Thursday, February 2, 2023

February 2, 2023: Johns Hopkins COVID 19 Situation Report

COVID-19 Situation Report

Weekly updates on COVID-19 epidemiology, science, policy, and other news you can use.

Click to Subscribe

Announcements

CALL FOR PAPERS In 2023, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security journal, Health Security, will issue a special feature that considers threat agnostic approaches to biodefense and public health. We encourage submissions of original research articles, case studies, and commentaries that explore policy gaps, data and data analysis, and implementation, among potential topics. The deadline is March 31, 2023. For more information, visit: https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/journal/call-for-papers/call-for-papers.html

In this issue

> COVID-19 remains international emergency, WHO says, begins discussions on future pandemic preparedness

> US to end emergency declarations on COVID-19 in May; Americans face changes to pandemic-related healthcare coverage

> US House Republicans take action to immediately end pandemic emergency, investigate pandemic fraud

> US FDA advisory committee supports harmonizing COVID-19 vaccines, moving toward annual shots for many

> Positive COVID-19 test no longer needed to access antivirals; concerns raised over potential for viral mutations after Lagrevio treatment

> US FDA withdraws authorization of Evusheld; US CDC urges those with compromised immune systems to take extra precautions

> What we're reading

> Epi update

COVID-19 remains international emergency, WHO says, begins discussions on future pandemic preparedness

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on January 30 took the advice offered by the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) Emergency Committee (EC) regarding COVID-19 following its 14th meeting last week, announcing that the pandemic remains a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for now but is likely at a “transition point.” The WHO acknowledged that COVID-19 continues to cause a high number of deaths globally, particularly compared to other respiratory diseases; vaccine uptake in low- and middle-income countries remains insufficient; and there remains uncertainty about the possibility of newly emerging variants but recognized the world is in a much better place now than even one year ago, when the Omicron variant of concern was predominant.

In a set of temporary recommendations, the WHO called on nations to continue administering COVID-19 vaccines and incorporating them into routine vaccination programs; improve disease surveillance reporting to the WHO and integrate COVID-19 surveillance into existing systems tracking other disease transmission and viral evolution; improve uptake of and assess the regulatory implications of ending the PHEIC for diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines; maintain strong healthcare systems and prepare for future health emergencies; and continue to combat misinformation, adjust international travel measures based on risk assessments, and support research. The EC will meet again in 3 months to reconsider the public health emergency designation.

In related news, the WHO Executive Board, which is holding its annual meetings this week and next, is considering its role in addressing the next global health emergency and how it will fund those activities. A 10-point proposal on improving preparedness and response to health emergencies presented at the meeting by Dr. Tedros received mixed reviews from WHO member states. Additionally, the WHO released a “zero draft” of a pandemic treaty to its 194 member states this week, setting the stage for negotiations over how the world should respond to future health emergencies. One of the most significant measures in the draft document proposes that the WHO reserve 20% of all newly developed pandemic products—diagnostics, vaccines, treatments, and the like—for distribution in lower-income countries. Overall, the draft lays out recommendations for how to make the response to the next pandemic more equitable.

US to end emergency declarations on COVID-19 in May; Americans face changes to pandemic-related healthcare coverage

US President Joe Biden announced this week that he will end both the national emergency and public health emergency declarations for COVID-19 pandemic on May 11, marking a new phase of the federal pandemic response as some of the flexibilities and requirements instituted in the pandemic’s early days will end.* The announcement was made alongside a statement opposing resolutions proposed by US House of Representative Republicans to immediately end the COVID-19 emergency (more on House Republican actions below), saying an abrupt end to the declarations “would create wide-ranging chaos and uncertainty.” Though many US residents are fully vaccinated against the virus and have largely returned to a normal way of life, an average of more than 500 people die of the disease in the US every day, making COVID-19 a leading cause of death, even among children and young people.

Once the emergencies end, some things for people in the US will change, particularly in healthcare. Many Americans have been able to access COVID-19 tests and treatments free of charge under the emergency declarations, but the end of those means a return to the nation’s typically fractured healthcare system. As such, many people—even some who have health insurance or qualify for Medicare or Medicaid—will be responsible for some or all of the cost of these medical countermeasures. Most people will continue to be able to access vaccines and boosters at no cost, but there is no guarantee of full coverage under private insurance or social safety net programs. To make matters more confusing, benefits may vary by insurer or state. Additionally, hospitals will lose pandemic-related emergency funding, and some healthcare data reporting may no longer be required. Unrelated to the emergencies’ ends, pandemic-era boosts to the nation’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will end this month and continuous Medicaid enrollment will end on March 31.

*Notably, the emergency declaration allowing the US FDA to make emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for COVID-19 medical countermeasures will not end on May 11. The timing to conclude the EUA has yet to be determined.

