Category Archives: Corona Virus

Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have passed 411.9 million globally, according to Johns Hopkins University. The number of confirmed deaths has now passed 5.81 million. More than 10.35 billion vaccination doses have been administered globally, according to Our World in Data.

Singapore's Health Sciences Authority says it has granted interim authorization for Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine.

South Korea is set to begin giving out fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines by the end of February. The country will also supply millions of additional home test kits.

China's medical products regulator has given conditional approval for Pfizer's COVID-19 drug Paxlovid. The move makes Paxlovid the first oral pill specifically developed to treat the disease to be cleared in the country.

A US decision on the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children aged from six months to four years has been delayed for at least two months after the country's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it needed more data.

Viet Nam is set to end COVID-19 restrictions on international passenger flights from 15 February.

The Cook Islands, the South Pacific nation that has not experienced COVID-19 in its community, is preparing for its first cases after an infected traveller visited, Prime Minister Mark Brown, said yesterday.

The US FDA has authorized Eli Lilly's COVID-19 antibody drug for people aged 12 and older who are at risk of severe illness.

Norway is set to scrap nearly all its remaining COVID-19 lockdown measures, as high levels of infections are unlikely to put health services at risk, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stre said on Saturday.

Belgium has also announced further easing of its COVID-19 restrictions, with nightclubs reopening and concerts allowed with a standing audience.

And in France, people will no longer have to wear masks indoors in public places where entry is subject to the COVID-19 vaccine pass.

Hong Kong SAR, China, is being overwhelmed by an "onslaught" of COVID-19 infections, leader Carrie Lam has warned.

Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people in selected countries.

Image: Our World in Data

The COVID Response Alliance to Social Entrepreneurs - soon to continue its work as the Global Alliance for Social Entrepreneurship - was launched in April 2020 in response to the devastating effects of the pandemic. Co-founded by the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship together with Ashoka, Echoing Green, GHR Foundation, Skoll Foundation, and Yunus Social Business.

The Alliance provides a trusted community for the worlds leading corporations, investors, governments, intermediaries, academics, and media who share a commitment to social entrepreneurship and innovation.

Since its inception, it has since grown to become the largest multi-stakeholder coalition in the social enterprise sector: its 90+ members collectively support over 100,000 social entrepreneurs across the world. These entrepreneurs, in turn, have a direct or indirect impact on the lives of an estimated 2 billion people.

Together, they work to (i) mobilize support for social entrepreneurs and their agendas; (ii) take action on urgent global agendas using the power of social entrepreneurship, and (iii) share insights from the sector so that social entrepreneurs can flourish and lead the way in shaping an inclusive, just and sustainable world.

The Alliance works closely together with member organizations Echoing Green and GHR Foundation, as well as the Centre for the New Economy and Society on the roll out of its 2022 roadmap (soon to be announced).

World Health Organization (WHO) Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan said on Friday that the world is not yet at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic as there will be more variants.

"We have seen the virus evolve, mutate ... so we know there will be more variants, more variants of concern, so we are not at the end of the pandemic," Swaminathan told reporters in South Africa, where she was visiting vaccine manufacturing facilities with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

During the same visit, Dr Tedros urged African nations to back efforts to create an African medicine regulator. Tedros said that continental institutions like the planned African Medicines Agency are important because they could cut costs and help fight counterfeit or poor-quality drugs.

Indonesia will urge the G20 group of leading economies to establish a global body that can dispense emergency funds during a health crisis, functioning in a similar way to international financial institutions, its health minister said on Friday.

Under the current system, countries are "basically on their own" if they need emergency funds, vaccines, therapeutics or diagnostics, Health Minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin told a news conference, adding that Indonesia will seek to change this during its G20 presidency this year.

"There is no global health institution that has enough power or money to jump in and help, you are basically on your own," he said.

The idea adds to a proposal by Indonesia and the US last year to create an international pandemic response system.

Written by

Joe Myers, Writer, Formative Content

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

See more here:

COVID-19: Top news stories about the pandemic on 14 February | World Economic Forum - World Economic Forum

A recent study carried out by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), based on data provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), estimates different timeframes for coronavirus contagion depending on the type of face mask a person is using. These range from 27 minutes for somebody wearing a cloth mask to up to 25 hours for someone wearing a perfectly adjusted N95 mask (the US equivalent of an FFP2 in Europe).

In a closed space, without ventilation and no masks, an infected person can pass the virus to another in 15 minutes.

A well-fitted N95 mask lets a maximum of 10% unfiltered air through. If two people are using them, infection is unlikely.

*All infection times in this infographic have been calculated in an enclosed, unventilated space with a distance of two meters between the two people.

In a closed space, without ventilation and no masks, an infected person can pass the virus to another in 15 minutes.

A well-fitted N95 mask lets a maximum of 10% unfiltered air through. If two people are using them, infection is unlikely.

*All infection times in this infographic have been calculated in an enclosed, unventilated space with a distance of two meters between the two people.

In a closed space, without ventilation and no masks, an infected person can pass the virus to another in 15 minutes.

A well-fitted N95 mask lets a maximum of 10% unfiltered air through. If two people are using them, infection is unlikely.

*All infection times in this infographic have been calculated in an enclosed, unventilated space with a distance of two meters between the two people.

In a closed space, without ventilation and no masks, an infected person can pass the virus to another in 15 minutes.

A well-fitted N95 mask lets a maximum of 10% unfiltered air through. If two people are using them, infection is unlikely.

*All infection times in this infographic have been calculated in an enclosed, unventilated space with a distance of two meters between the two people.

