Categories
Health

Biden’s incoming CDC director says Trump administration ‘muzzled’ scientists

Rochelle Walensky, who was nominated as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, speaks after U.S. President-elect Joe Biden started his team dealing with the Covid-19 on December 8 at The Queen in Wilmington, Delaware. Pandemic commissioned, 2020.

Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images

Scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, banned by the Trump administration during the Covid-19 pandemic, will be “heard again,” said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Joe Biden’s election to head the agency, on Tuesday.

Last year, the CDC went months without addressing the US public after Dr. Nancy Messonnier, Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases of the CDC, warned in February that schools and businesses may have to close to contain the coronavirus.

“We urge the American public to work with us to prepare for expectation that this could be bad,” Messonnier said in forward-looking remarks that upset markets and allegedly angered President Donald Trump.

During the pandemic, Trump continued to work with the best scientists in the country, including current CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, got into conflict and publicly contradicted him on issues like the schedule for the Covid-19 vaccine.

Walensky vowed to restore the public voice of the CDC and its scholars.

“They were decreased. I think they became constipated. That science was not heard,” she told Dr. Howard Bauchner of the Journal of the American Medical Association. “This world-class agency, world-famous, hasn’t really been appreciated in the last four years and has really been evident in the last year so I have to fix this.”

Walensky said she intends to revise the CDC’s communications efforts under the Biden administration. This could include regular briefings led by Walensky or subject matter experts to explain the scientific research published in the CDC’s weekly report on morbidity and mortality. She added that this will likely also mean a more concerted plan to engage the public on social media.

“Science is now being delivered on Twitter. Science is delivered on social media, in podcasts, and in a lot of different ways, and I think that’s crucial,” Walensky said. “We need to have a social media plan for the agency.”

She said building the agency’s social media presence will be especially important as the country battles vaccine hesitation. Misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccines is rife on social media, she said, adding that the agency needs to get “the right information” out.

Over the past year, the CDC’s communications have often contradicted those of the White House. The agency revised guidelines for reopening churches and religious sites after Trump urged state officials to allow churches to reopen. Over the summer, Trump installed longtime ally and former campaign official Michael Caputo as top spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s mother division, to better tailor the news to the White House.

Caputo and his team sought to undermine CDC scientists, urging them to revise scientific research that violated White House guidelines, internal emails from House lawmakers show. Walensky said Tuesday she would ensure that the CDC communicates transparently with the American people regardless of the political ramifications.

“I have to fix that right away,” she said.

Categories
Health

Twins With Covid Assist Scientists Untangle the Illness’s Genetic Roots

What Ms. Burkett and Ms. Miller experienced was not the norm. Many of the conditions that can increase a person’s risk for severe Covid – obesity, heart disease, diabetes, smoking – are heavily influenced by the environment and behavior, not just genetics. A person’s history of fighting off other coronaviruses such as those that lead to colds can also affect their likelihood of developing a serious case of Covid.

Some researchers have also suggested that the amount of coronavirus a person ingests could have an impact on the severity of the condition, a trend that has been documented in other infections.

Updated

Jan. 18, 2021, 11:13 p.m. ET

“It makes the difference if your immune system is actually able to suppress the infection or if it is much more difficult to fight it when all of your cells are infected at the same time,” said Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California in Riverside.

Michael Russell, 29, wonders if he tracked down more of the virus in the days after meeting his family on July 4 than his twin brother Steven did this summer.

Both brothers began to develop symptoms shortly after the celebration ended, around the time Steven returned to his home in Arlington, Virginia. The virus saddled Steven with a sore throat and a headache – a “mild, cold-like” illness, he said.

A few days later, Michael, who lived at home with his parents, had much more severe symptoms: a sore throat, chills, shortness of breath and fatigue, which banished him to his bed for a whole day. About two weeks passed before he could smell or taste the cinnamon-dusted popcorn that he regularly consumes.

The twins’ parents also had bad Covid symptoms, so Michael had to isolate himself with two other infected adults. Sitting together in the same house could have exposed him to a larger dose of the virus, the brothers said. But they added, that’s just a guess.

Categories
World News

That is how U.Okay. scientists discovered the variant.

Suddenly the coronavirus seemed to be changing.

For months, Dr. Steven Kemp, an infectious disease expert, a global library of coronavirus genomes. He was studying how the virus mutated in the lungs of a patient struggling to shake a raging infection in a nearby Cambridge hospital and wanted to know if those changes would occur in other people.

At the end of November, Dr. Kemp then came up with a surprising match: some of the same mutations seen in the patient, as well as other changes, kept coming back in newly infected people, mostly in the UK.

Worse still, the changes focused on the spike protein that is used by the virus to attach to human cells, suggesting that a virus that is already wreaking havoc around the world has evolved in ways that could make it even more contagious .

“There are a lot of mutations that go along with the same frequency,” he wrote to Dr. Ravindra Gupta, a Cambridge virologist. He listed the most disturbing changes and added, “ALL of these sequences have the following spike mutants.”

The two researchers didn’t know yet, but they had found a new, highly contagious variant of the coronavirus that has since spread across the UK, shaking scientists’ understanding of the virus and threatening to prevent global recovery from the pandemic.

A consortium of British disease researchers, long-time torchbearers in genomics who had helped track the Ebola and Zika epidemics, became known. They gathered on Slack and video calls, comparing notes as they searched for clues, including a tip from scientists in South Africa about another new variation there. Others have since appeared in Brazil.

