Search

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This paper compares the death rates in Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and conservative Mennonite groups to a rate estimated for the U.S. population. Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites. Vaccination campaigns must consider and value the cultural beliefs of closed religious communities to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the proportion of staff employed in smaller Victorian public acute healthcare facilities with evidence of immunity to hepatitis B. Methods: For optimal long-term immunity, a completed hepatitis B vaccination course and post vaccination hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level ≥10 mIU/mL is desirable for all high-risk staff employed in healthcare facilities. For the financial years 2016/17–2019/20, a standardised surveillance module developed by the Victorian Healthcare Associated Infection Surveillance System (VICNISS) Coordinating Centre was completed by the smaller Victorian public acute healthcare facilities (individual hospitals with <100 acute care beds or their multi-site health service). Staff were assessed as having evidence or no evidence of optimal immunity to hepatitis B. Those without optimal evidence were sub-classified as 'incomplete vaccination course', 'no serology', 'contraindicated', 'non-responder', 'declined' or 'unknown'. Data were analysed to determine trends over time for healthcare facilities that participated more than once. Results: A total of 88 healthcare facilities reported hepatitis B immunity status of high-risk (Category A) staff (n = 29 920) at least once over 5 years; 55 healthcare facilities reported more than once. The aggregate proportion with evidence of optimal immunity was 66.3%. Healthcare facilities with 100–199 Category A staff employed reported the lowest evidence of optimal immunity (59.6%). Of all Category A staff with no evidence of optimal immunity, the majority had 'unknown' status (19.8%), with only 0.6% overall who declined vaccination. Conclusions: Our study found evidence of optimal staff hepatitis B immunity in only two-thirds of Category A staff working in surveyed healthcare facilities. What is known about the topic? Non-immune healthcare staff are at risk of acquiring hepatitis B in the event of an occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens. What does this paper add? An update about the proportion of staff employed in healthcare facilities with evidence of optimal long-term immunity to hepatitis B. What are the implications for practitioners? To mitigate risk, enhanced immunisation policies and programs are needed to actively support healthcare staff hepatitis B vaccination and serological testing; this includes documented follow up of those staff whose immune status is currently reported as unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2007, the number of HIV diagnoses in Turkey has increased more than 600% and the AIDS-related deaths have more than doubled. Despite trans community being severely impacted by the growing epidemic, there exists a conspicuous absence of epidemiological data regarding the HIV burden of trans people. This paper examines the medical experiences of HIV-positive trans women who engage in sex work and the harmful violence they encounter at the hands of health providers. The paper emphasizes the urgent need for comprehensive interventions to address the intersecting issues of HIV risk, structural violence, and discrimination faced by HIV-positive trans sex workers, one of the most marginalized communities worldwide. To interpret better how transphobia and HIVphobia become deeply entangled in Turkish medical settings, the paper draws from the concepts of iatrogenesis , necropolitics, and immunity. By bringing together these conceptual tools with long-term ethnographic data and in-depth interviews, this paper demonstrates that trans women are treated by healthcare providers as though they are always-already infectious. The paper contends that aggressive immunitarian boundaries, erected between healthcare personnel and individuals deemed "contagious others," are central to doctors' denial of medical care and reluctance to touch, examine, or even admit trans patients, particularly when they are HIV-positive. • Social immunization lies at the core of doctors' refusal of care for trans patients. • Social immunization is central to the operation of necropolitics and iatrogenesis. • Doctors establish violent boundaries in an attempt to "protect" themselves. • Trans women are assumed to be inherently contagious by healthcare providers. • Trans communities are slowly debilitated through denial of healthcare services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, many health care systems have been heavily engaged in treating and preventing the disease, and the year 2020 may be called as "historic COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough". Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies have initiated investigations on developing an efficient and safe vaccine against the virus. From Moderna and Pfizer in the United States to PastocoVac in Pasteur Institute of Iran and the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, different candidates have been introduced to the market. COVID-19 vaccine research has been facilitated based on genome and structural information, bioinformatics predictions, epitope mapping, and data obtained from the previous developments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-1) and middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) vaccine candidates. SARS-CoV genome sequence is highly homologous to the one in COVID-19 and both viruses use the same receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). Moreover, the immune system responds to these viruses, partially in the same way. Considering the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and previous attempts to manufacture SARS-CoV vaccines, this paper is going to discuss clinical cases as well as vaccine challenges, including those related to infrastructures, transportation, possible adverse reactions, utilized delivery systems (e.g., nanotechnology and electroporation) and probable vaccine-induced mutations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Already in its first implementation, the introduction of the Covid‐19 immunity certificate has generated some debate among the public. This debate might be a hindrance to the effective realization of this policy. This study aimed to systematically review published research evaluating public feeling of the Covid‐19 immunity certificate policy measure and to find which factors might influence its acceptance. Methods: We followed the scoping review methods manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We included studies with no time limits that presented novel data, and no exclusions have been made based on study design. We excluded articles that presented just expert opinions. Results: We found and reviewed 17 articles. The included studies were conducted in two main countries (the United Kingdom and Switzerland), with the rest from Israel, Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Taiwan and China. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included, and nonrepresentative samples were mostly used to explore the public feeling about the Covid‐19 immunity certification. The included studies showed that public views on immunity certification are quite contradictory and influenced by age, gender, ethnicity, political orientation and attitudes towards Covid‐19 vaccination. The topic more often addressed by the included studies was the public's views on the positive and negative implications of the Covid‐19 immunity certificate in terms of ethical, legal and behavioural consequences of this measure. Conclusion: The varying acceptance rates are notable and may partly be linked to differences in demographics, Covid‐19 concerns and ideological beliefs, as seen in other health‐related tracking policies. Moreover, dominant factors behind the (un)success of this policy are complex and entangled with the cultural and political dimensions rather than being just technical. For this reason, it is important to expand psychosocial research to better understand the concerns behind health certifications and allow planning of culturally based and ethically sound suitable strategies. This would be very relevant to increasing public approval and compliance with this public health measure. Patient or Public Contribution: This does not apply to our work as it was a review paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]