These masks were in short supply in the early days of the pandemic, but now that they are commonplace, scientists and health authorities have been stressing the importance of using this kind of effective protection against coronavirus, pointing out that masks made of cloth and surgical masks are not equipped with a facial seal and are loose-fitting, thereby allowing a large quantity of aerosols to escape.

In the United States, the Joe Biden administration announced in January it would distribute 400 million N95 face masks to people across the country free of charge as part of the presidents strategy to combat the spread of the more-contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus. Since December, anybody wishing to attend the theater or a concert or use public transport in Italy has been obliged to wear a face mask of this grade to be granted access. In Spain, sales of FFP2 and FFP3 masks rose by 642% between November 2021 and January 2022 according to medical material distributor Cofares, while some Spanish regions such as Andalusia and Catalonia have asked that the wearing of this type of mask be made obligatory on public transport and during visits to senior homes.

The lack of protection against Covid-19 afforded by surgical masks is due to their loose-fitting design. Masks of this type are used to contain splashes on both sides of the fabric. During a surgical procedure, for example, they prevent the patient from being contaminated by drops of saliva from the mouths of the surgeons when they are talking, while also protecting the medical personnel from blood and other fluids from the patient. Furthermore, the filters in these masks only trap particles of between three and seven microns in size. This means that bacteria and other large aerosols are retained by the mask, but other finer aerosols, such as those that transmit the coronavirus, are able to get through.

Their loose design allows for up to 50% of the air (and aerosols) that we breathe to enter and escape.

These are designed specifically to stop infectious droplets that we emit when we speak, cough and sneeze, but not to trap the air nor the possible infectious aerosols.

During their production and professional use, tests are not carried out on the fit, only on the filtering material.

*Micron: a thousandth of a millimeter

Most of the aerosols that we breathe are smaller than 3 microns. Surgical masks do not trap these, but well-fitted N95 masks do.

Their loose design allows for up to 50% of the air (and aerosols) that we breathe to enter and escape.

These are designed specifically to stop infectious droplets that we emit when we speak, cough and sneeze, but not to trap the air nor the possible infectious aerosols.

During their production and professional use, tests are not carried out on the fit, only on the filtering material.

*Micron: a thousandth of a millimeter

Most of the aerosols that we breathe are smaller than 3 microns. Surgical masks do not trap these, but well-fitted N95 masks do.

Their loose design allows for up to 50% of the air (and aerosols) that we breathe to enter and escape.

These are designed specifically to stop infectious droplets that we emit when we speak, cough and sneeze, but not to trap the air nor the possible infectious aerosols.

During their production and professional use, tests are not carried out on the fit, only on the filtering material.

Most of the aerosols that we breathe are smaller than 3 microns. Surgical masks do not trap these, but well-fitted N95 masks do.

*Micron: a thousandth of a millimeter

These are designed specifically to stop infectious droplets that we emit when we speak, cough and sneeze, but not to trap the air nor the possible infectious aerosols.

Their loose design allows for up to 50% of the air (and aerosols) that we breathe to enter and escape.

*Micron: a thousandth

of a millimeter

During their production and professional use, tests are not carried out on the fit, only on the filtering material.

Most of the aerosols that we breathe are smaller than 3 microns. Surgical masks do not trap these, but well-fitted N95 masks do.

The N95, which is considered a high-protection mask and used in the prevention of respiratory diseases, is designed to retain fine aerosols. To achieve this, such masks are better adjusted to the contours of the face and have a filter capable of trapping up to 95% of particles measuring three microns (94% in the case of the FFP2). For an FFP2 mask to meet all the regulations you have to perform 15 or 20 different tests. In the case of surgical masks, only four are carried out: filtration of bacteria, respirability, whether or not they contaminated and if they are splash-resistant, explains Jos Mara Lagarn, a researcher at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC).

The fit of a mask and its seal are more important than the filtration efficacy of its component materials when it comes to reducing leakage on the inside of the fabric. Ensuring an optimal fit is also important with these masks, as a gap between mask and face equivalent to as little as 2% of the masks surface would allow up to 50% of air to pass through unfiltered.

Recommendations for a good fit

Beards can

impede a

good fit

The best filtration and facial seal are offered by an N95 mask (N95 in Europe) that is well fitted around the head and the neck.

A knot tied in the bands of the mask improves the fit and reduces the entry and exit of aerosols.

The best recommendation to ensure a good facial seal of a surgical mask is to use a silicone mask fitter.

Recommendations for a good fit

Beards can

impede a

good fit

The best filtration and facial seal are offered by an N95 mask (N95 in Europe) that is well fitted around the head and the neck.

A knot tied in the bands of the mask improves the fit and reduces the entry and exit of aerosols.

The best recommendation to ensure a good facial seal of a surgical mask is to use a silicone mask fitter.

Recommendations for a good fit

The best filtration and facial seal are offered by an N95 mask (N95 in Europe) that is well fitted around the head and the neck.

Beards can

impede a

good fit

A knot tied in the bands of the mask improves the fit and reduces the entry and exit of aerosols.

The best recommendation to ensure a good facial seal of a surgical mask is to use a silicone mask fitter.

Recommendations for a good fit

Beards can

impede a

good fit

A knot tied in the bands of the mask improves the fit and reduces the entry and exit of aerosols.

The best recommendation to ensure a good facial seal of a surgical mask is to use a silicone mask fitter.

The best filtration and facial seal are offered by an N95 mask (N95 in Europe) that is well fitted around the head and the neck.