For almost a year, scientists had only observed incremental changes in the coronavirus and expected more of them. The new variants forced them to change their thinking, suggesting a new phase in the pandemic where the virus could develop to the point that vaccines will be undermined.

Categories
Health

Coronavirus Will Resemble the Widespread Chilly, Scientists Predict

Other experts said this scenario is not only plausible, it is likely.

“I fully agree with the overall intellectual construct of the paper,” said Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology in San Diego.

If the vaccines prevent people from transmitting the virus, “it’s much more like the measles scenario where you vaccinate everyone, including children, and the virus really doesn’t infect people,” said Dr. Crotty.

It’s more plausible that the vaccines prevent disease – but not necessarily infection and transmission, he added. And that means the coronavirus will continue to circulate.

“The vaccines we currently have are unlikely to offer sterilizing immunity,” said Jennifer Gommerman, an immunologist at the University of Toronto.

A natural infection with the coronavirus leads to a strong immune response in the nose and throat. But with the current vaccines, Dr. Gommerman: “You don’t get a natural immune response in the actual upper airways, you get an injection in your arm.” This increases the likelihood that infections will still occur after vaccination.

Ultimately, Dr. Lavine’s model on the assumption that the new coronavirus is similar to the common cold coronavirus. That assumption might not be true, however, warned Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

“Other coronavirus infections may or may not be applicable because we haven’t seen what these coronaviruses can do to an elderly, naive person,” said Dr. Lipsitch. (Naive refers to an adult whose immune system has not been exposed to the virus.)

Categories
Health

U.S. Is Blind to Contagious New Virus Variant, Scientists Warn

Experten warnen davor, dass die Vereinigten Staaten ohne ein robustes System zur Identifizierung genetischer Variationen des Coronavirus schlecht gerüstet sind, um eine gefährliche neue Mutante aufzuspüren, und lassen die Gesundheitsbeamten blind, wenn sie versuchen, die schwerwiegende Bedrohung zu bekämpfen.

Die Variante, die jetzt in Großbritannien auf dem Vormarsch ist und die Krankenhäuser mit neuen Fällen belastet, ist in den USA derzeit selten. Aber es könnte in den nächsten Wochen explodieren und neuen Druck auf amerikanische Krankenhäuser ausüben, von denen einige bereits kurz vor dem Bruch stehen.

In den Vereinigten Staaten gibt es kein landesweites System zur Überprüfung des Coronavirus-Genoms auf neue Mutationen, einschließlich derjenigen, die von der neuen Variante getragen werden. Ungefähr 1,4 Millionen Menschen testen jede Woche positiv auf das Virus, aber Forscher führen nur eine Genomsequenzierung durch – eine Methode, mit der die neue Variante definitiv erkannt werden kann – an weniger als 3.000 dieser wöchentlichen Proben. Und diese Arbeit wird von einem Flickenteppich aus akademischen, staatlichen und kommerziellen Labors geleistet.

Wissenschaftler sagen, dass ein nationales Überwachungsprogramm in der Lage sein würde, festzustellen, wie weit verbreitet die neue Variante ist, und dabei zu helfen, aufkommende Krisenherde einzudämmen, was das entscheidende Zeitfenster verlängert, in dem schutzbedürftige Menschen im ganzen Land geimpft werden könnten. Das würde mehrere hundert Millionen Dollar oder mehr kosten. Während dies wie ein steiler Preis erscheinen mag, ist es ein winziger Bruchteil der 16 Billionen US-Dollar an wirtschaftlichen Verlusten, die die Vereinigten Staaten aufgrund von Covid-19 schätzungsweise erlitten haben.

“Wir brauchen eine Art Führung”, sagte Dr. Charles Chiu, ein Forscher an der University of California in San Francisco, dessen Team einige der ersten Fälle der neuen Variante in Kalifornien entdeckte. „Dies muss ein System sein, das auf nationaler Ebene implementiert wird. Ohne diese engagierte Unterstützung geht es einfach nicht. “

Mit einem solchen System könnten Gesundheitsbeamte die Öffentlichkeit in den betroffenen Gebieten warnen und neue Maßnahmen einleiten, um mit der Variante fertig zu werden – beispielsweise die Verwendung besserer Masken, Kontaktverfolgung, Schließung von Schulen oder vorübergehende Sperrungen – und dies frühzeitig tun, anstatt zu warten Eine neue Welle überflutete Krankenhäuser mit Kranken.

Die eingehende Biden-Administration ist möglicherweise offen für die Idee. “Der gewählte Präsident unterstützt ein nationales Testprogramm, das dazu beitragen kann, die Verbreitung von COVID-19 zu stoppen und Varianten zu finden”, sagte TJ Ducklo, ein Sprecher des Übergangs. „Das bedeutet mehr Tests, mehr Laborkapazität und Genomsequenzierung. Dies ist wichtig, um COVID-19 zu kontrollieren und die USA darauf vorzubereiten, zukünftige Krankheitsbedrohungen zu erkennen und zu stoppen. “

Experten verweisen auf Großbritannien als Vorbild dafür, was die USA tun könnten. Britische Forscher sequenzieren das Genom – das heißt das gesamte genetische Material in einem Coronavirus – aus bis zu 10 Prozent der neuen positiven Proben. Selbst wenn die USA nur ein Prozent der Genome aus dem ganzen Land oder etwa 2.000 neue Proben pro Tag sequenzieren würden, würde dies ein helles Licht auf die neue Variante sowie andere möglicherweise auftretende Varianten werfen.

