When Hollywood tells stories about mass murderers, it gives them names like Jason or Freddy Krueger. Hollywood wouldn’t come up with names like Covid-19, SARS-2, or the Corona Virus. And it certainly wouldn’t name anybody in its sequels, Omicron. Let alone BA.1 or BQ.1.1.
But those are the names we’ve come to learn in a three-year worldwide pandemic that has killed nearly seven million people and caused almost three-quarters of a billion infections.
It’s baaaack. The latest sequel, or more accurately, the newest Omicron variant, is XBB.1.5. The first samples of the new subvariant were found last October in New York state. Since then, it has spread rapidly in the Northeast.
If you haven’t noticed the coverage of XBB.1.5 yet, you will shortly. What should responsible media members report?
Let me be clear about a few things before continuing.
- I am not a doctor or clinician. I have no medical training.
- I am NOT an anti-vaxer. I am fully vaccinated against Covid, as is my entire family.
- I am not trying to make a political point for or against Covid vaccines. Individuals should make their own informed decisions based on consultation with their doctor.
- I am only concerned with facts and data. I believe in science.
The White House COVID response coordinator, Dr. Ashish Jha, fired off a series of Tweets last week. He Tweeted XBB.1.5 went from “4% of sequences to 40% in just a few weeks.”
CDC data for the week ending January 7 projects that 27.6% of new cases are XBB.1.5, compared to 18.3% the prior week. In the Northeast, the figure rises to 72%. One thing experts agree on is that this is a highly contagious variant of Omicron.
In his series of Tweets, Jha adds: That XBB.1.5 may be more inherently contagious. That is a reoccurring theme in news reports quoting other doctors, scientists and researchers share.
If there’s good news about this variant, it’s that the early data suggests that for most people, it will not be as deadly as the original COVID-19 strain. The variant is not causing increases in hospitalizations or deaths. What it may lack in its ability to kill younger, healthy people, it makes up for in transmissibility.
A USA Today article states the variant “is so contagious that even people who’ve avoided it so far are getting infected, and the roughly 80% of Americans who’ve already been infected are likely to catch it again.” It quotes Paula Cannon, a virologist at the University of Southern California, saying, “it’s crazy infectious.”
Two additional quotes from Cannon in USA Today are worth noting:
“All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think, are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.” Cannon also said, “Essentially, everyone in the country is at risk for infection now, even if they’re super careful, up to date on vaccines (emphasis mine), or have caught it before.”
Most experts are instructing everybody to get a booster of the new bivalent shot. A new advertising campaign is about to begin urging people to get boosted.
The media needs to report on the bivalent booster, its effectiveness, and who should get it because of the XBB.1.5 variant.
Right now, nobody knows how effective the bivalent booster will be against XBB.1.5. Despite the claims that the booster will protect people, the answer is less evident in the published studies. There are several factors that individuals should consider.
Again, I am not an anti-vaxer. I am fully vaccinated, as is my family. It was an easy decision to make at the time because the mortality and hospitalization rates of the initial COVID-19 virus were quite high. Further, hospitals were filled beyond capacity, lowering the chances of getting adequate medical treatment if contracting the virus. At that time, trusting that the vaccines were sufficiently tested and didn’t have significant side effects were worth the risk.
Each mutation of the original has proven less deadly, which is one factor that makes it less imperative to get the bivalent vaccine – except for people with higher risk factors.
Dr. Jha Tweeted, “If you had an infection before July OR Your last vaccine was before the bivalent update in September, Your protection against an XBB.1.5 infection is probably not that great.” No doubt that’s true, but will the vaccine help protect against the latest variant?
Jha adds that “All the evidence (the tests) says that they (the vaccines) should work just fine.” Most experts agree. They also concur when Jha states “that it (XBB.1.5) may be more immune evasive than other Omicron variants.”
People will have to weigh these dualities when considering whether to get additional vaccines. Although each mutation has become less deadly, each variant gets better at evading immunities.
The New England Journal of Medicine published the most recent study on the efficacy of vaccines on COVID-19 and Omicron subvariants.
Neutralization against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB from mRNA Bivalent Booster/
The key paragraph:
“neutralization titers against BA.1 and BA.5 that were 4 times as low as that against WA1/2020 and neutralization titers against BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB that were 12 to 26 times as low as that against WA1/2020.”
A picture is worth a thousand words:
The graphs show that receiving additional vaccines are more effective against all strains. However, the added bivalent booster appears to be less effective against the XBB variant than the two doses against the original COVID-19 virus.
Although it should provide some additional protection for a few months, the next variant is likely right around the corner. People have to consider how often they are willing to get another booster.
As people weigh the benefits and risks, they should consider the possible side effects. The process of bringing new treatments to market in the U.S. is stringent – far more difficult here than in any other country.
Most drugs go through multiple years of clinical trials. COVID vaccines received approval through emergency measures with much lower clinical trial thresholds than usual.
Pharmaceutical companies must include a disclaimer with ”possible” side effects for every new medication released and advertised. The copy often says, “up to and including death.” However, after lengthy clinical studies, the risks are considered minimal. COVID vaccines are the only medication not required to include a disclaimer about possible side effects.
Thus far, there’s no evidence of widespread adverse side effects or substantiating claims made by anti-vaxers. However, sometimes it takes years for side effects to manifest fully.
In the coming days, media coverage of the XBB.1.5 variant will increase. There will be enormous pressure on the press to tell people they must get an additional booster and also to mask up again.
As the media reports on the latest phase of the pandemic, it should be honest about the data on XBB.1.5. and the bivalent vaccine. For some, it will make sense to get the jab again. When weighing all the factors, others may decide it’s not necessary. Let’s give people all the data and respect their informed, science-based decisions.
And that is not misinformation.
Andy Bloom is president of Andy Bloom Communications. He specializes in media training and political communications. He has programmed legendary stations including WIP, WPHT and WYSP/Philadelphia, KLSX, Los Angeles and WCCO Minneapolis. He was Vice President Programming for Emmis International, Greater Media Inc. and Coleman Research. Andy also served as communications director for Rep. Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio. He can be reached by email at andy@andybloom.com or you can follow him on Twitter @AndyBloomCom.
Misinformation
“Each mutation of the original has proven less deadly”. Not true. Death rates are lower because of vaccination and acquired immunity due to prior infection. Most Americans have been vaccinated, infected or both.
Misinformation:” “As people weigh the benefits and risks, they should consider the possible side effects”. You go on to say, “Thus far, there’s no evidence of widespread adverse side effects or substantiating claims made by anti-vaxers.” So what, exactly, are the risks to consider? Why would anyone not pull into a Walgreens every 6 months and get a free shot that takes less than 3seconds to administer that will undoubtedly provide some protection against a serious outcome? Because we don’t know how this virus will evolve, or whether the next variant will be more severe, why not get all the protection that’s available?
I don’t understand how the right has decided to politicize the vaccine. I don’t understand how articles like this can even mention informed, science based decisions when they don’t do that themselves. Yes, the media should be honest – non physician, heal thyself. I also don’t understand why conservatives who think the vaccine/boosters are nearly useless blocked more funding to develop better ones.
FROM THE AUTHOR
Bob,
I really should answer you with just one paragraph. Here’s all that really needs to be said:
Bring the graphs I took from NEJM to your doctor for review. Ask this question: Is the new bivalent vaccine AS EFFECTIVE against XBB.1.5 as the original vaccine was against the original Covid-19 virus?
But, knowing you as I do, I took two hours to write a detailed point by point response, so here it is:
What you don’t know is that what I write about medical issues is previously discussed, then reviewed for accuracy by somebody who is an MD, Ph.D., and academic researcher whom I have known for a long time. They have sterling credentials. My long relationship with this person has taught me to trust their judgment. After having this person review my column again post-publication as well as the answers I am about to provide, they concluded:
“Science is a moving target. We make the best choices given the available data. Your position that the initial vaccine was clearly the proper response at the time but is now more of a personal choice is entirely defensible. If someone wants to take a new vaccine every three months, that’s their choice, but the benefit-to-risk ratio is not as clear as it was at the beginning of the pandemic. That’s the point of your article and a very defensible point.”
Now, let me address the issues in your comments. You write that I am wrong about each mutation becoming less deadly.
Where did you get that from? I’m not sure that even Dr. Fauci has made any such claim.
The data will support that the ratio of people with serious complications (i.e., hospitalizations, ventilator support, and death) divided by the number of people with active infections is lower now than at the beginning of the pandemic. This result may be a combination of less virulent viruses, natural defenses, and vaccines.
Going back to my medical expert for clarification, they report there is evidence to suggest the virus is more likely to stay in the nasal cavities than in the lungs. This could help explain why the variants are simultaneously more infectious and less virulent. To determine, with certainty, the extent the variants are weakening vs. the degree natural immunity and vaccines have helped, we would need to expose a control group of people who previously had no exposure to Covid to the latest variant and then determine their death rates.
You also criticize what I wrote about the side effects of the vaccines – even when I say there is no evidence of widespread adverse side effects… You write: “So what, exactly, are the risks to consider? Why would anyone not pull into a Walgreens every 6 months and get a free shot that takes less than 3 seconds to administer that will undoubtedly provide some protection against a serious outcome? Because we don’t know how this virus will evolve, or whether the next variant will be more severe, why not get all the protection that’s available?”
I should have been more specific and stated that there are no SERIOUS side effects THUS FAR. However, even if it’s just a sore arm and a general feeling of malaise, the vaccine is widely known to have short-term side effects.
Nobody can say with certainty what the long-term implications may be. Everything appears safe until it is not. Numerous products were on the market for years before discovering adverse side effects.
Lawsuits over Oxycodone painkillers, Nexium acid reflux medicine, Sudafed nasal decongestant with pseudoephedrine, and Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder come to mind.
The vaccines we’re discussing haven’t gone through standard clinical testing protocols. If you’re positive that there’s no chance of any negative side effects, why not expand that three-second Walgreens run into 15 minutes and get a few aspirins and a couple of every supplement they offer because you can’t have too much protection, right?
Even if you don’t pay when you get vaccinated, you are misinformed if you believe the shots are “free.”
You wrote: “I don’t understand how the right has decided to politicize the vaccine. I don’t understand how articles like this can even mention informed, science based decisions when they don’t do that themselves. Yes, the media should be honest – non physician, heal thyself. I also don’t understand why conservatives who think the vaccine/boosters are nearly useless blocked more funding to develop better ones.”
I did my best to be clear that this was not a political issue. I also was not writing to make arguments for or against vaccines. I used data from the most recent study published in “The New England Journal of Medicine” (NEJM). And yes, a physician reviewed every word I wrote, including my data analysis.
Again, bring the graphs from the NEJM study to your doctor. Ask them if the data shows that the bivalent vaccine is AS EFFECTIVE against XBB.1.5 as the original vaccine is against the original Covid-19 virus.
You also don’t know: My father spent his entire career doing medical research. He was on the team that produced the artificial kidney. He spent the latter part of his career working on a protocol to help MS patients get out of their wheelchairs. If you believe I’ve done anything in my life designed to block funding for medical research, you don’t know me as well as you presume.
Finally, this is not religion for me. It is science. I wrote the column to help media members understand how to inform their audiences. There are reasons to get the latest booster and for some people to skip this one. If you believe getting an additional jab will benefit you, I don’t judge you.