Tests to measure the concentration of aerosols on the interior and exterior of masks establish the minimum fit factor required to provide effective protection at 100. A good FFP2 mask has a fit factor of over 200; a surgical mask can be as low as two, explains Santos Huertas, director of research and innovation at Spanish occupational accidents and diseases insurer Asepeyo.

The type of fastening a mask has, the researcher explains, is key to ensuring an optimal fit. Masks that fit around the ears have much lower fit factors than those that are attached around the nape of the neck and the crown of the head. However, the fit of masks that use ear supports can be improved by a cardboard or plastic hook that links both straps behind the head. Whichever type of fastening is employed, it is essential to ensure that the nose piece is correctly shaped to the wearers requirement and that the mask fits the overall shape of the users face.

N95 masks are more durable than surgical masks, which lose their efficacy after around four hours of use. A disposable mask has a useful life span of around eight hours, while reusable models can last for 30 hours. Between uses, it is important to ensure that the mask is allowed to dry out, while also checking that it is in good condition, has not been damaged in any way and that its fastenings retain their elasticity.

The maximum usage time for a reusable N95 mask is up to 40 hours, but according to the exposure to the virus, experts consulted say that they can last up to 20 days.

Low exposure to the virus

Ventilated spaces and

with few people.

* Provided that the mask remains dry

and is properly fitted.

High exposure to the virus

Hospitals and areas with high amounts

of people.

Tests carried out with high levels of virus showed that it can remain active up to 72 hours in an N95. Four N95 masks alternated every 72 hours could last up to 20 days.

The maximum usage time for a reusable N95 mask is up to 40 hours, but according to the exposure to the virus, experts consulted say that they can last up to 20 days.

Low exposure to the virus

Ventilated spaces and

with few people.

* Provided that the mask remains dry

and is properly fitted.

High exposure to the virus

Hospitals and areas with high amounts

of people.

Tests carried out with high levels of virus showed that it can remain active up to 72 hours in an N95. Four N95 masks alternated every 72 hours could last up to 20 days.

The maximum usage time for a reusable N95 mask is up to 40 hours, but according to the exposure to the virus, experts consulted say that they can last up to 20 days.

Low exposure to the virus

Ventilated spaces and

with few people.

* Provided that the mask remains dry

and is properly fitted.

High exposure to the virus

Hospitals and areas with high amounts of people.

Four N95 masks alternated every 72 hours could last up to 20 days.

Tests carried out with high levels of virus showed that it can remain active up to 72 hours in an N95.

Here is the original post:

How long does it take to catch coronavirus depending on the type of mask you're wearing? - EL PAS in English

For Immediate Release: February 11, 2022 Statement From: Janet Woodcock, M.D. Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs - Food and Drug Administration

Peter Marks, M.D., PhD. Director - Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been notified by Pfizer that new data have recently emerged regarding its emergency use authorization request for the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age. As part of its rolling submission, the company recently notified the agency of additional findings from its ongoing clinical trial. Based on the agencys preliminary assessment, and to allow more time to evaluate additional data, we believe additional information regarding the ongoing evaluation of a third dose should be considered as part of our decision-making for potential authorization.

Therefore, the FDA is postponing the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting originally scheduled for Feb. 15. This will give the agency time to consider the additional data, allowing for a transparent public discussion as part of our usual scientific and regulatory processes for COVID-19 vaccines. We will provide an update on timing for the advisory committee meeting once we receive additional data on a third dose in this age group from the companys ongoing clinical trial and have an opportunity to complete an updated evaluation.

Since the early days of the pandemic, we have always followed the science in this ever-changing situation. Given the recent omicron surge and the notable increase in hospitalizations in the youngest children to their highest levels during the pandemic so far, we felt it was our responsibility as a public health agency to act with urgency and consider all available options, including requesting that the company provide us with initial data on two doses from its ongoing study. The goal was to understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward with authorizing the use of the vaccine in this age group. Our approach has always been to conduct a regulatory review thats responsive to the urgent public health needs created by the pandemic, while adhering to our rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness. Being able to begin evaluating initial data has been useful in our review of these vaccines, but at this time, we believe additional information regarding the ongoing evaluation of a third dose should be considered.

The agency will ensure the data support effectiveness and safety before authorizing a COVID-19 vaccine for use in our youngest children. In the meantime, the best way to protect children, including when they are at school or daycare, is to practice social distancing and masking in accordance with public health recommendations, and for their family members and caregivers to get vaccinated or receive a booster dose when eligible.

###

Boilerplate

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nations food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

02/11/2022

The rest is here:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Postpones Advisory Committee Meeting to Discuss Request for Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for...

A child wears a KN95 mask for kids in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York. (Tiffany Hagler-Geard/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Each week, we answer frequently asked questions about life during the coronavirus crisis. If you have a question youd like us to consider for a future post, email us at goatsandsoda@npr.org with the subject line Weekly Coronavirus Questions. See an archive of our FAQs here.

Do kids really need masks if theyve been vaccinated and had COVID?

Most kids who were either recently infected or vaccinated should have a strong enough immune response to protect them from getting COVID for several weeks or longer, says Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician at Stanford University.

The combination of being vaccinated and having had COVID induces stronger immunity than just one or the other, he says in an email. Of course, if they are immunocompromised, [the decision not to mask] will be more complicated and parents should consult with their physicians.

In general, though, recent infection and vaccination makes the risk of getting COVID so low that the extra benefit of a mask is negligible, says Seema Lakdawala, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who specializes in respiratory viruses with pandemic potential.

That could change over the next year if a new variant comes along that doesnt care very much about your recent omicron infection, says Dr. Emily Landon, an infectious disease specialist and chief hospital epidemiologist at University of Chicago Medicine.