Aber die USA verfehlen dieses Ziel jetzt weit. Im vergangenen Monat haben amerikanische Forscher laut GISAID, einer internationalen Datenbank, in der Forscher neue Genome von Coronaviren teilen, nur einige hundert Genome pro Tag sequenziert. Und nur wenige Staaten waren für den größten Teil der Bemühungen verantwortlich. Kalifornien liegt mit 8.896 Genomen an der Spitze. In North Dakota, wo bisher mehr als 93.500 Fälle aufgetreten sind, haben Forscher kein einziges Genom sequenziert.

Im März startete Großbritannien das, wonach sich viele amerikanische Experten sehnen: ein gut geführtes nationales Programm zur Verfolgung von Mutationen des neuen Coronavirus. Das Land investierte 20 Millionen Pfund – ungefähr 27 Millionen US-Dollar – in die Schaffung eines wissenschaftlichen Konsortiums, das Krankenhäuser im ganzen Land einbezog und ihnen Standardverfahren für den Versand von Proben an spezielle Labors gab, in denen ihre Viren sequenziert wurden. Mithilfe von Cloud Computing analysierten Experten die Mutationen und fanden heraus, wo jede Linie des Virus auf einen Evolutionsbaum passt.

“Was Großbritannien mit der Sequenzierung getan hat, ist für mich der Mondschuss der Pandemie”, sagte Emma Hodcroft, eine molekulare Epidemiologin an der Universität Bern in der Schweiz, die Nextstrain, ein in Seattle ansässiges Projekt zur Verfolgung von Krankheitserregern, mitgestaltet hat. “Sie haben beschlossen, Sequenzierung zu machen, und sie haben einfach ein absolut unglaubliches Programm von Grund auf neu erstellt.”

Das intensive Programm Großbritanniens zur Verfolgung der genetischen Entwicklung des Coronavirus ist wahrscheinlich der Grund, warum es im vergangenen Monat als erstes Land die neue Variante namens B.1.1.7 identifiziert hat. Großbritannien hat bisher 209.038 Coronavirus-Genome sequenziert – fast zwei Drittel aller weltweit sequenzierten. Die USA, ein fünfmal größeres Land, haben nur 58.560 Genome sequenziert.

In den USA hat eine Konstellation von Labors, hauptsächlich an Universitäten, seit dem Frühjahr Coronavirus-Genome analysiert. Viele von ihnen geben ihre eigenen bescheidenen Mittel aus, um die Arbeit zu erledigen. “Es kommt alles auf diese Basisbewegungen an, um es in Gang zu bringen”, sagte Kristian Andersen, Virologe am Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, dessen Labor an der Spitze dieser Bemühungen steht.

Aktualisiert

6. Januar 2021, 19:09 Uhr ET

Dr. Andersen und andere Wissenschaftler beleuchteten den Weg des Coronavirus, der sich über den Globus und die Vereinigten Staaten ausbreitete. Einige der frühen Fälle in den Vereinigten Staaten stammten aus China, dem Geburtsort des neuartigen Coronavirus, aber es waren Reisende aus Europa, die die meisten Fälle in viele amerikanische Städte brachten.

Nach diesen ersten Erfolgen wurde das Screening jedoch nur in geringem Umfang fortgesetzt. “Es hat sicherlich nicht zu einer Revolution in der genomischen Überwachung geführt”, sagte Dr. Andersen.

Im Mai haben die Zentren für die Kontrolle und Prävention von Krankheiten Dutzende von Labors in den USA in einem Konsortium zusammengeführt. Es ist bekannt als SARS-CoV-2-Sequenzierung für das Notfallkonsortium für öffentliche Gesundheit, Epidemiologie und Überwachung oder SPHÄREN.

Wissenschaftler, die an SPHERES teilnehmen, sagen, dass dies ein guter Anfang war. “Es ist ein wirklich nützliches Netzwerk für Wissenschaftler, Akademiker und Forscher, um sich in den USA gegenseitig zu helfen”, sagte Dr. Hodcroft. Labore, die sich an der Sequenzierung von Coronavirus-Genomen beteiligen wollten, konnten sich von anderen Labors beraten lassen, anstatt das wissenschaftliche Rad neu zu erfinden.

Es handelt sich jedoch nicht um ein nationales Programm mit einem klaren Mandat und Ressourcen, um sicherzustellen, dass Mutationen in den USA sorgfältig überwacht werden. “Als Land brauchen wir eine genomische Überwachung”, sagte Dr. Andersen. “Es braucht ein Bundesmandat.”

Die CDC lehnte es ab, die Wissenschaftler, die SPHERES betreiben, für ein Interview zur Verfügung zu stellen. “CDC arbeitet mit staatlichen Laboratorien für öffentliche Gesundheit, Wissenschaft und Handel zusammen, um die Kapazität zur Überwachung häuslicher Stämme zu erhöhen und wöchentlich Tausende von Proben zu sequenzieren”, schrieb Brian Katzowitz, ein Sprecher der Agentur, in einer Erklärung.

