Skip to content

As we enter our second pandemic Thanksgiving holiday, I'm reminded we have a lot to be thankful for compared to a year ago. This time last year the only people who were vaccinated against COVID-19 were the relatively small numbers of subjects randomized to receive vaccine in the clinical trials. Now we know that our approved and authorized vaccines are both safe and effective and clearly have put a dent in the pandemic in the US. Also, we now have treatment options including two oral medications making their way through the FDA evaluation process. Unlike last year, many families will be able to gather safely to celebrate the holiday. For those that do, please be safe both in your travel plans and in your infection control practices.

The Number Needed to Vaccinate

Last week the FDA authorized booster doses of mRNA vaccines, and subsequently the CDC/ACIP met on November 19 to make their recommendations. Now everyone 18 years of age and older can get a booster if desired.

I won't bother to recite all of the data presented, suffice to say the new experimental data submitted by Pfizer and Moderna consisted primarily of antibody titers one month after a booster dose, along with some limited safety information. I did want to mention the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) just to give you an idea of how many people benefit from boosters at different age groups. NNV is a spinoff of the term number needed to treat which is another way of looking at data beyond p values. It was hoped it would be useful in explaining risks and benefits to lay people, but that hasn't quite been realized.

Dr. Oliver's presentation at ACIP looked at NNV for different age groups, telling us how many people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional person being infected or hospitalized with COVID-19. Slides 37 and 38 in her presentation display the data in graphical form.

Speaking just about the Pfizer data (NNVs are higher - i.e. less beneficial - for Moderna due to longer persistence of antibody), for persons like me 65 years and older 481 would need to receive a booster dose to prevent 1 additional hospitalization over a 6 month period. That's not bad, but of course the numbers get higher in the younger age groups. For 50-64 NNV is 2051, then 3361 for 30-49 year-olds and finally 8738 for the 18-29 year age group, which is not a great benefit. Know that these are predictions based on modeling and a lot of assumptions, but I think they are useful numbers to help you understand the magnitude of booster benefit. If you are like me, you're getting a lot of questions from parents about booster doses for teenagers and younger. Don't worry too much about that now, boosters aren't likely to be a big help for them. We'll know more once the children in the clinical trials have 6-month antibody levels drawn, coming soon.

Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy

Boosters aren't the way out of this mess, we still need to vaccinate the unvaccinated. According to multiple polls, a core group of adults in the US aren't going to be convinced to choose vaccination no matter what data are explained. They have made a decision and only choose to look at information that supports that decision. However, a lot of unvaccinated folks are open to discussion. For them, a new toolkit from our surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is a good approach to try to correct misinformation. His advice to healthcare providers has 5 points: Listen, Empathize, Point to credible sources, Don't publicly shame, and Use inclusive language. It's a 22-page easy read, please take the time to look it over and decide how you can use it in your practice.

In a week without major pandemic news, it seems that the medical and lay media have found time to speculate about how this pandemic might end. Of course this is premature, we hardly know what to expect next month, let alone the years to come. It does give me an excuse to make some observations on current goings-on.

Medical Pundits Aren't Reading the Literature Carefully

I was flabbergasted when I learned of major news media outlets like NPR and Wall Street Journal giving voice to poorly-informed opinions related to COVID-19 vaccination of young children. In one, a mother who also is an adult infectious diseases physician expounded on her plan to deliberately spread out the interval between vaccine doses for her child because she had concluded a longer interval between doses resulted in longer-lasting immunity. In explaining her rationale, she seemed to have discounted the fact that she was guessing on extrapolation of studies in adults in entirely different settings and vaccines, not to mention the fact that only a 3-week interval has been studied for the Pfizer vaccine in younger children. We simply don't know what spreading out intervals will do, although this is certainly something to be studied particularly if we need to incorporate regular COVID-19 vaccination within the regular pediatric well-child visit schema. I absolutely support this mother's right to make decisions about her child's healthcare, but is it necessary to promote this poorly substantiated thought to the general public?

Worse was another piece where the authors cherry-picked superficial data from some pretty dense discussions at FDA and ACIP to reach similarly unfounded views regarding risks and benefits of pediatric COVID-19 vaccines. It appeared they hadn't read the source documents but rather looked at some slide presentations from Pfizer to point out presumed holes in CDC recommendations. A deeper dive to look at detailed briefing documents from FDA as well as discussion of 6 different vaccine risk/benefit scenarios, all concluding benefits exceed risks of vaccination in the 5-11 year-old age group, seems to refute their editorial points. Anyone could correctly accuse me of cherry-picking my discussions for this blog, but this is always informed by careful analysis of the original source documents.

Bottom line? Reading an opinion written by pundits in a respected media source doesn't guarantee you are reading an evidence-based conclusion.

I Will Be Safe When Everyone Else is Safe

Earlier in the pandemic we talked about herd immunity and ending SARS-CoV-2 transmission. That happy ending doesn't seem likely now; talk to a white-tailed deer in Iowa about it. Just don't get too close.

Many of us in the US are guilty of not giving enough voice to the global situation. We are all very pleased with availability of vaccines including boosters in our country, even though our immunization rates pale beside what less-resourced countries have accomplished. Let me point you to 2 sources to give you a view of the "pan" in this pandemic.

First is a great data source from Our World in Data. This site, updated daily, gives both quick and detailed looks at progress (or lack thereof) for COVID-19 vaccination across the globe. Note from the first map the horrific gaps in coverage in some countries, as well as the relatively poor showing in the resource-rich US. I probably don't need to remind you of how isolated outbreaks can become global problems very quickly. Remember Ebola?

Second is an article appearing recently in the BMJ that looked at life expectancy and premature mortality from the pandemic in 37 upper-middle and high income countries utilizing corrections for population age spectrum and other factors not often considered in this type of report. The US was second-worst to Russia in changes in life expectancy for populations, far worse than countries at the other end of the analysis such as Iceland, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Taiwan, and New Zealand. Although all of those countries have differing circumstances, we can learn much from study of their mitigation strategies.