But for now, if your vaccinated kid has recently recovered from COVID, the choice of whether to mask is up to you and your child, as long as youre not violating any mandates.

Many parents in this situation choose to keep masking their children because its part of the social contract of all of us trying to get through this together, Lakdawala says. If one kid stops wearing a mask to school, another may decide to opt out as well, she points out, since keeping track of everyone who got COVID and who is vaccinated is not feasible.

If you and your child decide to forgo masking, make sure your child is not pressuring classmates to take theirs off.

If your kid is the only one not wearing a mask and theyre trying to push other kids to not wear masks, even though it may be best for them to [mask], she says, thats not OK. So its really important to talk with your kids in mask-optional settings about not trying to influence others and to be really tolerant of what they need.

So if I really dont want my elementary school-age kids to get COVID, whats the best way to protect them?

First, get your 5- to 12-year-old vaccinated, doctors and experts say. In a study published online Wednesday, scientists in Israel found that vaccinated children were half as likely to catch COVID as their unvaccinated peers. But this protection was short-term. After about five months, the rate of infection was almost the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated teenagers.

Even as case rates are plunging in some areas, multi-layered strategies are still necessary. Lakdawala compares the situation to a battlefield.

If were at war with the virus, the vaccine is our armor, she says. That helps us from getting badly beaten. But it doesnt help us win, so we also need a mask as a shield that helps us block the virus, and then other ways to fight back like ventilation and ways to clean the air as a sword.

Parents should check whether their schools are up-to-date on their ventilation and air cleaning systems. That could include opening doors and windows at certain times of the day when classrooms are busiest, according to Lakdawala, and using portable air cleaners or a built-in air filtration system. Teachers wearing masks can also make a dent in classroom transmission. According to a study from Germany published in December, teachers wearing masks at school was a more effective strategy at reducing transmission of the virus than students wearing masks.

Everyone wants kids to be in school and learning and interacting safely, Lakdawala says. So we need to continue to think about all of the ways to reduce risk in all environments.

And what about masks for the kids?

Many experts have recommended upgrading to high-filtration respirators during the omicron surge. Indeed, these respirators (N95s, KN95s, KF94s) may be the only masks that are helpful against omicron.

N95 masks arent available for children, but KN95 and KF94s are. Such masks could help kids in situations that call for added caution. If your kids environment includes spending time with anyone at higher risk of complications from COVID, for example, keep that person in mind when making decisions about masking, advises Landon.

If their best friend has Type 1 diabetes and has been battling some infections recently or has a primary immunodeficiency and has to take immunoglobulin infusions, then your kid should be [extra careful], she says. If your kid wants to keep being friends with that kid, they need to wear a mask all the time.

But for many families, KN95s or KF94s arent a viable option. They are much more expensive than cloth or surgical masks and less reusable than cloth masks. On top of that, a child needs to wear the mask consistently to make it effective.

Sheila Mulrooney Eldred is a freelance health journalist in Minneapolis. She has written about COVID-19 for many publications, including The New York Times, Kaiser Health News, Medscape and The Washington Post. More at sheilaeldred.pressfolios.com. On Twitter: @milepostmedia.

[Sign up for Alaska Public Medias daily newsletter to get our top stories delivered to your inbox.]

See the article here:

Coronavirus FAQ: What's the best way to protect school-age kids from COVID? - Alaska Public Media News

A new study has found that calling COVID-19 the Chinese virus a term rejected by health officials and tied to antagonism against people of Asian descent did affect views of Americans who saw the term in a news article.

But the effect was relatively small compared to the pre-existing attitudes of people who encountered the term.

Researchers at The Ohio State University found that people who read the term Chinese virus in a fabricated media report about the coronavirus were more likely to later blame China for the pandemic than people who read the same report that used the correct term, COVID-19.

The effect was found in participants regardless of their political party and ideology, although the effect was modest.

What we found is that the political views people brought to the study overwhelmed what we did in the study itself, said Lanier Frush Holt, lead author of the study and associate professor of communication at Ohio State.

Findings showed that Republicans and conservatives were more likely to blame China for the pandemic than were Democrats and liberals, regardless of which story they read.

Its not surprising that peoples pre-existing beliefs had such a huge impact compared to reading a single article, said study co-author Brad Bushman, professor of communication at Ohio State.

But the fact that reading the article did have some effect on peoples views, regardless of their pre-existing beliefs, is still troubling and shows the importance of how the media frames issues.

The findings were published recently in the journal Media Psychology. Sophie Kjaervik, a doctoral student in communication at Ohio State, was also a co-author.

The study involved 614 American adults who participated online from April 15 to May 21, 2020, when stay-at-home orders were in place in many U.S. states to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two fabricated news stories, supposedly from National Public Radio. Both articles discussed theories about the origins of the coronavirus, as well as the development of the vaccine. But one story used the term COVID-19 virus while the other used the term Chinese virus.

After reading the article, participants rated how authoritative, believable, credible, informative and persuasive they thought the article was which the researchers combined into an overall favorability rating.

In the second part of the study, participants completed surveys measuring prejudice against Chinese- and Asian-Americans, their political party and ideology, and how much they blamed China for the pandemic.

Results showed that Democrats and liberals viewed the Chinese virus article more negatively than the COVID-19 virus article. In contrast, Republicans and conservatives rated the two articles about the same.

Which article the participants read was not related to measures of prejudice, but those who read the Chinese virus article were slightly more likely to blame China for the spread of the virus.

Overall, Republicans and conservatives scored higher than Democrats and liberals on measures of prejudiced attitudes against Chinese- and Asian-Americans, regardless of which story they read.