US House Republicans take action to immediately end pandemic emergency, investigate pandemic fraud

The US House of Representatives’ newly sworn-in Republican majority is swiftly taking actions to reverse or investigate COVID-19 policies from previous years. The House, voting on party lines, recently passed the “Pandemic is Over Act” and the “Freedom for Healthcare Workers Act,” both aimed at bringing certain policies and budget lines for COVID-19 response to a close. The “Freedom for Healthcare Workers Act” would end the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, an action that US President Joe Biden has already stated he would veto should it pass the US Senate. Republicans have long stated their intentions to end many COVID-19 programs and policies, and continue to take action toward doing so, despite an announcement by President Biden this week that he will end some emergency declarations for COVID-19 on May 11 (see story above).

Republicans also have begun investigations into waste, fraud, and abuse of COVID-19 funding. Of the US$5 trillion total spent on emergency relief throughout the pandemic, experts estimate the amount drained by fraud could be anywhere between tens of billions of dollars to more than US$100 billion, but it will take years to understand the total amount.

US FDA advisory committee supports harmonizing COVID-19 vaccines, moving toward annual shots for many

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) met last week to consider streamlining COVID-19 vaccination schedules and formulations. The committee unanimously voted to replace vaccine manufacturers’ (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax) original vaccine formulations targeting only the original wild type virus—currently used for the initial 2-dose series—with the new bivalent shots that target both the original strain and the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. The bivalent vaccines currently are authorized for use as boosters. The change would only affect individuals who have not yet received their initial shots, and there is no timeline on when the switch might occur if the FDA accepts the panel’s nonbinding recommendation. About 69% of the US population has received the full initial vaccine series, and only 15% of the population has gotten a bivalent booster.

While these are some initial steps toward streamlining the COVID-19 vaccination process, there are still many logistical and scientific questions to be answered on how often, how many, and to whom vaccines should be delivered. For many, the newly proposed schedule would follow a model similar to that of annual flu shots, with most receiving an annual COVID-19 vaccine in the fall that has been updated based on the predominantly circulating variant or variants. Some have termed this strategy the “flu-ification” of COVID-19, in that it will be regarded as a seasonal disease. These assumptions may or may not prove to be accurate in the case of COVID-19, as SARS-CoV-2 mutates at a much different rate and with less predictably than the viruses that cause flu. While flu predictions have decades of research to support the selection of the next year’s vaccine strain, SARS-CoV-2 is much less predictable with much less supporting data to make those predictions. It is also unclear whether it will be necessary for everyone to receive a new booster every year. Given existing challenges in the uptake of annual flu vaccines, marketing COVID-19 vaccines on a similar schedule may prove more difficult than anticipated.

Positive COVID-19 test no longer needed to access antivirals; concerns raised over potential for viral mutations after Lagrevio treatment

The US FDA on February 1 revised the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the COVID-19 antivirals Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir and ritonavir) and Lagevrio (molnupiravir), removing the need for individuals to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 before receiving the therapies. Now, healthcare providers can prescribe the drugs to those who have a recent known exposure, are having signs and symptoms, and are at high risk of disease progression but test negative for the virus. Though a positive test is no longer a requirement, the FDA continues to recommend direct testing to help diagnose COVID-19.

The move may be meant to address underuse of Paxlovid, and the much less used Lagevrio, but some experts say the move could lead to overuse of the medications. A new preprint study posted to medRxiv is raising concerns among some about the potential of Lagevrio to cause mutations in SARS-CoV-2 that could be passed along and give rise to new variants. The study, which is not yet peer-reviewed, is the latest of several that could change the risk-benefit calculus for the drug. There is no evidence the mutations have led to the emergence of a circulating variant that is more pathogenic or transmissible, but some say this evidence, along with studies suggesting Lagrevio has limited benefits, call into question whether it should be used.

The Chinese government recently cleared Lagrevio, Paxlovid, and 3 homegrown antivirals for the treatment of COVID-19, but questions remain over how well the Chinese antivirals can minimize severe illness and related deaths and how accessible any of the drugs are to the general population.

US FDA withdraws authorization of Evusheld; US CDC urges those with compromised immune systems to take extra precautions

The US FDA last week withdrew its emergency use authorization (EUA) of Evusheld (tixagevimab co-packaged with cilgavimab) until further notice, as data show the monoclonal antibody is unlikely to be active against the majority of SARS-CoV-2 variants currently circulating in the country. The therapy had been authorized for use as pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19 in people aged 12 years and older who are immunocompromised and not expected to have an adequate response to vaccination, as well as individuals with a history of severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination or who are allergic to certain vaccine components.