Der Coronavirus-Ausbruch >

Wissenswertes zum Testen

Verwirrt von den Bedingungen zum Testen von Coronaviren? Lasst uns helfen:

    • Antikörper: Ein vom Immunsystem produziertes Protein, das bestimmte Arten von Viren, Bakterien oder anderen Eindringlingen erkennen und genau daran binden kann.
    • Antikörpertest / Serologietest: Ein Test, der für das Coronavirus spezifische Antikörper nachweist. Ungefähr eine Woche, nachdem das Coronavirus den Körper infiziert hat, beginnen Antikörper im Blut zu erscheinen. Da die Entwicklung von Antikörpern so lange dauert, kann ein Antikörpertest eine laufende Infektion nicht zuverlässig diagnostizieren. Es kann jedoch Personen identifizieren, die in der Vergangenheit dem Coronavirus ausgesetzt waren.
    • Antigen-Test: Dieser Test erkennt Teile von Coronavirus-Proteinen, die als Antigene bezeichnet werden. Antigen-Tests sind schnell und dauern nur fünf Minuten. Sie sind jedoch weniger genau als Tests, bei denen genetisches Material aus dem Virus nachgewiesen wird.
    • Coronavirus: Jedes Virus, das zur Familie der Orthocoronavirinae-Viren gehört. Das Coronavirus, das Covid-19 verursacht, ist als SARS-CoV-2 bekannt.
    • Covid19: Die durch das neue Coronavirus verursachte Krankheit. Der Name steht für Coronavirus Disease 2019.
    • Isolierung und Quarantäne: Isolation ist die Trennung von Menschen, die wissen, dass sie an einer ansteckenden Krankheit leiden, von denen, die nicht krank sind. Quarantäne bezieht sich auf die Einschränkung der Bewegung von Personen, die einem Virus ausgesetzt waren.
    • Nasopharyngealabstrich: Ein langer, flexibler Stab mit einem weichen Tupfer, der tief in die Nase eingeführt wird, um Proben aus dem Raum zu entnehmen, in dem die Nasenhöhle auf den Hals trifft. Proben für Coronavirus-Tests können auch mit Tupfern entnommen werden, die nicht so tief in die Nase reichen – manchmal auch als Nasentupfer bezeichnet – oder mit Mund- oder Rachenabstrichen.
    • Polymerasekettenreaktion (PCR): Wissenschaftler verwenden PCR, um Millionen Kopien von genetischem Material in einer Probe zu erstellen. Mithilfe von PCR-Tests können Forscher das Coronavirus auch dann nachweisen, wenn es knapp ist.
    • Viruslast: Die Menge an Viren im Körper einer Person. Bei Menschen, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind, kann die Viruslast ihren Höhepunkt erreichen, bevor sie Symptome zeigen, wenn überhaupt Symptome auftreten.

Am Mittwoch kündigten die Gensequenzierungsunternehmen Helix und Illumina eine Zusammenarbeit an, um die Entstehung von B.1.1.7 mit Unterstützung der CDC zu verfolgen. Die Unternehmen sequenzieren bis zu 1.000 Genome pro Woche. Karen Birmingham, eine Sprecherin von Illumina, wies jedoch schnell darauf hin, dass das Pilotprogramm weit entfernt von einer nationalen Anstrengung sei. “Wir begrüßen die genomische Überwachung in den USA viel umfassender und koordinierter”, sagte sie.

Dank des robusten britischen Systems zur genetischen Überwachung konnten Wissenschaftler besser verstehen, wie gefährlich die neue Variante ist. Eine ernüchternde Studie, die am Montag von Forschern des britischen Sequenzierungskonsortiums veröffentlicht wurde, ergab, dass die Sperrung des Landes im November die Übertragung gewöhnlicher Varianten des Coronavirus gut beschleunigte, die Verbreitung von B.1.1.7 jedoch nicht aufhielt.

Epidemiologen messen die Ausbreitungsrate eines Virus mit der sogenannten Reproduktionszahl. Wenn die Fortpflanzungszahl 1 ist, bedeutet dies, dass jede infizierte Person sie im Durchschnitt an eine andere Person weitergibt. Eine wachsende Epidemie hat eine Fortpflanzungszahl von mehr als 1, während eine schwindende Zahl weniger als 1 beträgt. Die britischen Forscher schätzten, dass andere Coronaviren als B.1.1.7 während der Sperrung eine Fortpflanzungszahl von 0,95 hatten, während B.1.1.7 dies getan hatte eine Reproduktionszahl von 1,45.

Die Geschwindigkeit, mit der B.1.1.7 häufiger geworden ist, deutet darauf hin, dass es einige biologische Merkmale aufweist, die eine bessere Ausbreitung von einem Wirt zum anderen ermöglichen. Laborexperimente haben gezeigt, dass einige seiner Mutationen es dem Virus ermöglichen können, sich erfolgreicher an Zellen in den Atemwegen zu binden.

Am Montag gab die britische Regierung bekannt, dass das Land in eine noch strengere nationale Sperrung geraten werde als im November. “Sie dürfen nicht gehen oder außerhalb Ihres Hauses sein, außer wenn dies erforderlich ist”, sagte die Regierung in einem Gutachten.

Es ist noch zu früh, um zu wissen, wie sich B.1.1.7 auf die amerikanische Pandemie auswirken wird – und vor allem, ob es die US-Krankenhäuser wie die in Großbritannien überwältigen wird. Die meisten Menschen, die sich infizieren, geben das Virus nicht an andere weiter. Ein kleiner Teil der Menschen ist für einen Großteil seiner Übertragung in sogenannten Super-Spreading-Ereignissen verantwortlich. Sie landen zur richtigen Zeit am richtigen Ort, um viele Menschen gleichzeitig zu infizieren.