In addition, Republicans and conservatives were more likely than Democrats and liberals to blame China for the pandemic, regardless of which story they read.

The results suggest that the biggest impact of reading the story may have been how it triggered pre-existing partisan leanings, Holt said.

We showed that just a tiny dose of reading one article activated what people already believed, he said.

Those who were predisposed to believe that China was responsible for the virus liked the article that used Chinese virus and those who didnt have those pre-existing beliefs did not.

Bushman said the findings also underscore why the World Health Organization issued a statement in 2015 recommending that infectious diseases should not be named after geographic locations to minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations, economies and people.

How you frame a deadly virus is not a trivial point and can have effects in how people are viewed and treated in the real world, he said.

Thats what we found in this study and thats why the World Health Organization put out that statement.

Go here to read the rest:

The real-world effects of calling the COVID-19 virus the Chinese virus - The Ohio State University News

Further information on the deaths reported by NSWDo you have a link or any information regarding further details on recent NSW covid deaths that was promised to be released by Dr Chant?

-Unable to find information

Each day, around midday AEDT, NSW Health sends out a media release with a detailed look at the figures that day. These are also uploaded to the NSW Health website - you can find today's here.

Today, NSW reportedthe deaths of 16 people with COVID-19 12 men and four women.

Three people were in their 70s, seven people were in their 80s, and six people were in their 90s.

Three people had received three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, seven people had received two doses, one person had received one dose, and five people were not vaccinated.

Three people were from the Shellharbour region, three people were from south-western Sydney, two people were from southern Sydney, two people were from northern NSW, two people were from Sydneys Inner West, one person was from western Sydney, one person was from the Newcastle area, one person was from the Port Macquarie area and one person was from Inner Sydney.

This brings the total number of COVID-19 related deaths in NSW since the beginning of the pandemic to 1,745.

Go here to see the original:

COVID live updates: All the coronavirus news you need in one place - ABC News

In his first interview since being deported from Australia last month, Novak Djokovic reiterated his stance on not getting vaccinated against COVID-19 and said he would opt out of playing in future majors that would require him getting inoculated.

"Yes, that is the price that I'm willing to pay," Djokovic told the BCC in a story published early Tuesday morning.

Djokovic, the No. 1 player in the world, was at the center of a global media storm and an international legal battle in January after receiving a medical exemption to play in the Australian Open and then having his visa revoked by the Australian government. Ultimately, he was forced to leave the country and was unable to defend his title at the year's first Grand Slam.

The 34-year-old told the BBC he isn't against vaccinations -- "I have never said that I am part of that movement," he noted -- but believes in personal choice. He said that is more important than potentially winning his 21st major trophy.

1 Related

"Because the principles of decision-making on my body are more important than any title or anything else," Djokovic said.

"I'm trying to be in tune with my body as much as I possibly can," he said, adding that he has always been careful about everything he ingests. "Based on all the information that I got, I decided not to take the vaccine, as of today."

Rafael Nadal won the Australian Open title in Djokovic's absence and broke the tie he held with Djokovic and Roger Federer for most major titles by a male player.

In his documentation for a medical exemption, Djokovic had claimed to have had the virus in December, but the timeline of infection raised suspicions. He addressed the doubts toward his claims in the interview.

"I understand that there is a lot of criticism, and I understand that people come out with different theories on how lucky I was or how convenient it is," Djokovic said. "But no one is lucky and convenient of getting COVID. Millions of people have and are still struggling with COVID around the world. So I take this very seriously. I really don't like someone thinking I've misused something or in my own favor, in order to, you know, get a positive PCR test and eventually go to Australia."

Djokovic said he was "really sad and disappointed" about the way his time in Melbourne ended.

He is next expected to play at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, California, in March.

Djokovic's status for the French Open, the year's next Grand Slam set to begin May 22, remains unclear. Vaccination rules in France could change in the months before Roland Garros, possibly allowing him to play. The country has started to ease some of its health and travel restrictions as it recovers from a record surge in infections fueled by the highly contagious omicron variant.

The French government last week gave an end-of-March, beginning-of-April timeframe for the possible lifting of its vaccine requirement that, at the moment, puts unvaccinated players at risk of missing the French Open.

From Tuesday, anyone who is not vaccinated against the coronavirus will need to show proof they tested positive for COVID-19 within the previous four months -- down from the previous six-month window -- in order to enter sports venues in France. The French law, which operates under the assumption that you have some protection from the virus if you've recently had it, aims to bar unvaccinated individuals from stadiums, restaurants, bars and other public places.

Djokovic has previously said that he tested positive in mid-December. If the four-month requirement stays in force, it is likely to rule him out of the French Open unless he gets vaccinated or tests positive again.

Djokovic is also the defending champion at Wimbledon, which will begin in late June. But so far, England has allowed exemptions from various coronavirus regulations for visiting athletes, if they remain at their accommodations when not competing or training.

The United States Tennis Association, which runs the US Open, has said it will follow government rules on vaccination status.

Information from The Associated Press was included in this report.

The rest is here:

Novak Djokovic says he will opt out of future Grand Slams with COVID-19 vaccine mandates - ESPN

A recent preprint that combines data from several other studies suggests that lockdowns early in the pandemic didnt reduce COVID-19 deaths.

However, experts say this nonpeer-reviewed paper has serious flaws that limit the conclusions being made by the authors.

This report on the effect of lockdowns does not significantly advance our understanding of the relative effectiveness of the plethora of public health measures adopted by different countries to limit COVID-19 transmission, Neil Ferguson, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, said in a statement.

