remains. A pandemic flu virus could emerge anywhere and spread globally.
CDC works tirelessly to protect Americans and the global community from the threat of a future flu pandemic. CDC works with domestic and global public health and animal health partners to monitor human and animal influenza viruses. This helps CDC know what viruses are spreading, where they are spreading, and what kind of illnesses they are causing. CDC also develops and distributes tests and materials to support influenza testing at state, local, territorial, and international laboratories so they can detect and characterize influenza viruses. In addition, CDC assists global and domestic experts in selecting candidate viruses to include in each year’s seasonal flu vaccine and guides prioritization of pandemic vaccine development. CDC routinely develops vaccine viruses used by manufacturers to make flu vaccines. CDC also supports state and local governments in preparing for the next flu pandemic, including planning and leading pandemic exercises across all levels of government. An effective response will diminish the potential for a repeat of the widespread devastation of the 1918 pandemic.
Visit CDC’s 1918 commemoration website for more information on the 1918 pandemic and CDC’s pandemic flu preparedness work.
With the holidays quickly approaching, there will be more opportunities to spend time with family and friends. Now is the time to ensure that you and those around you are protected from flu. Now is the time to get your seasonal flu vaccine if you haven’t already gotten it. It takes about two weeks after vaccination for antibodies that protect against flu to develop in the body.—so it’s important to get vaccinated now, before the flu begins circulating in your community.
Whether you are a doctor, school nurse, grandchild, best friend, or coworker, you can play a role in reminding and encouraging other people to get their flu vaccine. Get your flu shot and talk to others about the importance of everyone 6 months and older getting a flu shot every year.
Need some tips for talking about the importance of flu vaccine? CDC is a great source of information about the serious risk of flu illness and the benefits of flu vaccination, as well as information to correct myths about the flu vaccine. Below are several examples of the benefits of flu shots and corrections of common flu myths. Find out more about the benefits of getting your annual flu vaccine on CDC’s Vaccine Benefits webpage, here.
- Flu can be a serious illness, even for otherwise healthy children and adults. While most people will recover from flu without complications, anyone can experience severe illness, hospitalization, or death. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking serious illness for yourself or those around you.
- The flu vaccine CANNOT give you the flu. Flu shots do NOT contain flu viruses that could infect you and cause flu illness. Flu shots either contain flu vaccines viruses that have been “inactivated” (or killed) and therefore are not infectious, or they do not contain any flu vaccine viruses at all (recombinant influenza vaccine).
- Flu vaccination can keep you from getting sick with flu. Flu vaccines can reduce your risk of illness, hospitalization.
- Getting vaccinated yourself may also help protect people around you, including those who are more vulnerable to serious flu illness, like babies and children, older people, and people with certain chronic health conditions.
Making a Flu Vaccine Recommendation to Your Patients
For health care providers, CDC suggests using the SHARE method to make a strong vaccine recommendation and to provide important information to help patients make informed decisions about vaccinations. Remind patients that it is not too late for them to get vaccinated, and follow the SHARE strategies below:
- S- SHARE the reasons why the influenza vaccine is right for the patient given his or her age, health status, lifestyle, occupation, or other risk factors.
- H- HIGHLIGHT positive experiences with influenza vaccines (personal or in your practice), as appropriate, to reinforce the benefits and strengthen confidence in flu vaccination.
- A- ADDRESS patient questions and any concerns about the influenza vaccine, including side effects, safety, and vaccine effectiveness in plain and understandable language.
- R- REMIND patients that influenza vaccines protect them and their loves ones from serious flu illness and flu-related complications.
- E- EXPLAIN the potential costs of getting the flu, including serious health effects, time lost (such as missing work or family obligations), and financial costs.
Be an advocate for flu vaccination. Get your flu vaccine and remind those around you to do the same! Visit www.cdc.gov/flu for more information and tips on flu vaccination and prevention.
Interested in learning more about flu? Check out other CDC Flu Blog-a-thon post throughout the week for personal stories, advice, and tips on flu and flu prevention. You can see all the participating blogs here: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/toolkit/blog-a-thon.htm.
Public health labs aren’t just on the frontlines of vaccine-preventable outbreaks. They’re often the only line.
by Kim Krisberg
In the U.S., rates of vaccine-preventable diseases are so low that many commercial labs don’t even have the ability to test for them anymore. The shift reflects the hard work of decades-long immunization efforts. But it also means that when there is a vaccine-preventable outbreak, just about all of our rapid diagnostic capacity resides in one place: the public health lab.
The latest example of this is in Minnesota, where a measles outbreak hit 78 confirmed cases as of June 16. The state is typically home to less than a handful of measles cases each year — most years, the case count is between zero and two. At the Minnesota Department of Health’s Public Health Laboratory, which is the only lab in the state that can do real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for measles, staff have received more than 800 specimens for measles testing since April, with a goal of fully processing each one the same day it’s received. To stop an outbreak, both speed and accuracy are critical.
Fortunately, Minnesota lab workers are trained and ready to provide both. But sustaining that kind of surge capacity over the long run and in the face of new and emerging disease threats is always challenging — even in the best funding environments.