Wenn die neue Variante jedoch dieselbe Flugbahn wie in Großbritannien einschlägt, wird sie in den kommenden Wochen die gängigeren, weniger ansteckenden Varianten übertreffen. “Es könnte in den nächsten Monaten das dominierende Virus werden”, sagte Nathan Grubaugh, Virologe an der Yale University.

Eines ist jedoch sicher. Mitarbeiter des öffentlichen Gesundheitswesens können die Variante nur stoppen, wenn sie sie sehen können. Dr. Grubaugh und andere Wissenschaftler erstellen benutzerdefinierte Tests für B.1.1.7. die PCR verwenden, eine schnelle und kostengünstige Technologie, mit der auf jede Variante des Coronavirus getestet werden kann.

Dr. Grubaugh sagte jedoch, dass es weitaus besser wäre, wenn die Forscher nicht lange nach der Ankunft einer gefährlichen neuen Variante in den USA um diese Tests kämpfen müssten. “Es ist insgesamt nur ein Pflaster für unseren Mangel an genomischer Überwachung”, sagte er.

Ein landesweites Überwachungsprogramm Die Entwicklung des Coronavirus zu verfolgen, würde es Forschern nicht nur ermöglichen, die Ausbreitung von B.1.1.7. zu beobachten, sondern auch andere, möglicherweise noch gefährlichere neue Mutationen, die in seiner Linie auftreten. Neue Varianten könnten menschliche Zellen noch effizienter infizieren oder, schlimmer noch, Impfstoffen oder antiviralen Medikamenten ausweichen.

“Nur weil wir es nicht eingerichtet haben, heißt das nicht, dass wir es nicht tun können”, sagte Dr. Hodcroft. “Wir müssen nur wirklich entscheiden, dass dies etwas ist, was wir wollen.”

Sie betonte, dass der einzige Weg, diese gefährlichen neuen Fehler zu finden, darin bestehe, ständig nach ihnen zu suchen. “Sie tauchen nicht am ersten Tag auf und stellen sich vor und sagen: ‘Hey, schau mir zu!'”, Sagte sie. „Wir brauchen eine Weile, um das herauszufinden. Und wir brauchen länger, wenn wir nicht suchen. “

Categories
World News

As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Techniques

As governments around the world rush to vaccinate their citizens against the surging coronavirus, scientists are locked in a heated debate over a surprising question: Is it wisest to hold back the second doses everyone will need, or to give as many people as possible an inoculation now — and push back the second doses until later?

Since even the first shot appears to provide some protection against Covid-19, some experts believe that the shortest route to containing the virus is to disseminate the initial injections as widely as possible now.

Officials in Britain have already elected to delay second doses of vaccines made by the pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer as a way of more widely distributing the partial protection afforded by a single shot.

Health officials in the United States have been adamantly opposed to the idea. “I would not be in favor of that,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, told CNN on Friday. “We’re going to keep doing what we’re doing.”

But on Sunday, Moncef Slaoui, scientific adviser of Operation Warp Speed, the federal effort to accelerate vaccine development and distribution, offered up an intriguing alternative: giving some Americans two half-doses of the Moderna vaccine, a way to possibly milk more immunity from the nation’s limited vaccine supply.

The rising debate reflects nationwide frustration that so few Americans have gotten the first doses — far below the number the administration had hoped would be inoculated by the end of 2020. But the controversy itself carries risks in a country where health measures have been politicized and many remain hesitant to take the vaccine.

“Even the appearance of tinkering has negatives, in terms of people having trust in the process,” said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida.

The public rollout remained bumpy over the weekend. Seniors lined up early for vaccinations in one Tennessee town, but the doses were gone by 10 a.m. In Houston, the Health Department phone system crashed on Saturday, the first day officials opened a free vaccination clinic to the public.

Nursing home workers in Ohio were opting out of the vaccination in great numbers, according to Gov. Mike DeWine, while Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, now a center of the pandemic, warned that vaccine distribution was moving far too slowly. Hospitalizations of Covid-19 patients during the past month have more than doubled in California.

The vaccines authorized so far in the United States are produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. Britain has greenlit the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines.

All of them are intended to be delivered in multiple doses on a strict schedule, relying on a tiered protection strategy. The first injection teaches the immune system to recognize a new pathogen by showing it a harmless version of some of the virus’s most salient features.

After the body has had time to study up on this material, as it were, a second shot presents these features again, helping immune cells commit the lesson to memory. These subsequent doses are intended to increase the potency and durability of immunity.

Clinical trials run by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna showed the vaccines were highly effective at preventing cases of Covid-19 when delivered in two doses separated by three or four weeks.

Some protection appears to kick in after the first shot of vaccine, although it’s unclear how quickly it might wane. Still, some experts now argue that spreading vaccines more thinly across a population by concentrating on first doses might save more lives than making sure half as many individuals receive both doses on schedule.

That would be a remarkable departure from the original plan. Since the vaccine rollout began last month in the United States, second shots of the vaccines have been held back to guarantee that they will be available on schedule for people who have already gotten their first injections.

But in Britain, doctors have been told to postpone appointments for second doses that had been scheduled for January, so that those doses can be given instead as first shots to other patients. Officials are now pushing the second doses of both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines as far back as 12 weeks after the first one.

In a regulatory document, British health officials said that AstraZeneca’s vaccine was 73 percent effective in clinical trial participants three weeks after the first dose was given and before the second dose was administered. (In cases in which participants never received a second dose, the interval ended 12 weeks after the first dose was given.)

But some researchers fear the delayed-dose approach could prove disastrous, particularly in the United States, where vaccine rollouts are already stymied by logistical hurdles and a patchwork approach to prioritizing who gets the first jabs.

“We have an issue with distribution, not the number of doses,” said Saad Omer, a vaccine expert at Yale University. “Doubling the number of doses doesn’t double your capacity to give doses.”

Federal health officials said last week that some 14 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines had been shipped out across the country. But as of Saturday morning, just 4.2 million people in the United States had gotten their first shots.

That number is most likely an underestimate because of lags in reporting. Still, the figure falls far short of the goal that federal health officials set as recently as last month to give 20 million people their first shots by the end of 2020.

Covid-19 Vaccines ›

Answers to Your Vaccine Questions

With distribution of a coronavirus vaccine beginning in the U.S., here are answers to some questions you may be wondering about:

    • If I live in the U.S., when can I get the vaccine? While the exact order of vaccine recipients may vary by state, most will likely put medical workers and residents of long-term care facilities first. If you want to understand how this decision is getting made, this article will help.
    • When can I return to normal life after being vaccinated? Life will return to normal only when society as a whole gains enough protection against the coronavirus. Once countries authorize a vaccine, they’ll only be able to vaccinate a few percent of their citizens at most in the first couple months. The unvaccinated majority will still remain vulnerable to getting infected. A growing number of coronavirus vaccines are showing robust protection against becoming sick. But it’s also possible for people to spread the virus without even knowing they’re infected because they experience only mild symptoms or none at all. Scientists don’t yet know if the vaccines also block the transmission of the coronavirus. So for the time being, even vaccinated people will need to wear masks, avoid indoor crowds, and so on. Once enough people get vaccinated, it will become very difficult for the coronavirus to find vulnerable people to infect. Depending on how quickly we as a society achieve that goal, life might start approaching something like normal by the fall 2021.
    • If I’ve been vaccinated, do I still need to wear a mask? Yes, but not forever. Here’s why. The coronavirus vaccines are injected deep into the muscles and stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. This appears to be enough protection to keep the vaccinated person from getting ill. But what’s not clear is whether it’s possible for the virus to bloom in the nose — and be sneezed or breathed out to infect others — even as antibodies elsewhere in the body have mobilized to prevent the vaccinated person from getting sick. The vaccine clinical trials were designed to determine whether vaccinated people are protected from illness — not to find out whether they could still spread the coronavirus. Based on studies of flu vaccine and even patients infected with Covid-19, researchers have reason to be hopeful that vaccinated people won’t spread the virus, but more research is needed. In the meantime, everyone — even vaccinated people — will need to think of themselves as possible silent spreaders and keep wearing a mask. Read more here.
    • Will it hurt? What are the side effects? The Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is delivered as a shot in the arm, like other typical vaccines. The injection into your arm won’t feel different than any other vaccine, but the rate of short-lived side effects does appear higher than a flu shot. Tens of thousands of people have already received the vaccines, and none of them have reported any serious health problems. The side effects, which can resemble the symptoms of Covid-19, last about a day and appear more likely after the second dose. Early reports from vaccine trials suggest some people might need to take a day off from work because they feel lousy after receiving the second dose. In the Pfizer study, about half developed fatigue. Other side effects occurred in at least 25 to 33 percent of patients, sometimes more, including headaches, chills and muscle pain. While these experiences aren’t pleasant, they are a good sign that your own immune system is mounting a potent response to the vaccine that will provide long-lasting immunity.
    • Will mRNA vaccines change my genes? No. The vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer use a genetic molecule to prime the immune system. That molecule, known as mRNA, is eventually destroyed by the body. The mRNA is packaged in an oily bubble that can fuse to a cell, allowing the molecule to slip in. The cell uses the mRNA to make proteins from the coronavirus, which can stimulate the immune system. At any moment, each of our cells may contain hundreds of thousands of mRNA molecules, which they produce in order to make proteins of their own. Once those proteins are made, our cells then shred the mRNA with special enzymes. The mRNA molecules our cells make can only survive a matter of minutes. The mRNA in vaccines is engineered to withstand the cell’s enzymes a bit longer, so that the cells can make extra virus proteins and prompt a stronger immune response. But the mRNA can only last for a few days at most before they are destroyed.

Many of these rollout woes are caused by logistical issues — against the backdrop of a strained health care system and skepticism around vaccines. Freeing up more doses for first injections won’t solve problems like those, some researchers argue.

Shweta Bansal, a mathematical biologist at Georgetown University, and others also raised concerns about the social and psychological impacts of delaying second doses.

“The longer the duration between doses, the more likely people are to forget to come back,” she said. “Or people may not remember which vaccine that they got, and we don’t know what a mix and match might do.”

In an emailed statement, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, endorsed only the strictly scheduled two-dose regimens that were tested in clinical trials of the vaccines.

The “depth or duration of protection after a single dose of vaccine,” he said, can’t be determined from the research published so far. “Though it is quite a reasonable question to study a single-dose regimen in future clinical trials, we simply don’t currently have these data.”

The vaccine makers themselves have taken divergent positions.

In a trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, volunteers in Britain were originally intended to receive two doses given four weeks apart. But some vaccinated participants ended up receiving their doses several months apart, and still acquired some protection against Covid-19.

An extended gap between doses “gives you a lot of flexibility for how you administer your vaccines, dependent on the supply that you have,” said Menelas Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development at AstraZeneca.

Delayed dosing could help get countries “in very good shape for immunizing large swaths of their populations to protect them quickly.”