The preprint was published on the website of the Johns Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.

All three of the papers authors are economists not medical doctors, epidemiologists, or public health experts and only one is from Johns Hopkins University.

The paper is a meta-analysis, which combines the results of independent studies to get a better sense of the overall effect of an intervention such as a medication, other treatment, or a public health response.

This type of analysis involves more than just combining data from separate studies. Researchers use statistical methods to merge the findings while considering differences in how those studies were carried out.

In addition, a well-designed meta-analysis has to use the best statistical methods and needs to include all of the appropriate studies in the analysis.

Seth Flaxman, PhD, a statistician also at Imperial College London, said in the same statement that the authors of the preprint did not do the latter.

They systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, he said, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics.

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia, agreed.

The included studies certainly arent representative of research as a whole on lockdowns not even close, he wrote on Twitter. Many of the most robust papers on the impact of lockdowns are, by definition, excluded.

In addition to excluding several important studies, the authors use a definition of lockdown that some experts find a little too broad.

The most inconsistent aspect [of the preprint] is the reinterpreting of what a lockdown is, Samir Bhatt, DPhil, a professor of statistics and public health at Imperial College London, said in the statement.

The preprint authors define a lockdown as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention, which includes stay-at-home orders as well as physical distancing, handwashing, and others.

This would make a mask-wearing policy a lockdown, said Bhatt.

Many scientists have stopped using lockdown because it isnt a policy, said Bhatt. It is an umbrella word for a set of policies designed to slow the community spread of the coronavirus.

So a lockdown in the United States and a lockdown in the United Kingdom would look very different. In fact, a lockdown in one U.S. state would look very different from one in another state.

All of this adds up to a very weird review paper, wrote Meyerowitz-Katz on Twitter.

Bhatt also found the preprint concerning because it focused on the early part of the pandemic, even though countries and local governments have been using nonpharmaceutical interventions including stay-at-home orders throughout the pandemic.

[The study] looks at a tiny slice of the pandemic, he said. There have been many lockdowns since globally with far better data.

Other studies including this one and this one have looked at later periods during the pandemic. These studies also found that stronger government measures reduced COVID-19 deaths more.

One challenge with estimating the impact of mitigation strategies on COVID-19 deaths is that these measures are intended to slow transmission of the virus. The impact on hospitalizations and deaths comes later.

Because theres a lag from infection to death, to see the effect of lockdowns on COVID deaths, we need to wait about two or three weeks, said Flaxman in the statement.

Ferguson said in the statement that many studies of the effects of [nonpharmaceutical interventions] fail to recognize this important issue.

Another thing that researchers have to take into account is that stay-at-home orders are rarely imposed in isolation. They may follow or occur at the same time as less restrictive interventions, such as mask policies, capacity restrictions, and school closures.

In an earlier study, Flaxman and Bhatt wrote that it is difficult to disentangle the individual effect sizes of each intervention because countries implemented these in rapid succession.

Analysis has been further complicated by the accumulation of immunity from infection and vaccination in populations, together with the emergence of new COVID-19 variants, Ferguson said in the statement.

Other factors that can impact COVID-19 death rates include hospital capacity and the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, all of which vary widely across countries.

Olga Yakusheva, PhD, an economist in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, and her colleagues took some of these issues into account during their study on the benefits and costs of mitigation measures early in the pandemic in the United States.

Their analysis looked at the impact of the full set of public health measures, said Yakusheva, which included stay-at-home orders and other measures such as mask policies, physical distancing, and school closures.

However, they didnt just focus on the impact these measures had on COVID-19 deaths. They also looked at the adverse impact of the economic downturn that occurred as a result of these measures.

Similar research done before has focused on the financial impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures, but Yakusheva and her colleagues estimated the number of deaths that might occur as a result of this economic disruption.

These deaths might result from the loss of a job or income that leads to diminished access to health insurance or the inability to buy essentials such as food or medication all of which can impact a persons health.

The impetus for this paper was to humanize the economic damage, said Yakusheva, so we can more effectively use the same language to talk about the costs and the benefits of the lockdown.

The researchers estimate that during the first 6 months of the pandemic, between 800,000 and 1.7 million lives were saved as a result of these health measures.

These are the people who would have potentially died from COVID had they not been protected by the strong public health response, said Yakusheva.

In contrast, they estimate that between 57,000 and 245,000 deaths potentially occurred due to the economic downturn during the first part of 2020.

When you look at it in terms of lives saved versus lives lost, it does seem that the lockdowns were more protective of human lives in comparison to the economic damage they caused, said Yakusheva.

In this study, the researchers attempt to address one of the many nuances in the debate over stay-at-home orders how do you balance the benefits and costs of these kinds of measures?

Its never as easy as saying lockdowns are good or bad.

In making public health decisions, scientists and health officials look at the entire body of research to figure out what types of mitigation strategies work best and in what circumstances.

And also, how long these measures should be put in place.

Yogesh Joshi, PhD, an associate professor in the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, and his colleagues looked at the impact of stay-at-home orders on mobility.

These types of mitigation strategies are intended to slow the spread of the virus by encouraging people to stay home, which reduces their interactions with others.

In Joshis study, he and his colleagues found that stay-at-home orders reduced mobility in most countries they looked at.

But after a while, people began moving around more in the community, even though the stay-at-home order continued. One of their analyses showed that on average, by 7 or 8 weeks after the start of the lockdown, mobility was essentially back where it started.

When lockdowns extend for long periods of time, then the past data shows us that mobility levels start rebounding, said Joshi.

While they didnt look specifically at the effectiveness of shorter stay-at-home orders sometimes called circuit breakers Joshi speculates that shorter lockdowns should yield higher compliance, in terms of [people] staying at home.

Health officials can use mobility data to help make decisions about stay-at-home orders.

For example, said Joshi, if people in a community have already voluntarily restricted their movement in response to the high spread of the coronavirus, imposing a stay-at-home order may not have much of an effect.

Officials might also want to emphasize less restrictive mitigation measures first such as mask policies and business capacity limits which can be effective when put in place early during a surge.

Our research finds that lockdowns have an effect, but that effect wears out over time, said Joshi.

Further research may be needed to investigate whether countries where lockdowns were repeatedly imposed continue to exhibit the same type of response to lockdowns each time around, or whether there is a wear-out across lockdowns as well, he added.

Yakusheva emphasized that her paper is just one of many that helps to clarify the benefits and costs of COVID-19 mitigation measures.

My paper, just as much as anybody elses paper, is never a final answer to this question, she said. Its a piece of the puzzle, and it should be taken into consideration in the context of all of the other research.

See the original post here:

Local Lockdowns and COVID-19: How Effective Were They? - Healthline

Avery County Government would like to share that Avery County Emergency Management and the Health Department are working with local officials, Cannon Hospital, Avery County School System, 911 Communications, EMS Ambulance Services, and fire and rescue to ensure and protect the health and well-being of Avery County citizens.

For the latest updates click here for the NCDHHS state web site, for information.

Health officials continue to encourage good respiratory etiquette and hand hygiene. These are the best preventive measures for this virus. These include covering coughs and sneezes, washing hands frequently with soap and water, staying home when you feel sick or when you have a fever and cleaning surfaces with sanitizing cleaners.

The Avery Health department began vaccines on 1/12/2021 98547 first doses administered as of February 4,2022 9217 (52.0%) fully vaccinated Avery citizens as of of February 4,2022

The County of Avery's top priority is and always will be the safety and security of the county while providing the best service available. While it has been necessary to make some changes to the county's services please know that we will resume all regular services as soon as possible.Update 7/30/2021Governor Roy Cooper and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mandy K. Cohen, M.D. announced that state government would begin verifying vaccination status of its workers. Employees not vaccinated are required to wear a mask and be tested at least once a week. Todays announcement comes as North Carolinas latest upswing in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations is driven by unvaccinated North Carolinians.

Until more people get the vaccine, we will continue living with the very real threat of serious disease, and we will continue to see more dangerous and contagious variants like Delta, said Governor Cooper.Click Here for the FAQ Document

Update 6/29/2021Declaration Of A Local State Of Emergency - This is an update of the original Emergency Ordinance

Update 5/14/2021Today, Governor Roy Cooper and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mandy K. Cohen, M.D. shared an update on the states COVID-19 progress. Following yesterdays guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that fully vaccinated individuals can safely do most activities without wearing a mask or the need to social distance from others, the state will remove its indoor mask mandate for most settings. Additionally, the state will lift all mass gathering limits and social distancing requirements. These changes are now in effect as of 1:30 PM today.Click Here for the FAQ Document

Update 5/14/2021 Avery County governmental offices are now open, except the senior center they will resume regular services soon.Senior Center Schedule

The Avery County Senior Center will continue offering Drive-Thru Meal Service at the Center.; Clients can drive to the side door of the dining area and pick up a hot meal. Clients must be registered to receive meal, and are asked to call and RSVP (not required) to help with headcount. Home delivered meals will continue as scheduled. For more information, call 828-733-8220

Filing For Unemployment Insurance Benefits Due To COVID-19

This is a link to an adobe document from the office of NC Senator Thom Tillis.Reboot Your Small Business During COVID-19Avery County Chamber Of Commerce Disaster Relief InformationNew website available from VISIT NC and others to assist in the re-opening of hospitality type business and industry for North Carolina. Please share with any and all. Spread the word!!https://countonmenc.org/ [countonmenc.org]NC COVID-19 Rapid Recovery for Small Business WebsiteNew Grant Program Accepting Applications to Help Businesses and Nonprofits Hurt by COVID-19

Visit link:

Corona Virus Update, Currently There Are 308 active ...

Unknown lineages of the virus that causes COVID-19 have been found in New York City's sewage, raising new concerns that the novel coronavirus is finding ways to escape immunity.

The lineages don't seem poised to break out and cause a new surge at this point. Their proportion has risen and fallen along with New York's case rates, and there's no sign that these versions of the virus are becoming more common over time. But the mutations seen in the mystery lineages are similar to those that allow the omicron variant to partially escape immunity from vaccination and previous infection, said John Dennehy, a virologist at The Graduate Center at City University New York, who co-led the research.

"The fact that the omicron variant came from somewhere unknown and that it shares quite a few of its mutations with the unknown variant we see in New York City, that does pose a pretty serious concern that whatever we're seeing could find the right combination of mutations that would make it highly transmissible," Dennehy told Live Science.

Related: Coronavirus variants: Here's how the SARS-CoV-2 mutants stack up

Also troubling: The researchers don't know where the new viral lineages come from. The lineages are found only in limited areas of the city, and they don't seem to be spreading from neighborhood to neighborhood. They might arise from chronically infected humans or perhaps from an animal reservoir but what animal? So far, there's no firm evidence for any option.

"Nothing makes perfect sense," said Marc Johnson, a virologist at the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Many cities monitor wastewater to try to track the amount of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the community. Because people begin shedding virus in fecal material before they feel sick or get tested, wastewater levels of the virus precede rises in cases that show up from testing by about three weeks, Johnson said.