The move led the US CDC to recommend those with weakened immune systems take extra precautions to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection and have a care plan that includes quick testing at the onset of symptoms and rapid access to antiviral treatments if they test positive for COVID-19. While immunocompromised individuals should stay up to date on their COVID-19 vaccinations, if possible, including receiving an updated bivalent booster, the CDC also recommends wearing a high-quality and well-fitting mask, maintaining physical distance of 6 feet or more from others, improving indoor ventilation, and practicing frequent handwashing.

What we’re reading

LONG COVID The first in-person long COVID summit in the US was held last week in Richmond, Virginia, hosted by US Senator Tim Kaine and the US HHS. Some data suggest the percentage of people experiencing long COVID symptoms after acute infection is declining, but the condition continues to have implications for employment and health care. Multiple studies, including a recent one from New York State, show a significant number of people are missing work because of long COVID, as described in coverage from the New York Times, Guardian, CNBC, and The Hill.

LEARNING DELAYS Children experienced learning delays during the COVID-19 pandemic equivalent to about one-third of a school year’s worth of knowledge and skills, according to a global analysis including data from 15 countries and published this week in Nature Human Behavior. Mathematics skills were more heavily affected than reading skills, the study found, and those learning gaps have not been recovered as of May 2022. The pandemic reinforced inequalities in learning, with the authors predicting the pandemic’s effects on learning will be more severe for children in poorer regions. NPR spoke with several college freshmen to get their take on how the pandemic impacted their high school years.

LESSONS FOR FUTURE RESPONSES Several recent commentaries have touched on the importance of drawing lessons from the pandemic for future responses to be more equitable and nuanced. One published in STAT examines shortcomings in collecting epidemiological data in the US that includes race and ethnicity information. A piece in The BMJ argues that a focus on gender is needed to help shape responses to reduce inequalities in job losses and sustained employment precarity after the pandemic. A perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine argues that one of the key lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic is that policymakers must take into account the ways in which population-wide public health recommendations and policies differentially affect various subgroups of the population and take a more differentiated approach, and recognize that who delivers pandemic-related messages matters.

PANDEMIC ORIGINS The US House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing February 1 to discuss biological investigations and attribution science, focused on the public release of a new report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled, “Pandemic Origins: Technologies and Challenges for Biological Investigations.” Dr. Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, provided testimony on the importance of bioattribution to pandemic preparedness, national security, and growing the US bioeconomy.

Epi update

As of February 2, the WHO COVID-19 Dashboard reports:

  • 754 million cumulative COVID-19 cases
  • 6.8 million deaths
  • 1.5 million cases reported week of January 23
  • 40% decline in global weekly incidence
  • 12,793 deaths reported week of January 23
  • 49% increase in global weekly mortality

Over the previous week, incidence declined in all WHO regions.

UNITED STATES

The US CDC is reporting:

  • 102.2 million cumulative cases
  • 1.1 million deaths
  • 295,140 cases week of January 25 (down from previous week)
  • 3,756 deaths week of January 25 (down from previous week)
  • 8.4% weekly decrease in new hospital admissions
  • 12.5% weekly decrease in current hospitalizations

The Omicron sublineages XBB.1.5 (61%), BQ.1.1 (22%), and BQ.1 (9%) account for a majority of all new sequenced specimens, with various other Omicron subvariants accounting for the remainder of cases.

USEFUL GRAPHICS

The following websites provide up-to-date epidemiological information down to the US county level:



Johns Hopkins University Daily COVID-19 Data in Motion (daily video showing global and US trends)

New York Times Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count (US data portrayed in tables, maps, and graphs)

US CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View (click on pulldown menu to view either COVID-19 Community Levels or Community Transmission, as well as other indicators specific to the US)

Ambulance Tax in Boone County

Boone County Fire District No. 2 to ask residents for ambulance tax

Story by Jim Hagerty • Yesterday 6:11 PM

<?

BELVIDERE, Ill. (WIFR) — Boone County Fire District 2 will soon ask voters to approve an ambulance tax.

[INSERT CAPTION HERE]

[INSERT CAPTION HERE]© Provided by Rockford WIFR-LD

If voters approve the tax, which will appear as a referendum on the April 4, 2023 ballot, it will mark the first time the district, which serves 133 square miles in Boone County, has imposed such a levy.

That is because for years, the district has been contracting its ambulance service through OSF St. Anthony Medical Center Lifeline ambulance division. During that time, OSF was subsidizing those services and only charging the district when they transported a patient.

District Chief Brian Kunce says now that OSF has sold Lifeline to a private company and the contract with that company expires next year, the subsidies they enjoyed in the past will likely go away. That is why the district will ask homeowners within the district for approximately $130 year to man two ambulances.





  • “We and our citizens in our fire district will have to pay to have to pay just to have those ambulances available on standby for a 911 call,” Kunce said.


    Kunce said the last thing the district wants to do is raise taxes. But he says since his department responds to more 1,100 calls per year, most of which require an ambulance, the move is necessary to continue responding to those emergencies.

    The City of Belvidere Fire Department is in the same situation. Its contract with Lifeline expires this year. In response, the city council is in process of approving funds in the city budget to continue providing those services.

    City of Belvidere Fire Chief Shawn Schadle says both departments are grateful for what Lifeline has provided to the community throughout the years.

    “The labor cost of one ambulance alone is roughly $650,000,” Schadle said. “That’s not counting housing. That’s not counting the ambulance. That’s not counting power. That’s not counting power cots. That’s not counting the ADs, the defibrillators, the cardiac monitors, all the equipment.”

    The public is welcome to attend four town hall meetings for information about the upcoming referendum. They are scheduled for 9 a.m. on Feb. 11 and Feb. 25 and March 11 and March 25 at the fire station 1777 Henry Luckow Lane, Belvidere.

    Above is from:  Boone County Fire District No. 2 to ask residents for ambulance tax (msn.com)

    Tuesday, January 31, 2023

    Richest billionaires in Illinois—Four Pritzker family members

    1. Richest billionaires in Illinois

    Illinois News

    Richest billionaires in Illinois

    WRITTEN BY:

    Stacker

    January 5, 2023

    Paul Elledge // Wikimedia Commons

    PUBLISH THIS STORY

    Richest billionaires in Illinois

    The first billionaire ever is thought to be Standard Oil magnate John D. Rockefeller back in 1916, or perhaps Henry Ford in 1925. Fast forward some 100 years to 2021: as the COVID-19 pandemic continued to rage, a record-breaking 660 people became billionaires globally, growing the previous year's number by 30%. While the U.S. is home to the most billionaires out of any other country, Americans are somewhat split in their feelings on the billionaire class. According to Pew Research Center data, people in the U.S. became somewhat more critical of billionaires between 2020 and 2021. Although support for individual billionaires like Elon Musk or Bill Gates is relatively strong, many Americans view the ultra-rich—as a group rather than as individuals—negatively. Meanwhile, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is projected to become the world's first trillionaire by 2026.

    The U.S.'s wealthiest billionaires are mostly concentrated within just a couple of industries: finance and investments, and technology. Other wealthy sectors include food and drink, fashion and retail, and media and entertainment. Stacker compiled a list of the richest billionaires that are residents of Illinois, using data from Forbes. Billionaires are ranked by net worth as of January 3. Forbes lists 23 billionaires in Illinois.

    #20. Byron Trott
    - Net worth: $1.7 billion (#1,683 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Winnetka, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: investments, Self Made

    #19. Jerry Reinsdorf
    - Net worth: $1.8 billion (#1,597 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: sports teams, Self Made

    #18. Jennifer Pritzker
    - Net worth: $1.9 billion (#1,541 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: hotels, investments

    #17. Justin Ishbia
    - Net worth: $2.0 billion (#1,503 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: private equity

    #16. Steven Sarowitz
    - Net worth: $2.8 billion (#1,062 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Highland Park, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: payroll software, Self Made

    #15. Penny Pritzker
    - Net worth: $3.0 billion (#974 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: hotels, investments

    #14. Sheldon Lavin
    - Net worth: $3.1 billion (#922 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Highland Park, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: meat processing, Self Made

    #13. J.B. Pritzker
    - Net worth: $3.6 billion (#792 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Springfield, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: hotels, investments

    #12. Elizabeth Uihlein
    - Net worth: $3.7 billion (#758 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Lake Forest, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: packaging materials, Self Made

    #11. Richard Uihlein
    - Net worth: $3.7 billion (#758 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Lake Forest, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: packaging materials, Self Made

    #10. Joseph Grendys
    - Net worth: $3.8 billion (#734 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: poultry processing, Self Made

    #9. Eric Lefkofsky
    - Net worth: $4.2 billion (#650 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Glencoe, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: Groupon, investments, Self Made

    #8. Ty Warner
    - Net worth: $4.7 billion (#561 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Oak Brook, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: plush toys, real estate, Self Made

    #7. Thomas Pritzker
    - Net worth: $4.8 billion (#548 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: hotels, investments

    #6. Joe Mansueto
    - Net worth: $4.9 billion (#538 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: investment research, Self Made

    #5. Mark Walter
    - Net worth: $5.2 billion (#489 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: finance, Self Made

    #4. Sam Zell
    - Net worth: $5.2 billion (#487 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: real estate, private equity, Self Made

    #3. Neil Bluhm
    - Net worth: $5.9 billion (#417 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: real estate, Self Made

    #2. Patrick Ryan
    - Net worth: $8.6 billion (#222 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Winnetka, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: insurance, Self Made

    #1. Lukas Walton
    - Net worth: $21.7 billion (#71 wealthiest in the world)
    - Residence: Chicago, Illinois
    - Source of wealth: Walmart

    Above is from:  Richest Billionaires in Illinois | Stacker

    How are the billionaire Pritzkers related.

    Thomas is the CEO of many Pritzker organizations.  Governor J.B. is a cousin as are J.B. sisters, Jennifer and Penny.


    Image result for Thomas Pritzker


    Thomas Pritzker is an American billionaire heir and businessman. A member of the Pritzker family, he is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Pritzker Organization, which manages the various Pritzker family business assets, and the executive chairman of the Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Wikipedia

    Born: 1950 (age 72 years)

    Net worth: 5.4 billion USD (2023) Forbes

    Siblings: John Pritzker, Gigi Pritzker, Daniel Pritzker, Nancy Pritzker

    Education: Claremont McKenna College, The University of Chicago

    Partner: Margot Pritzker

    Books: Our Shared Opportunity: A Vision for Global Prosperity

    Cousins

    J. B. Pritzker (via Jay Pritzker)

    J. B. Pritzker

    via Jay Pritzker

    Penny Pritzker (via Jay Pritzker)

    Penny Pritzker

    via Jay Pritzker

    Liesel Matthews (via Jay Pritzker)

    Liesel Matthews

    via Jay Pritzker

    Jennifer Pritzker (via Jay Pritzker)

    Jennifer Pritzker

    via Jay Pritzker

    Thursday, January 26, 2023

    January 26, 2023: Johns Hopkins COVID 19 Situation Report

    COVID-19 Situation Report

    Weekly updates on COVID-19 epidemiology, science, policy, and other news you can use.

    Click to Subscribe

    Announcements

    CENTER WELCOMES NEW SENIOR SCHOLAR We are thrilled to welcome Alexandra Phelan to the John Hopkins Center for Health Security as a Senior Scholar and to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering. At the Center, Dr. Phelan will contribute to several ongoing projects, as well as spearhead a portfolio of multidisciplinary work spanning global health law, infectious disease, and climate change. She/they are an alum of the Center’s ELBI fellowship. Read our news story: https://bit.ly/3iXunJU

    In this issue

    > Emergency Committee on COVID-19 to discuss PHEIC designation; WHO launches US$2.5B emergency appeal

    > US FDA panel considering shift to regular vaccine boosters but many questions, uncertainties remain

    > Two new studies provide evidence bivalent boosters increase protection against Omicron subvariants compared to original vaccines, boosters

    > Number of US cardiovascular deaths rose during pandemic’s first year prior to vaccine availability, especially among some populations

    > Papers, meetings evaluate pandemic-related public health measures

    > What we're reading

    > Epi update

    Emergency Committee on COVID-19 to discuss PHEIC designation; WHO launches US$2.5B emergency appeal

    The Emergency Committee on COVID-19 is set to meet for a 14th time on January 27 to consider whether SARS-CoV-2 continues to merit designation as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), 3 years after the panel first agreed the outbreak met the criteria. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), a PHEIC can be declared if a health event meets 3 criteria:

    • it is serious, sudden, unusual, or unexpected
    • carries implications for public health beyond the affected State’s national border, and
    • may require immediate international action.

    While COVID-19 has spread globally and is no longer sudden or unexpected, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus—who makes the final decision about whether to end the global health emergency, no matter the committee’s recommendation—this week said he is “very concerned” about a rising number of global COVID-related deaths. The US alone is averaging more than 500 deaths per day. The meeting comes as China is experiencing the largest COVID-19 outbreak in the world, raising fears that a new variant of concern could emerge, factors that could influence the committee’s recommendations and Dr. Tedros’s decision.

    Notably, there are no guidelines to determine when or how a PHEIC declaration should end. To be clear, ending the PHEIC would not mean that COVID-19 no longer poses a global threat nor would it signal the end of the pandemic, as the IHR do not include mechanisms for formally declaring pandemics or their ends. Many experts say the binary nature of the PHEIC mechanism needs to be reviewed and reformed to better achieve its intended goal of helping to coordinate response and policy.

    In related news, the WHO this week launched a 2023 health emergency appeal for US$2.54 billion to address an unprecedented number of intersecting health emergencies worldwide, including COVID-19.

    US FDA panel considering shift to regular vaccine boosters; many questions, uncertainties remain

    As the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate, researchers and policymakers are evaluating longer-term vaccination strategies to maintain individual- and community-level protection from COVID-19. In the US, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Product Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is meeting today (webcast live) to discuss an array of potential options, including vaccines from multiple manufacturers. Following the availability of bivalent booster doses last year, regulatory officials are considering shifts toward regular boosters, administered either annually or biannually, that could include two or more strains of the virus.

    These decisions, however, must also account for individuals who have not yet received their initial course of vaccination, including many infants and young children. Another major concern is the safety and effectiveness of multi-valent boosters, especially the relative benefits and risks for different age groups and other subpopulations. The timing of doses is also a major point of debate. Regulators and health officials will need to walk a fine line between maintaining a high degree of protection, providing significant added benefit from each dose, and establishing a schedule that the public can understand and is willing to follow. And the same schedule may not be appropriate for people with varying degrees of risk. Early studies have yielded mixed results across these areas of concern, and some experts question the value of annual boosters or acknowledge the considerable uncertainty that remains, and research is still ongoing to provide the necessary data.

    This week, the UK government announced that it will offer another round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster doses this autumn for those at higher risk of severe COVID-19, based on recommendations from its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). JCVI also indicated that an additional booster dose for those individuals at greatest risk, such as older adults or those with compromised immune systems, may be recommended for this spring, and plans for the spring 2023 vaccination program will be announced soon.

    Two new studies provide evidence bivalent boosters increase protection against Omicron subvariants compared to original vaccines, boosters

    Part of the efforts to evaluate longer-term SARS-CoV-2 vaccination strategies necessitates understanding the safety and effectiveness profiles of the recent bivalent booster doses. Two studies published this week offer additional insight into the protective value of these boosters. Both studies provide evidence that bivalent boosters provided increased protection against Omicron subvariants compared to monovalent vaccines and boosters, at least in the short term.

    A study conducted by researchers in North Carolina—published as a correspondence in NEJM—evaluated bivalent mRNA vaccine boosters’ effectiveness against severe COVID-19 disease caused by several Omicron subvariants (BA.4.6, BA.5, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1). Based on data from more than 1 million individuals who received bivalent boosters, followed over a 99-day period after vaccination, they estimated the boosters’ effectiveness against hospitalization or death to be 54.0% as the first booster dose*, 64.0% as the second booster dose, and 63.1% as the third booster dose. Across all measured outcomes, the bivalent boosters consistently outperformed monovalent boosters by more than 30 percentage points (pp)**, including in older adults—+37.8pp against hospitalization and +41.2pp against hospitalization or death.

    *Marginally not statistically significant (CI: -.03-78.9%).

    **Mix of statistically significant and non-significant results.

    A study led by the US CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases—published in the CDC’s MMWR—evaluated the effectiveness of bivalent mRNA vaccine boosters in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 disease caused by the Omicron BA.5 and XBB/XBB.1.5 sublineages, compared to full vaccination and/or boosting using only the original monovalent vaccines. The study involved data from nearly 30,000 PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests conducted among persons with COVID-like illness symptoms at US pharmacies from December 1, 2022, to January 13, 2023. The researchers estimated the bivalent boosters’ additional effectiveness against the BA.5 subvariant to be 52% higher among adults aged 18-49 years, 43% higher in adults aged 50-64 years, and 37% higher among adults 65 years and older. Against the XBB sublineages the bivalent boosters outperformed the monovalent vaccines by 49% among adults aged 18-49 years, 40% in adults 50-64 years, and 43% in adults aged 65 years and older, again with some evidence of waning protection by 2-3 months. Notably, these are some of the earliest data available on protection against XBB subvariants, and the study provides a near-real-time assessment of recent vaccinations.

    Number of US cardiovascular deaths rose during pandemic’s first year prior to vaccine availability, especially among some populations

    Deaths due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) rose substantially during 2020—the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior to the availability of vaccines—representing the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous single-year total set in 2003, according to new data from the American Heart Association. Notably, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in many years, by 4.6%, and the largest overall number of CVD-related deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic populations, some of which have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has had both direct and indirect impacts on cardiovascular health. Importantly, infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with new-onset clotting and inflammation in some people. According to a study recently published in Cardiovascular Research, COVID-19 disease—including post-COVID conditions commonly known as long COVID—is associated with increased short- and long-term risks of CVD and death from any cause. Additionally, during the beginning months of the pandemic especially, people with new or existing risk factors for CVD outcomes, such as heart disease, hypertension, or stroke symptoms, were reluctant or unable to access medical care. A recent study published in Nature Medicine estimates that the interruption of preventive care could result in more than 13,000 extra cardiovascular events in the UK. Some people are leveraging the association between CVD and COVID-19 to create and spread misinformation surrounding sudden deaths and injuries and vaccine safety, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting their claims.

    Papers, meetings evaluate pandemic-related public health measures

    Gaining insight into the effectiveness and impacts of how various nations and institutions responded to the COVID-19 pandemic will provide lessons for future pandemic preparedness and public health measures. Several recent papers and meetings attempt to evaluate these measures, coordinate their use, and identify challenges for future events.

    • A paper from the OECD published January 21 draws lessons and provides a synthesis of evidence from 67 national government-level evaluations produced in OECD countries during the first 15 months of the pandemic. Overall, the report finds that pandemic preparedness was insufficient, governments should carefully consider longer-term budgetary costs of actions to mitigate economic and financial pandemic effects, and trust requires transparency and stakeholder engagement, including from the public. The report also notes there is insufficient evidence on critical sectors’ pandemic preparedness and further assessment of lockdowns and restriction measures is needed, including the impact of lockdowns on domestic violence, alcohol consumption, mental health, and youth.
    • A January 20 commentary published in PLOS Global Public Health by an international group of authors proposes a framework to unite scholarship into the institutional, political, organizational, and governance (IPOG) aspects of the COVID-19 response. Politics and governance are influenced by factors such as institutional norms and the structure and functioning of key public health organizations, they note, contending that “COVID-19 has exposed the need to expand, deepen, and sharpen the focus of investigation to explore the intersection of all of these key contextual factors and how they combine to influence outcomes.”
    • An article published January 25 in Scientific Reports aims to explain why models used to project rates of COVID-19 incidence and confirmed cases in the latter part of 2020 were not especially accurate. According to the researchers, "Frequent changes in restrictions implemented by governments, which the modeling team was not always able to predict, in part explains why the majority of model projections were inaccurate compared with actual outcomes and supports revision of projections when policies are changed as well as the importance of modeling teams collaborating with policy experts.”
    • Another article published January 25 in Scientific Reports analyzes COVID-19 community transmission risk associated with US colleges and universities. Contrary to rising public sentiment that younger and less-vulnerable populations act as primary introducers of COVID-19 to communities, the findings show that counties with high university enrollments might adhere more closely to public health and safety measures and vaccinations, potentially contributing to safer communities.

    What we’re reading

    CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH OVERSIGHT A 64-page report from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) says the US NIH did not sufficiently and effectively monitor grant awards to EcoHealth Alliance, limiting the federal agency’s ability to fully understand the nature of the research being conducted—including research on coronaviruses that might fall under enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs)—identify potential problem areas, and take corrective action. The report comes as the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) is set to discuss new draft recommendations for biosecurity oversight.

    RAPID ANTIGEN TESTS At-home COVID-19 tests, also called rapid antigen tests, remain a useful tool in helping to interrupt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although they are not foolproof. Both NPR and the New York Times recently published articles discussing the tests’ advantages and disadvantages and how to increase testing accuracy (hint: serial testing). To order tests for home delivery in the US, find at-home tests at retailers and pharmacies, and learn about insurance reimbursement, visit covidtests.gov.

    MEDICAID CONTINUOUS ENROLLMENT Between 5 and 14 million US citizens and certain legal immigrants are expected to lose their Medicaid coverage when a pandemic-era provision known as “continuous enrollment” ends on March 31. Of those, the US HHS expects 6.8 million people will lose coverage even though they are still eligible, based on historical trends of paperwork and other administrative hurdles. A new analysis from KFF estimates that about two-thirds of those who are disenrolled likely will experience a period of uninsurance. Disruption in Medicaid or other insurance coverage can lead to delayed or missed care, less access to preventive care, and higher healthcare costs, particularly for chronic health conditions.

    YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH & NUTRITION Parents are growing increasingly concerned about young people’s mental health, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center, as children and teenagers continue to struggle with depression and anxiety after returning to in-person schooling following widespread school closures and remote learning during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The isolation of remote learning and other pandemic-related stressors may have strained youth mental health, and some children may have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as abuse, neglect, or violence. One such stressor, food insecurity, is increasing among families due to rising food prices and the winding down of pandemic-era assistance programs providing free school meals.

    Epi update

    As of January 25, the WHO COVID-19 Dashboard reports:

    • 665 million cumulative COVID-19 cases
    • 6.7 million deaths
    • 1.9 million cases reported week of January 16
    • 33% decline in global weekly incidence
    • 12,937 deaths reported week of January 16
    • 16% increase in global weekly mortality

    Over the previous week, incidence declined or remained relatively stable in all WHO regions except the Eastern Mediterranean, which recorded a 54% increase in reported cases.

    UNITED STATES

    The US CDC is reporting:

    • 101.9 million cumulative cases
    • 1.1 million deaths
    • 332,212 cases week of January 18 (down from previous week)
    • 3,953 deaths week of January 18 (down from previous week)
    • 13.7% weekly decrease in new hospital admissions
    • 15.3% weekly decrease in current hospitalizations

    The Omicron sublineages XBB.1.5 (49%), BQ.1.1 (27%), and BQ.1 (13%) account for a majority of all new sequenced specimens, with various other Omicron subvariants accounting for the remainder of cases.

    USEFUL EPI GRAPHICS

    The following websites provide up-to-date epidemiological information, down to the US county level:

    Johns Hopkins University Daily COVID-19 Data in Motion (daily video showing global and US trends)

    New York Times Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count (US data portrayed in tables, maps, and graphs)

    US CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View (click on pulldown menu to view either COVID-19 Community Levels or Community Transmission, as well as other indicators specific to the US)

    Friday, January 20, 2023

    Constanza Lawsuit appears settled

    Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved.

    Search

    JANUARY 20, 2023

    Owen Costanza Loses Defamation Lawsuit Against Reporter; Everything Published Was Truthful –

    BY JOHN KRAFT & KIRK ALLEN

    ON JANUARY 19, 2023

    Poplar Grove, IL. (ECWd) –


    Click on the following:  Illinois Leaks | Owen Costanza Loses Defamation Lawsuit Against Reporter; Everything Published Was Truthful – (edgarcountywatchdogs.com)


    This case was dismissed with prejudice.  This should mean it is over.

    Difference between dismissed with or without prejudice

    The following question was submitted to John Roska, an attorney/writer whose weekly newspaper column, "The Law Q&A," ran in the Champaign News Gazette.

    Question

    What does it mean to dismiss a court case because of prejudice? How about voluntary vs. involuntary?

    Answer

    I think what you mean to ask about is a case being dismissed "with prejudice" or "without prejudice." Those are the formal legal terms for the different ways cases get dismissed. Dismissing a case "because of prejudice" sounds like it got dismissed because of a judge's racism or something like that. This is not true.

    In the formal legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court.

    A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever. The person whose case it is can try again.

    Cases are also dismissed voluntarily, by the person who filed the case, or involuntarily, by a judge. For example, you could file a small claims case and voluntarily dismiss your case either with or without prejudice. You could dismiss with prejudice, if there'd probably be no need to come back to court, because, say, you’ve been paid.  However, if you decided they wanted to sue in regular court because the amount is too much for small claims court, you could voluntarily dismiss your small claims case without prejudice. That would allow you to try your case in regular court. You could even change your mind again and return to Small Claims by reducing your claim.

    When cases are dismissed involuntarily, it's by a judge, against the wishes of the person whose case is dismissed. Involuntary dismissals happen when the judge decides the case can’t go forward because of a legal reason. Usually, they're the result of the other side filing a Motion to Dismiss, pointing out those reasons.

    When a case is involuntarily dismissed by a judge, it could be with or without prejudice. Often, judges dismiss cases without prejudice, so that the person whose case got dismissed can try again after fixing the problem the other side pointed out.

    Sometimes, though, judges dismiss cases with prejudice. Maybe the loser has already had chances to fix their case, and the judge concludes there's no way the case can go forward. But it could be lots of things. The result is that the case is closed. If your case was dismissed with prejudice, it could be appealed to a higher judge, but you can’t start over from scratch and try again.

    Last full review by a subject matter expert

    July 30, 2021 (from:  https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/difference-between-dismissed-or-without-prejudice)

    Wednesday, January 18, 2023

    Population trends in Illinois—changes in nearby counties



    #43. Boone County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: -717
    --- #2,344 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: -1.3%
    --- #21 among counties in Illinois, #1,710 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 53,448
    --- #25 largest county in Illinois, #943 largest county nationwide


    #9. McHenry County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: +1,469
    --- #912 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: +0.5%
    --- #14 among counties in Illinois, #1,417 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 310,229
    --- #6 largest county in Illinois, #230 largest county in US


    #5. Lake County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: +10,880
    --- #407 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: +1.5%
    --- #10 among counties in Illinois, #1,247 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 714,342
    --- #3 largest county in Illinois, #97 largest county nationwide


    48 of 51 Photos in Gallery©Neatpete86 // Wikimedia Commons

    #4. DuPage County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: +15,953
    --- #336 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: +1.7%
    --- #8 among counties in Illinois, #1,221 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 932,877
    --- #2 la



    #3. Kendall County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: +17,133
    --- #320 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: +14.9%
    --- #1 among counties in Illinois, #229 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 131,869
    --- #15 largest county in Illinois, #489 largest county nationwide



    #2. Will County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: +18,795
    --- #305 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: +2.8%
    --- #5 among counties in Illinois, #1,087 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 696,355
    --- #4 largest county in Illinois, #98 largest county nationwide


    #1. Cook County

    - 2010 to 2020 population change: +80,866
    --- #64 among all counties nationwide
    - 2010 to 2020 percent population change: +1.6%
    --- #9 among counties in Illinois, #1,244 among all counties nationwide
    - 2020 population: 5,275,541
    --- #1 largest county in Illinois, #2 largest county nationwide