Steven Danehy, a spokesman for Pfizer, struck a far more conservative tone. “Although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95 percent,” he said.

“There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,” he added.

Ray Jordan, a spokesman for Moderna, said the company could not comment on altering dosing plans at this time.

There is no dispute that second doses should be administered sometime near the first dose. “They key is to expose the immune system at a time when it still recognizes” the immunity-stimulating ingredients in the vaccine, said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University.

During a public health emergency, “companies will tend to pick the shortest period they can that gives them that full, protective response,” said Dr. Dean of the University of Florida.

But it’s unclear when that critical window really starts to close in the body. Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University who supports delaying second doses, said she thought the body’s memory of the first injection could last at least a few months.

Doses of other routine vaccines, she noted, are scheduled several months apart or even longer, to great success. “Let’s vaccinate as many people as possible now, and give them the booster dose when they become available,” she said.

Dr. Robert Wachter, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco, said he was originally skeptical of the idea of delaying second doses.

But the disappointingly slow vaccine rollout in the United States, coupled with concerns about a new and fast-spreading variant of the coronavirus, have changed his mind, and he now believes this is a strategy worth exploring.

“The past couple weeks have been sobering,” he said.

Other researchers are less eager to take the gamble. Delaying doses without strong supporting data “is like going into the Wild West,” said Dr. Phyllis Tien, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “I think we need to follow what the evidence says: two shots 21 days apart for Pfizer, or 28 days apart for Moderna.”

Some experts also fear that delaying an immunity-boosting second dose might give the coronavirus more opportunity to multiply and mutate in partly protected people.

There is some evidence to support the alternative strategy of halving the dose of each shot, suggested on Sunday by Mr. Slauoi of Operation Warp Speed.

In an interview on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Dr. Slaoui pointed to data from clinical trials run by Moderna, whose vaccine is typically given in two doses, four weeks apart, each containing 100 micrograms of active ingredient.

In the trials, people between the ages of 18 and 55 who received two half-doses produced an “identical immune response to the 100 microgram dose,” Dr. Slaoui said. The F.D.A. and Moderna are now considering implementing this regimen on a more widespread scale, he added.

While there’s little or no data to support the soundness of delayed dose delays, Dr. Slaoui said, “injecting half the volume” might constitute “a more responsible approach that will be based on facts and data to immunize more people.”

But Dr. Dean and John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University, both pointed out that this regimen would still represent a departure from the ones rigorously tested in clinical trials.

A half-dose that elicits an immune response that appears similar to that triggered by a full dose may not in the end deliver the expected protection against the coronavirus, Dr. Moore noted. Halving doses “is not something I would want to see done unless it were absolutely necessary,” he said.

“Everyone is looking for solutions right now, because there is an urgent need for more doses,” Dr. Dean said. “But the dust has not settled on the best way to achieve this.”

Categories
Health

What Scientists Know About How the Coronavirus Variant Spreads

A more contagious form of the coronavirus has entered the United States.

In the UK, where it was first identified, the new variant became the predominant form of the coronavirus in just three months, accelerating that nation’s rise and filling its hospitals. It could do the same thing in the United States, exacerbating an unstoppable surge in deaths and overwhelming the already strained health system, experts warned.

One variant that is spreading more easily also means that people must follow religious precautions such as social distancing, mask-wearing, hand hygiene, and improved ventilation – undesirable news for many Americans who are already scrubbing against restrictions.

“The bottom line is that everything we do to reduce transmission is reducing transmission of all variants, including this one,” said Angela Rasmussen, a Georgetown University virologist. But “it may mean that the more targeted measures that aren’t like a full lockdown aren’t as effective.”

What does it mean for this variant to be transferable? What makes this variant more contagious than previous iterations of the virus? And why should we worry about a variant that spreads more easily but doesn’t seem to make anyone sick?

We asked experts to weigh the evolving research on this new version of the coronavirus.

Many variants of the coronavirus have emerged since the beginning of the pandemic. However, all evidence so far suggests that the new mutant, named B.1.1.7, is more transmissible than previous forms. It first appeared in the UK in September, but already accounts for more than 60 percent of new cases in London and neighboring areas.

The new variant appears to infect more people than previous versions of the coronavirus, even if the environments are the same. It is not clear what gives the variant this advantage, although there is evidence that it could infect cells more efficiently.

It’s also difficult to say exactly how much more transmissible the new variant can be, as scientists haven’t yet done the necessary laboratory experiments. Most of the conclusions were drawn from epidemiological observation and “there are so many possible biases in all the data available,” warned Muge Cevik, an infectious disease expert at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and a scientific advisor to the UK government.

Scientists initially estimated that the new variant was 70 percent more transferable, but a recent model study put that number at 56 percent. Once the researchers sift through all of the data, the variant may only be 10 to 20 percent more transmissible, said Trevor Bedford, an evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Still, said Dr. Bedford, it is likely to catch on quickly and become the predominant form in the United States by March. Scientists like Dr. Bedford closely follows all known variants to determine any further changes that could change their behavior.

The new mutant virus can spread more easily, but in every other way it seems little different from its predecessors.

At least so far, the variant does not seem to make people sick or lead to more deaths. Still, there is cause for concern: a more transmissible variant increases the death toll just because it spreads faster and infects more people.

“With that in mind, it’s just a numbers game,” said Dr. Rasmussen. The effect is amplified “in countries like the US and UK where the health system is really at its breaking point”.

The routes of transmission – through large and small droplets and tiny aerosolized particles floating in crowded interiors – have not changed. This means that masks, limiting time with others, and improving indoor ventilation will all help contain the spread of the variant, as it does with other variants of the virus.

Updated

Apr. 31, 2020, 10:44 am ET

“By minimizing exposure to viruses, you reduce the risk of infection and overall transmission,” said Dr. Rasmussen.

Some preliminary evidence from the UK suggests that people infected with the new variant tend to have greater amounts of the virus in their nose and throat than people infected with previous versions.

“We’re talking in the 10-fold to 10,000-fold range,” said Michael Kidd, clinical virologist for Public Health England and clinical advisor to the UK government who has investigated the phenomenon.

There are other explanations for the finding: Dr. Kidd and his colleagues did not have access to information about when, for example, people were tested for their disease, which could affect what is known as their viral load.

However, the finding offers a possible explanation for why the new variant is spreading more easily. The more viruses infected people have in their noses and throats, the more they are expelled into the air and onto surfaces when they breathe, speak, sing, cough or sneeze.

As a result, situations where people are exposed to the virus are more likely to develop new infections. Some new data suggests that people infected with the new variant spread the virus to more of their contacts.

For previous versions of the virus, contact tracing suggested that about 10 percent of those who are in close contact with an infected person – for at least 15 minutes within six feet – inhaled enough virus to become infected.

“With the variant we could expect 15 percent of it,” said Dr. Bedford. “Right now, risky activities are getting riskier.”

The variant has 23 mutations compared to the version that broke out a year ago in Wuhan, China. But 17 of those mutations appeared suddenly after the virus deviated from its youngest ancestor.

Every infected person is a melting pot that gives the virus the opportunity to mutate as it reproduces. With more than 83 million people infected worldwide, the coronavirus is accumulating mutations faster than scientists expected at the start of the pandemic.

The vast majority of mutations offer no benefit to the virus and die out. However, mutations that improve the fitness or transmissibility of the virus have a greater chance of prevailing.

At least one of the 17 new mutations in the variant contributes to their greater contagion. The mechanism is not yet known. Some data suggest that the new variant may bind more tightly to a protein on the surface of human cells and infect them more easily.

It is possible for the variant to bloom in the nose and throat of an infected person, but not, for example, in the lungs. This may explain why patients are more likely to spread it but not develop more serious diseases than from previous versions of the virus. Some influenza viruses behave similarly, experts say.

“We must view this evidence as preliminary and accumulative,” said Dr. Cevik on the growing data on the new variant.

However, the studies to date indicate that the transmission of the variant must urgently be restricted. She added: “Overall, we need to be much more careful and investigate the gaps in our mitigation efforts.”

Categories
Health

Discovery of Virus Variant in Colorado and California Alarms Scientists

“I would expect a similar trend,” said Trevor Bedford, evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. The variant is currently likely to make up less than 1 percent of cases, but it could make up the majority of cases by March.

The variant has 23 mutations compared to the original virus that was discovered in Wuhan, China. Seventeen mutations have occurred since the virus strayed from its youngest ancestor, said Muge Cevik, an infectious disease expert at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and a scientific advisor to the UK government.

The speed at which the virus took on so many changes worries scientists who expected the coronavirus to evolve much more slowly.

Current vaccine candidates should continue to protect people from disease, several experts said. However, the appearance of the new variant, which contains at least one mutation that weakens the body’s immune protection, makes it likely that vaccines will need regular adjustments, much like they do in order to remain effective against the influenza virus.

Scientists still aren’t sure how much more easily the mutant spreads. Initial estimates were around 70 percent higher transferability, but since then the number has been revised to 56 percent and could drop even further, said Dr. Cevik.

But with each new person it infects, the coronavirus also has more chances of mutating and therefore more chances of showing up with mutations that give it an advantage – by making it more transmissible or less susceptible to the immune system, for example.

“When you’ve had enough of huge amounts of viral replications around the world, you’re going to get lots of different varieties,” said Dr. Dan Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Categories
Health

Amid Pandemic, Scientists Reassess Routine Medical Care

Now the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, a federally funded research group, is prospectively collecting data during the pandemic from more than 800,000 women and nearly 100 mammography centers across the country.

Millions of women missed their regular mammograms in the first wave of the pandemic.

Before the pandemic, around 100,000 women had screening mammograms every day in the United States. In the spring, almost all mammography centers closed for three months, and although they reopened in the summer, almost all of them did not work normally until October. That may change as new coronavirus infections rise, but for now women who want mammograms can get them.

Clinics have had to slow the speed at which they perform mammograms due to the precautions taken by Covid-19, including physical removal and cleaning of equipment between exams. But they make up for the delays by keeping longer hours and opening on weekends.

The situation may be different for women with worrying findings, such as a lump or a suspicious finding on a mammogram. The wait for diagnostic imaging and biopsies can be long, stretching for weeks or months, said Dr. Christoph Lee, Professor of Radiology and Health Research at the University of Washington.

Doctors expect many women who missed their mammograms this past spring will not return because they can do the screening test again, some because they fell out of the habit, others because of the social and economic impact of the pandemic. Women may have to stay home to look after children or they may have lost their jobs and health insurance.

The Breast Cancer Consortium should have the first results of the screening shutdown’s impact on patient outcomes in six months, said Dr. Lee.

“We have never been able to argue to stop screening for a period of time as the standard of care is regular screening,” said Dr. Lee. “We’re trying to find out whether less screening leads to more or less harm.”