But relatively few places do genetic sequencing of the virus material found in wastewater. Dennehy started working on genetic sequencing in New York after the alpha variant made clear that coronavirus mutations were going to be a force to be reckoned with. After Dennehy and his colleagues Monica Trujillo, also at CUNY, and Davida Smyth, now at Texas A&M San Antonio, appeared on an episode of the popular podcast This Week in Virology in April 2021, Johnson got in touch. He'd been doing similar sequencing in Missouri and was losing sleep at night over viral RNA sequences that didn't match anything in global databases of coronavirus variants.

"I was going crazy," Johnson told Live Science.

The Missouri variants disappeared in late April 2021, never to be seen again. But the researchers began to collaborate on more thorough sequencing of viral RNA found in New York City, wondering if they'd find the same sequences they'd seen in Missouri. They didn't. But they did find a cluster of completely new unknown sequences.

The researchers expanded their efforts, testing wastewater from all of the city's 14 wastewater treatment plants two times a month, ultimately building a record spanning from January 2021 to the present.

The researchers use a technique that doesn't allow them to sequence an entire viral genome, but which focuses on about half of the spike protein that the virus uses to get into cells.This region contains a key area called the receptor-binding domain (RBD). Many of the mutations that allow omicron to evade antibodies from vaccines or non-omicron infections sit on the RBD. So, too, do the mutations seen in the lineages found in the New York City wastewater. (The researchers use the word "lineages" to avoid confusion with the term "variants of concern" as used by the World Health Organization. But, Dennehy said, genetically speaking, they're the same concept: Sequences representing unique replicating populations of virus that are genetically related to one another.)

Related: 11 surprising facts about the immune system

The researchers studied four of these mystery lineages, dubbed WNY1, WNY2, WNY3 and WNY4. They found that all had abilities to partially or completely evade antibodies that easily snag the original SAR-CoV-2 virus. While blood plasma from vaccinated people or people with previous infections could partially neutralize all four lineages, this neutralization was reduced compared with the original virus.

"They were mutations exactly where you'd expect to find mutations if the virus were trying to evade an immune response," Johnson said.

So where are these mystery linages coming from? The researchers checked 5,000 other wastewater samples from around the globe and found the lineages only in seven samples, all from New York State. Whatever they are, they're homegrown.

There are a few hypotheses, none of them entirely satisfactory. The first is that they're coming from unsampled human infections. Only between 2.6% and 12.9% of New York City cases are sequenced at any given time, so it's entirely possible that rare variants of the virus could sneak under the radar. Perhaps the lineages are versions of the virus that infect the gut and aren't often found in the nose or throat, where PCR swabs go.

But there are problems with these possibilities. A few studies have compared virus from the gut with virus from the nose and throat, and so far, no one's seen a difference between the two, CUNY's Trujillo told Live Science. Also, the geographical range of the viral lineages is limited they're found in the catchment areas of only three of the 14 wastewater treatment plants in the city. If the source of the virus is humans, they're humans who don't move around much.

"We were thinking about humans that might be bedridden," Smyth told Live Science. "So long-term facility patients that are perhaps not mobile."

But that would be strange too. "It would be weird that it would spread within a local population and not go anywhere else," Johnson said.

Another possibility is that the carrier of these cryptic lineages isn't human. The mutations seen in the clusters are seen in a region of the genome associated with the virus becoming more adept at infecting rodents (which aren't easily infected by the original coronavirus). New York City's rats would be an appealing target for blame. There are a lot of them, they live in the sewers, and they don't travel far.

But the researchers could find no smoking gun linking rats to the variant. The team sequenced the wastewater for animal genes, essentially looking to find out who poops in the sewers besides people. Other than genes from the animals people eat for food (cows, pigs, chickens), the researchers found evidence of cat, dog and rat genetic material in the sewers. But none were highly prevalent. And the wastewater treatment plant with the highest proportion of mystery coronavirus had the lowest proportion of rat genes some weeks, rat genes weren't even detectable.

Meanwhile, the stray cat population probably isn't big enough to sustain the amount of transmission the researchers inferred from the wastewater, and pet cats don't interact often with other pet cats either, Johnson said. Dogs are known to get COVID-19, but these mutations haven't been seen in dog virus cases before. And it would be very strange if a version of COVID-19 were circulating in dogs but not humans, Smyth said, given how close New Yorkers are to their pups.

The answer to the mystery may lie in sequencing more viral genomes from more animals on a regular basis. Smyth, in Texas, is working to get access to petting zoos to see if she can find new viral variants in different species. Testing the sewage upstream from the wastewater treatment plant in order to narrow down the source to a smaller area would also be helpful, Dennehy said, but much of that work is now moving into the purview of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), so Dennehy and his team will no longer have much access to upstream wastewater sources.

The omicron variant seemed to appear out of nowhere: It evolved from an earlier lineage than the delta variant that was, at the time, dominant. Its origin is a mystery. To Dennehy, Johnson and their colleagues, the origin of the next variant will remain a mystery, too, unless a more robust effort is put into place to understand where variants come from. Scientists already take regular samples of influenza from bird populations and raise the red flag when new strains that could potentially jump to people start circulating. Something similar may be possible with wastewater and regular animal sampling for SARS-CoV-2 if research agencies prioritize funding that kind of science.

"What we are looking at here is the mechanism or potential mechanism through which different variants arise," Trujillo said. "This is where we should be doing the research."

The findings appeared Feb. 3 in the journal Nature Communications.

Originally published on Live Science.

See original here:

Mystery lineages of coronavirus are popping up in NYC sewage - Livescience.com