“We’ve spent a lot of time increasing our capacity over the last 10 years and we’re seeing that capacity being put to work,” said Sara Vetter, PhD, manager for infectious diseases at the Minnesota Public Health Laboratory. Vetter noted that Minnesota last experienced a measles outbreak in 2011 — “and that one seemed huge and it was just 26 cases of measles.”
This year’s measles outbreak is almost entirely concentrated in a Somali community in Minnesota’s Hennepin County, home to more than 1 million residents. The outbreak officially began on April 10, the same day the lab confirmed the first positive case. Nearly all the cases are among unvaccinated children younger than 4 years old. No deaths have occurred, though about a quarter of infections have led to hospitalization.
Inside the public health lab’s Virology/Immunology Unit, technicians track the measles outbreak using a rRT-PCR test, which allows them to detect the highly contagious virus much quicker than private labs that can perform serological testing for measles antibodies. That quickness is key, said Anna Strain, PhD, supervisor of the Virology/Immunology Unit, because it means the health agency’s epidemiology team can then quickly locate people who may have been infected and get ahead of the outbreak before it spreads.
The rRT-PCR test may be quicker than serological testing — it detects measles RNA, as opposed to measles antibodies, and is less confounding than serology — but it’s not completely definitive, Strain said. After conducting rRT-PCR testing on each of the more than 800 specimens that come into the lab, any positive specimens undergo genotyping to determine if the patient is infected with a wild-type measles strain or if the rRT-PCR is simply picking up on the live attenuated virus that’s contained in the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Genotyping can also determine if the case is related to the larger outbreak. (On a side note: In addition to its regular testing responsibilities, the Minnesota Public Health Lab is partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Canadian public health officials to develop a PCR test that’s specific to the vaccine strain of measles. Such an test would be particularly helpful in an outbreak, Strain said, because technicians could then forgo the extra step of genotyping.)
“It’s actually meant quite a lot of maneuvering,” Strain said, referring to the logistics of responding to the surge in measles testing. “In some ways, we were lucky that it happened in April when flu season was dying down — otherwise a number of testing staff trained for measles testing would have also been doing flu testing. If the (measles outbreak) had happened any sooner, it would have been really hard to keep up.”
From start to finish, the measles test takes about five hours, Strain said. Lab staff can process 10 measles specimens at a time and up to 30 specimens in day — though that’s a stretch, she noted. In comparison, the lab can process up to 150 flu samples in day and often does.
“As hard as it’s been in the lab, it’s been even harder for our epidemiologists — they’ve had more than 7,000 contacts to trace and to follow up on,” said Joanne Bartkus, PhD, director of the Minnesota Public Health Laboratory. “It’s been daunting for all of us.”
Vetter said that most of the lab’s current surge and response capacity is thanks to federal public health preparedness funding as well as funding from CDC’s Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Program, both of which currently sit on the budgetary chopping block. On preparedness, President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal calls for cutting CDC’s emergency preparedness budget by $136 million — that’s on top of years of preparedness cuts public health agencies have already absorbed. (In total, Trump’s budget calls for cutting CDC’s budget by $1.2 billion, or a whopping 17 percent.) The ELC, on the other hand, is wholly entwined with the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which allocates $40 million in annual ELC funds to state and local health departments in every state. Under current ACA repeal-and-replace bills in Congress, the Prevention and Public Health Fund would disappear.
And while ELC and preparedness monies don’t categorically support the Minnesota lab’s vaccine-preventable disease work, Vetter said the funds have been essential in ensuring the lab can quickly scale up its response, regardless of whether the emergency is vaccine-preventable or not. In other words, the Minnesota lab has spent years building an all-hazards response system that readies it to face any health threat that lands at its doorstep. Being able to sustain that nimbleness, however, would be at risk if funding declined.
“Without that funding, we’d probably have to choose what we respond to because we’d run out of people and out of machines — we just couldn’t keep up,” Vetter said. “If our funding gets cut, we can’t maintain our machines, we can’t replace machines, we can’t train more people … what we do is very complex.”
At the same time the Minnesota Virology/Immunology Unit has been responding to the measles outbreak, it’s also been responding to a mumps outbreak on the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus, providing surge testing for a mumps outbreak in Washington state that recently hit nearly 900 cases, and taking in and testing about 20 specimens a week for Zika virus. All of that is in addition to its more regular duties, like rabies and West Nile monitoring.
In the wake of the measles outbreak, Minnesota Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger, MD, MSPH, called on state policymakers to create and support a public health response contingency fund. Such a bill was introduced into the Minnesota House of Representatives for consideration in May.
“Our commissioner always says that data are the coins of public health,” Bartkus said. “And it’s the public health lab that creates that data.”
As of late May, Strain said the Minnesota measles outbreak — which exceeded total U.S. cases for all of 2016 — seemed to be entering a “tapering phase.” As she said that, however, she paused — and quickly added “we all just knocked on wood.”
For more on the Minnesota measles outbreak, visit www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles.