China has announced that its requirement for travellers arriving in the country to go into quarantine will end on 8 January.

The measure is the latest in a series of restrictions to be lifted as China abandons its zero-Covid policy.

China is seeing an explosion in Covid-related infections and medical workers have said they are struggling to cope.

In his first comments on the changes, President Xi Jinping urged officials to do what was « feasible » to save lives.

State media quoted him as saying the country faced new situations demanding a more targeted response.

China has stopped publishing Covid statistics, but it is thought thousands of people may be dying every day.

Since March 2020, all passengers arriving in China have had to undergo mandatory centralised quarantine.

But the length of time has been progressively reduced, from three weeks originally to just five days at present.

Under the new rules, Covid will be downgraded from a Class A infectious disease to Class B, meaning that quarantine will no longer be enforced.

China’s about-turn on how it manages the pandemic has left Mr Xi in an uncomfortable position, analysts say.

He was the driving force behind the zero-Covid policy, which was blamed for restricting people’s lives excessively and harming the economy.

But having abandoned it, he now has to take responsibility for the huge wave of infections and hospital admissions, mainly among older people.

Public anger over the president’s handling of the pandemic is one of the areas in which he is most vulnerable.

By Robert Plummer – BBC News

L’article China to end Covid quarantine for foreign arrivals est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

The UK has become the first country to approve a dual vaccine which tackles both the original Covid virus and the newer Omicron variant.

The upgraded vaccine should be available as an autumn booster and give better protection against variants.

Moderna said it could supply doses in the next few weeks, but exactly who will get them has yet to be announced.

All over-50s and people in high-risk groups will be offered some form of booster from next month.

Cases of coronavirus are currently falling in the UK, in mid-to-late July, around 2.5 million people tested positive for coronavirus.

The original vaccines used in the pandemic were designed to train the body to fight the first form of the virus that emerged in Wuhan, in China, at the end of 2019.

The Covid virus has since mutated substantially, with a stream of new variants emerging that can dodge some of our immune defences. They have caused large surges in cases around the world.

‘Sharpened tool’

Moderna’s vaccine targets both the original strain and the first Omicron variant (BA.1), which emerged last winter. It is known as a bivalent vaccine as it takes aim at two forms of Covid.

The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has considered the evidence and given the vaccine approval for use in adults.

Dr June Raine, the regulator’s chief executive, said: « The first generation of Covid-19 vaccines being used in the UK continue to provide important protection against the disease and save lives.

« What this bivalent vaccine gives us is a sharpened tool in our armoury to help protect us against this disease as the virus continues to evolve. »

The results of experiments on 437 people showed the updated vaccine was safe and gave better immune protection against newer variants.

Levels of antibodies that were able to stick to and disable Omicron (BA.1) were 1.7 times higher in people given the new vaccine. Tests against more recent Omicron variants (BA.4 and BA.5), which are causing the UK’s current wave, also showed higher levels of protection with the updated vaccine.

However, it is far from clear what that means in terms of preventing you becoming seriously ill. And it is uncertain what variants we will be facing in the coming months and exactly how well the updated vaccine will perform against them.

Stéphane Bancel, the chief executive officer of Moderna, said he was « delighted » the vaccine had been approved.

He said: « This represents the first authorization of an Omicron-containing bivalent vaccine, this bivalent vaccine has an important role to play in protecting people in the UK from Covid-19 as we enter the winter months. »

In the UK, the following people will be offered some form of booster:

• health and social care staff
• everyone aged 50 and over
• carers who are over the age of 16
• people over five whose health puts them at greater risk, this includes pregnant women
• people over five who share a house with somebody with a weakened immune system

Around 26 million people will be eligible for an autumn booster, Moderna says it will be able to supply 13 million doses by the end of the year.

Originally those aged 50-65 were not going to be jabbed. However, the immunisation campaign has been expanded because of the fast spread of variants, uncertainty about how the virus will mutate and the expectation that we will be more social and give virus a helping hand this winter – including at Christmas.

However, most people under 50 will not be boosted this winter. The focus is preventing those most at risk from becoming seriously ill rather than stopping the young passing the virus on to older relatives.

Moderna is not the only company updating its vaccines. Pfizer has also been developing vaccines that can target Omicron, however, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is not.

By By James Gallagher – BBC News

L’article Covid: UK first country to approve dual-strain vaccine est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has opened an inquiry into comments made by President Jair Bolsonaro wrongly claiming that Covid-19 vaccines may increase the chance of contracting Aids.

The comments, made during a social media livestream in October saw him temporarily banned from Facebook and YouTube under their fake news policies.

Mr Bolsonaro has frequently cast doubt over the effectiveness of vaccines.

He is already facing a separate inquiry into his handling of the pandemic.

During the livestream on 24 October, Mr Bolsonaro claimed that reports « suggest that people who are fully vaccinated against Covid-19 are developing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Aids) much faster than expected ». The assertion has been strongly rejected by scientists and medical experts.

The embattled president, who has refused to get vaccinated himself, has defended the comments and claimed that he was simply quoting from an article in a magazine.

On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ruled that Mr Bolsonaro had « used the modus operandi of mass dissemination schemes in social networks » which called for further investigation.

Mr de Moraes instructed Brazil’s top prosecutor, Augusto Aras, to try to establish whether the president’s comments are linked to a group of his supporters who are currently being investigated for the large-scale production of fake news.

The group, known in local media as the Office of Hate, has spread misinformation throughout the pandemic and has called for a military coup that would give Mr Bolsonaro, a former army captain, unlimited powers to rule the country.

Investigations into the group have already seen the arrest of a number of the president’s allies, including Roberto Jefferson, the head of the right-wing Brazilian Labour Party.

Mr Bolsonaro has come under heavy pressure in recent months and faced a number of political crises that have dented his popularity.

In October, Brazilian senators voted to recommend charging him over his response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

A special Senate investigative panel backed a report calling for charges to be filed against the president, including crimes against humanity.

Mr Bolsonaro has maintained he is « guilty of absolutely nothing ».

Brazil’s death toll from Covid-19 is the second highest in the world, behind the United States. More than 615,000 people have died, and 22.1 million have been infected with the virus, although there are fears the true numbers are far higher.

In March, as deaths spiked, the president told Brazilians to « stop whining » and downplayed the threat of the virus, as the health system was crippled by the crisis.

World Opinions News – BBC News

L’article Bolsonaro: Brazilian Supreme Court opens investigation into vaccine comments est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Pfizer’s two-dose Covid-19 vaccine has received full approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the first jab to be licensed in the nation.

The vaccine had initially been given emergency use authorisation. Its two jabs, three weeks apart, are now fully approved for those aged 16 and older.

The approval is expected to set off more vaccine mandates by employers and organisations across the country.

It comes amid lingering vaccine hesitancy among many Americans.

In a statement, the FDA said its review for approval included data from approximately 44,000 people. The vaccine, which will now be marketed as Comirnaty, was found to be 91% effective in preventing Covid disease.

Acting FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock said that the public « can be very confident » the vaccine meets high safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality standards.

It still has emergency use authorisation for children aged 12 to 15.

The jabs are being provided at no cost to Americans.

The FDA initially gave Pfizer temporary authorisation – a clearance given if the agency determines the benefits of a product outweigh potential risks during a public health emergency.

This full approval is essentially permanent. The licensing process requires companies to provide the FDA with information on how and where the product is made, as well as other clinical testing data.

Critics had been calling on the FDA to speed up this approval process as the nation struggled with dropping vaccination rates earlier this year. The spread of the contagious Delta variant has already given some hard-hit regions a bump in vaccination rates in recent weeks.

While the agency took steps to increase staff and resources, it had previously said it would take six months to get the required data.

The approval ultimately came less than four months after Pfizer-BioNTech filed for licensing in early May – the fastest vaccine approval in the FDA’s more than 100 year history.

Polling data released at the end of June by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 30% of unvaccinated American results said they would be more likely to get a vaccine if it received full FDA approval. The number rises to nearly 50% among Americans taking a « wait and see » approach to vaccines.

In a televised address on Monday, President Biden spoke directly to the « millions » of Americans he said were waiting for full and final FDA approval.

« The moment you’ve been waiting for is here, » he said. « It’s time for you to go get your vaccination. Get it today. »

Additionally, Mr Biden called on private sector companies and nonprofits to require employees to get vaccinated or « face strict requirements ».

Companies, healthcare systems, universities and other organisations are now expected to announce vaccine requirements as the country embarks on a return to normalcy. The US military has also said the vaccine will become mandatory for 1.3 million active-duty troops upon FDA approval.

To date, more than 92 million vaccinated Americans – more than half of the total – have received the Pfizer vaccine.

World Opinions – bbc

L’article Pfizer becomes first Covid vaccine to gain full FDA approval est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

The European Union’s medicines regulator on Tuesday said it had found a “possible link” between Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine and the development of rare blood clots in a small number of recipients, but concluded the shot’s overall benefits outweigh any risks associated with its use.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said its safety committee decided that a warning about unusual blood clots with low blood platelets must be added to the vaccine’s labels, just as the regulator has also required of rival vaccine maker AstraZeneca, whose own jab was found by the agency last month to also have a “possible link” with rare blood clots.

The EMA found that all instances of clotting had occurred in adults under 60 years, mostly women, within three weeks of vaccination with J&J’s single-shot vaccine. The agency said these rare blood disorders should be considered as “very rare side effects of the vaccine”.

It said all available evidence, including eight cases that were reported in adults who had received the jab in the United States, including one death, had formed part of its assessment.

The watchdog also said that most clots among recipients had occurred in the brain and abdomen, as was the case with AstraZeneca’s shot, which is also being studied for similar rare clotting problems.

Rare US blood clot cases

The EMA’s update came after J&J last week halted the European rollout of its one-dose shot in response to a recommendation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that officials pause its use while the rare blood clot cases were examined.

The cases were reported out of more than seven million doses administered in the US as of April 13, the EMA said.

J&J had advised European governments to store their doses until the EMA issued guidance on their use, and the US-based pharmaceutical giant is reportedly prepared to resume the deployment of its vaccine following the agency’s review.

The company has said it would aim to deliver 55 million doses to the European Union, as contracted, by the end of June. It is one of four COVID-19 vaccines authorised for use in the bloc.

European Medicines Agency backs use of single-dose COVID-19 shot, saying its overall benefits outweigh risks.

But widespread use of the shot among its 27-member states has not yet started, with the recent delay posing a fresh setback to already faltering vaccination efforts in the union, in particular, and global efforts to tackle the coronavirus pandemic.

The EU’s choppy vaccine rollout has been plagued by problems including poor coordination between national and regional authorities, supply shortages, concerns over the AstraZeneca shot and a damaging contractual row with the Anglo-Swedish company.

‘Suspicion is rising’

With the AstraZeneca vaccine, scientists in Norway and Germany have suggested that some people are experiencing an abnormal immune system response, forming antibodies that attack their own platelets.

It is not yet clear if there might be a similar mechanism with the J&J shot.

But both the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as a Russian-made COVID-19 vaccine and one from China, are made with the same technology.

They train the immune system to recognise the spike protein that coats the coronavirus. To do that, they use a cold virus, called an adenovirus, to carry the spike gene into the body.

“Suspicion is rising that these rare cases may be triggered by the adenovirus component of the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines,” Eleanor Riley, a professor of immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Edinburgh, told the Associated Press news agency.

Riley said that while more data was needed, “it remains the case that for the vast majority of adults in Europe and the US, the risks associated with contracting COVID-19 far, far outweigh any risk of being vaccinated”.

SOURCE: NEWS AGENCIES

L’article EU regulator finds J&J vaccine has ‘possible link’ to blood clots est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

In May last year, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that his country would soon provide safe and effective vaccines as a “global public good”, especially to the developing world.

To this end, the Chinese leader launched a massive state-backed campaign, allocating large amounts of subsidies and corralling up to 22 firms and research institutes to work on as many as 17 vaccine projects.

Some leaders in China’s immediate neighbourhood felt reassured by Xi’s rhetoric and hoped to capitalise on good relations with Beijing to acquire vaccines early on. In July, the Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte declared that his country would be “back to normal” by December, thanks to Chinese assistance.

Despite big funds and high hopes invested in the Chinese vaccine drive, it has not been the major success it was expected to be, at least in Southeast Asia. Chinese-developed vaccines have been met with significant scepticism in the region due to questions about their distribution, effectiveness and pricing, as well as potential “strings attached”.

As other major powers are catching up with vaccine production and making concrete steps towards provision for developing nations, China’s vaccine diplomacy in Southeast Asia and beyond may soon face formidable challengers.

The ‘Health Silk Road’

Witnessing an uptick in anti-China sentiment shortly after the COVID-19 outbreak, Beijing began presenting itself as an unlikely saviour of humanity, especially for poorer nations with limited ability to contain major public health crises.PUBLICITÉ

After its initial success delivering personal protective equipment and test kits across the world, it took on the task of developing COVID-19 vaccines. Last year, trials of Chinese vaccines were launched in 18 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Southeast’s largest nation, Indonesia, became a major hub for Chinese clinical trials, involving several Chinese pharmaceutical companies.

Buoyed by the outpouring of gratitude from Europe to Asia, China touted its overseas aid as a new “Health Silk Road”, part of its much-vaunted Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments across the world. Chinese officials said participating BRI nations were a top priority for provision of vaccines, both free and subsidised.

A year into the pandemic, China announced that it is providing free vaccines to 69 countries across the developing world and commercially exporting to 28 others.

Apart from helping mend its global image after it was blamed for the COVID-19 outbreak, Beijing’s medical drive also has an important economic aspect. Up until 2019, China played a minimal role in the global pharmaceutical industry, contributing less than 2 percent of medical goods procured by the United Nations.

By contrast, neighbouring India was responsible for 22 percent of such procurement and for 60 percent of global vaccine exports. Now, Chinese COVID-19 vaccines are set to increase the country’s global market share and, according to some estimates, bring more than $10bn in sales.

Delays and concerns about the efficacy and politics of China’s vaccine shipments plague its vaccine drive in the region.

Delays and doubts

As China rolled out its vaccines, Indonesia, the de facto leader of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), was among the first to receive the Sinovac vaccine. In early December, 1.2 million doses arrived, followed by 1.8 million by the end of the month. In January, Indonesia’s state-owned Bio Farma started producing the Chinese vaccine with materials sent from China.PUBLICITÉ

But in the rest of the region, shipments were delayed and were much smaller. Cambodia and Laos received 600,000 and 300,000 doses respectively in early February, while Thailand got 200,000 doses two weeks later. The Philippines received 600,000 doses at the end of the month – much later than Duterte had hoped.

Although China pledged to provide 300,000 doses to Myanmar, it still has not delivered; instead, the country received its first vaccine shipment of 1.5 million doses from India in January.

Chinese vaccine makers – like their Western counterparts – have suffered serious production delays and lack of capacity. In January, Sinovac production levels reached only half of the intended manufacturing capacity, raising doubts as to whether other, less-established Chinese companies will be in a position to meet demand.

Vaccines exports could also be hampered by China’s need to prioritise the mass vaccination of its one-billion-strong population, a major feat that may not be accomplished until the middle of next year.

An even greater source of concern is the efficacy of Chinese vaccines. International criticism has focused on the Chinese companies’ lack of transparency over results from the final phase of clinical trials. Clinical trials overseas have shown that Sinovac’s efficacy rate may be low as 50.4 percent, well below its competitors, which boast rates as high as 90 percent.

It is quite telling that even the staunchly pro-Beijing Philippine president and his health secretary have not taken a Chinese vaccine. Some medical experts, including a former top government adviser, have openly questioned the government’s reliance on the Chinese jab and demanded that it undergoes another appraisal by the health authorities.PUBLICITÉ

Meanwhile, a recent investigation by the Philippines’ Senate revealed that the country may be paying more for Chinese vaccines than some of its neighbours. Concerns about the politics of Chinese vaccine shipments were also raised as China escalated its aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea in March while sending another shipment.

Neighbouring Vietnam, which like the Philippines has maritime disputes with China, has rejected Chinese-made vaccines altogether.

Some of China’s close allies in the region are also not putting all their eggs in one basket. Cambodia invested first in 1 million doses through the UN-backed COVAX scheme, while Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have also been actively diversifying their vaccine supply by reaching out to alternative sources in the US, Europe, India and Russia. As for ethnically Chinese-majority Singapore, it is largely relying on vaccines from established pharmaceutical companies in the West.

Vaccine competition

Over the coming months, China’s initial advantage in vaccine diplomacy will likely disappear, as other major players step up. The Biden administration, for instance, has reversed its predecessor’s “America First” approach by reinstating assistance to the World Health Organization, as well as doubling down on its commitment to support the UN’s COVAX scheme, which aims to provide up to 2 billion doses to the poorest nations.

Together with Australia, India and Japan, the US has recently launched a new initiative under the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, better known as the “Quad” grouping, for joint production of up to 1 billion doses intended for Southeast Asian nations.

Having come under heavy criticism for their vaccine hoarding in recent months, European countries are also expected to augment their contribution to the COVAX and similar universal vaccine initiatives. Another major vaccine manufacturing rival to China is Russia, which has shown greater transparency in clinical trials of the Sputnik V vaccines and enjoys relatively higher trust.

All of these initiatives will likely challenge China’s ability to leverage vaccine provision in Southeast Asia and beyond. Thus, what initially looked like a resounding Chinese triumph in “vaccine diplomacy” may turn out to be less of a success than Beijing had hoped for.

Richard Javad Heydarian is a specialist in Asian geopolitical and economic affairs.

Aljazzera.com

L’article China’s vaccine diplomacy stumbles in Southeast Asia est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Suspensions follow reports that some people developed blood clots after receiving the shot, but the WHO and the EMA say they have seen no evidence of a link.

Germany, France, Italy and Spain have suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine after several reports of blood clots in people who received the shot in Europe.

The flurry of suspensions on Monday came after a number of other countries, mostly in Europe, halted their rollouts late last week.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has backed the use of the vaccine and said it has seen no evidence that the shot had caused clotting.

The UN health agency is reviewing the reports related to shot and urged countries not to suspend vaccinations, as its top scientist said people should not panic.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said in a statement that it has not found any evidence of links between reported thrombosis cases and the AstraZeneca shot, saying that the shot’s benefits outweigh the risks and was safe to use. The regulator is reviewing the shot and will issue a decision on any further action on Thursday, it said.

EU members halt shots

German Health Minister Jens Spahn said the country suspended the use of the shot on the advice of the national vaccine regulator, the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

The institute had called for further investigation into seven reported cases of clots in the brains of people who had received this vaccination.

“Today’s decision is a purely precautionary measure,” Spahn said.

France and Italy announced similar moves shortly afterwards.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the use of the AstraZeneca shot would be suspended as a precautionary measure until at least Tuesday afternoon when the European Union’s medicines regulator – the EMA – will issue its recommendation over the vaccine.

Macron did not elaborate on the reasoning behind the decision, but told a news conference he hoped France would be able to vaccinate with AstraZeneca shots again “soon”.

Italy’s medicines authority AIFA meanwhile said it was implementing its own suspension as a “precautionary and temporary measure” pending rulings by the EMA.

The announcement followed the seizure of hundreds of thousands of doses of the vaccine by Italian prosecutors in the northern region of Piedmont, where a teacher died following his vaccination.

Experts are investigating whether there is a connection between his death and the vaccination.

Late on Monday, Spain’s Health Minister Carolina Darias said the country was suspending its use of the vaccine for two weeks as a “precaution”.

She said the decision would remain in place until the EMA “analyses the recent incidences of blood clots, notably over the weekend”.

AstraZeneca has said there is no cause for concern with its vaccine, which is jointly produced with the United Kingdom’s University of Oxford, and that there were fewer reported thrombosis cases in those who received the shot than in the general population.

Peter Drobac of Oxford University told Al Jazeera the AstraZeneca vaccine went through “rigorous clinical trials” and blood clots were not identified as a problem.

“The safety pause, I think it is certainly the prerogative of the regulators in these countries. However we have heard from the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency and others, that at this point the benefits of vaccination clearly outweigh the risks,” Drobac said.

WHO urges calm

The EMA and the WHO also said available data does not suggest the vaccine caused the clots and people should continue to be immunised with the shot.

The WHO on Monday called on countries not to suspend vaccinations against a disease that has caused more than 2.7 million deaths worldwide. The UN health agency’s top scientist reiterated that there have been no documented deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

“We do not want people to panic,” Soumya Swaminathan said, adding there has been no association, so far, pinpointed between so-called “thromboembolic events” reported in some countries and COVID-19 shots.

The reassurances appear to have done little to calm doubts, however, with several countries having now temporarily halted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in recent days.

Denmark, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, Iceland, Bulgaria, Portugal and Slovenia were among those to suspend the use of the shot.

SOURCE : AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

L’article Germany, France, Italy and Spain halt use of AstraZeneca vaccine est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

The global COVID-19 vaccine roll-out is creating a “vaccine apartheid”. As of February 24, approximately 216 million people have been vaccinated against COVID-19 globally. Only 8.4 percent of these are in low and lower-middle-income countries, which are home to nearly half of the world’s population.

If this trend continues, young and healthy individuals in wealthy countries will be vaccinated while older and vulnerable people in poorer countries continue to die, needlessly.

Wealthy countries have focused almost exclusively on securing vaccines for their own populations instead of investing in cooperative initiatives – such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) (and its vaccine pillar COVAX) – that would fairly distribute vaccines to high-risk people in every country across the globe. In the process, they are hoarding limited supplies (with Canada, for example, securing nearly 10 doses per capita), raising vaccine prices, and squeezing lower-income countries out of the vaccination race. South Africa paid double what the European Union did for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Most wealthy countries will fully vaccinate their population this year, while lower-income countries may not achieve mass immunisation until 2024. If this vaccine nationalism continues, the poorest in the world will be pushed into more disease, poverty and death.

Vaccine nationalism is also self-defeating. As wealthy countries roll out domestic vaccination plans, emerging COVID-19 variants threaten their success: recent data suggest that several vaccines currently in use may provide reduced efficacy against new variants.

As long as SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate in poorer countries, wealthy countries are vulnerable, even with their vaccination shields. Their economies are also at risk. The International Chamber of Commerce predicts that if poorer countries are not given equitable access to vaccines, the global economy may lose as much as $9.2 trillion, approximately half of which would fall on advanced economies. By comparison, funding the ACT accelerator requires only $22.9bn.

Only a truly global vaccination strategy can ensure equal value is placed on the lives of the rich and the poor.

A global vaccination strategy is both cheaper and safer. It is also a moral imperative – only a truly global vaccination strategy can ensure equal value is placed on the lives of the rich and the poor.

Towards this end, we must take three urgent steps:

First, high-income countries should support transfers of relevant technologies and intellectual property (IP) to enable other countries to scale up vaccine production.

In 2020, South Africa and India submitted a proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to temporarily waive certain provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) for COVID-19-related technologies.

The waiver was supported by nearly 100 countries, but was nonetheless spiked by the European Union, United States, United Kingdom, Japan and several other countries that host large pharmaceutical industries. Policymakers in wealthy countries argue that IP is not a true barrier to vaccine access and that existing TRIPS flexibilities are sufficient.

But IP has already become a barrier: South Africa faced challenges in accessing reagents for COVID-19 testing due to IP rules. What is more, the US, EU, and Switzerland have historically undermined the use of TRIPS flexibilities in order to protect pharma profits.

IP waivers and technology transfers will not lead to immediate inoculation in lower-income countries, but they will facilitate international collaboration and remove real barriers to local vaccine production. The TRIPS waiver will be reconsidered by the WTO in March, and wealthy countries should support it.

Second, high-income countries should deploy a proportion (eg 10 percent or more) of their vaccine supply for global allocation directly through COVAX (they currently hold about 56 percent of the world’s COVID-19 vaccine supply but make up only 16 percent of the global population).

Although sending doses abroad may delay their domestic vaccine roll-out, doing so will contribute to global herd immunity, which is in everyone’s interest. Norway committed to such a path last month. As wealthy nations begin to scale vaccine production, an incrementally larger fraction of their vaccines should be deployed to poorer countries.

Third, high-income countries should cover the entire $22.9bn funding gap of the ACT accelerator. This funding is necessary for COVAX to achieve its intended population coverage in the coming years. Some lower-income countries will utilise doses from COVAX as they secure purchases from vaccine manufacturers. Others may rely entirely on COVAX to achieve herd immunity.

COVAX is important, and it needs full support, but even at its most ambitious it will be too slow (it aims to vaccinate 20 percent of the population of lower-income countries by the end of the year), and it does not address the underlying structural problems that give rise to vaccine apartheid. We should not be distracted from the more important objective of establishing that all people have equal rights to public health medicines – not just for this crisis, but permanently. This is not a matter of charity, it is a matter of justice.

The COVID-19 pandemic will likely define how countries operate in global health for the coming decades. Vaccine apartheid is merely the latest manifestation of a colonial logic of othering and oppression that began centuries ago. Reparative justice demands undoing these legacies – and a commitment to vaccine equality can mark the start.

• Parsa Erfani Fogarty Scholar at Harvard and the University of Global Health Equity.
• Eugene Richardson Physician anthropologist and Assistant Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard.Dr Eugene Richardson is a physician anthropologist and Assistant Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard. His most recent book is “Epidemic Illusions: On the Coloniality of Global Public Health.”
• Jason Hickel Academic at the University of London and Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.Dr Jason Hickel is an academic at the University of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. His most recent book is « The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions, » published by Penguin in May 2017.

L’article A call for global vaccine justice est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

TÉMOIGNAGE. Expert en maladies infectieuses, Mosoka Fallah raconte depuis le Liberia comment les pays de la région ont appris des anciennes épidémies.

En Guinée, Ebola frappe à nouveau. La dernière flambée en Afrique de l’Ouest s’était produite entre 2014 et 2015 et avait touché le Liberia, la Sierra Leone et la Guinée. Cette épidémie d’Ebola, la plus meurtrière au monde, avait justement débuté en Guinée. Elle avait fait plus de 11 300 morts, dont plus de 500 professionnels de santé.

Mais sept ans plus tard, la situation des pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest est très différente. Indication claire que la volonté politique de stopper l’épidémie est bel et bien là, le Liberia et la Sierra Leone ont déjà mobilisé et activé leurs plans nationaux de réponse.

Les pays de la région bénéficient non seulement de l’expérience du passé, mais aussi de nouveaux outils pour lutter contre le virus Ebola. Ils disposent d’une main-d’œuvre expérimentée, de réseaux de laboratoires plus développés. Les organisations régionales, telles que l’Union du fleuve Mano, un organisme régional chargé des questions économiques et de sécurité, ou la Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (Cedeao) sont également plus proactives.

En 2018, par exemple, une réunion de planification s’est tenue à Freetown, en Sierra Leone, afin de préparer la transmission transfrontalière. Une plateforme WhatsApp a été développée pour permettre un suivi en temps réel des épidémies. Elle est maintenant opérationnelle et est utilisée pour transmettre les mises à jour de la Guinée aux équipes de surveillance et d’intervention des pays membres.

Cependant, comme me l’a fait remarquer Pierre Formenty, le chef de l’équipe de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé chargée des virus et des fièvres hémorragiques : la pire erreur que l’on puisse faire à propos du virus Ebola est de le sous-estimer ou de croire que l’on sait tout sur lui.

Expert en maladies infectieuses, j’ai dirigé plusieurs équipes nationales de réponse sanitaire lors de précédentes épidémies d’Ebola. Une leçon fondamentale que m’ont apprise ces expériences est que le succès d’une stratégie de lutte ne dépend pas des informations les plus évidentes à disposition, mais plutôt sur certaines questions plus subtiles qui demeurent sans réponse. Cela, je l’ai appris à la dure.

Un incident particulier m’est resté en mémoire. Au début du mois d’août 2014, j’ai rencontré le représentant de l’OMS au Liberia qui m’a demandé comment se portait West Point, le plus grand bidonville du Liberia, situé à Monrovia, la capitale du pays. Je lui ai répondu, sûr de moi, que la situation y était très calme et qu’il n’y avait pas de transmission d’Ebola en cours. En réalité, au moment précis où je lui parlais, le virus Ebola se transmettait activement dans la zone, et des enterrements secrets avaient lieu au petit matin. Résultat : à West Point, le nombre de cas a explosé.

Il est donc crucial de ne jamais cesser les investigations, et de continuer à interroger les gens.

À cet effet, j’ai compilé une série de questions clés essentielles pour définir les stratégies de préparation à l’épidémie. Des questions auxquelles chacun des pays de la région devrait s’attacher à répondre.

Questions biologiques clés

Les personnes chargées de la surveillance et du traçage des contacts doivent répondre à certaines questions biologiques essentielles.

1) La première question à se poser est la suivante : durant combien de temps le premier cas identifié a-t-il été malade avant de décéder ?

Connaître la réponse à cette question est crucial pour que les pays voisins puissent déterminer les fenêtres de temps durant lesquelles une personne infectée, ou un de ses contacts, aurait pu passer leurs frontières. Durant l’épidémie de 2014-2015, de nombreux cas d’infection ont résulté de la dissémination de la maladie par des gens se déplaçant pour échapper au virus ou pour chercher de l’aide.

Le virus Ebola ne tue pas en 24 heures : sa période d’incubation est comprise entre deux et 21 jours. À mesure que le virus se multiplie dans leur corps, la maladie des personnes infectées s’aggrave. Certaines études sur l’épidémie précédente en Guinée ont mis en évidence que la durée moyenne entre l’apparition des symptômes et le décès était de huit jours.

Disposer d’une frise chronologique est donc crucial pour pouvoir déterminer à qui les personnes infectées ont pu transmettre le virus.

2) Seconde question majeure : quelle est la source de l’infection ? Comment les victimes ont-elles été infectées ?

Le savoir aide les équipes de surveillance à déterminer si une personne infectée était le cas index, c’est-à-dire le premier cas, et à identifier ses contacts. Dans le cas où la source n’est pas connue, cela signifie qu’il pourrait y avoir d’autres cas non identifiés aux alentours.

Une fois que le virus a infecté une première personne, nous savons qu’il se propage d’un être humain à l’autre par contact direct avec une personne infectée, ou par contact avec des liquides corporels, des cadavres ou des matériaux contaminés.

3) La dernière – et plus importante – question est la suivante : à quelle souche d’Ebola avons-nous affaire ?

Des vaccins sont disponibles pour la souche Ebola Zaïre, mais pas pour les autres.

Les rapports que j’ai reçus jusqu’ici indiquent que l’épidémie en cours en Guinée est due à la souche Zaïre.

Questions épidémiologiques clés

Plusieurs questions épidémiologiques cruciales nécessitent aussi de recevoir une réponse rapide :

1) Combien de contacts a eus le malade identifié ? Autrement dit, combien de personnes cet individu infecté a-t-il rencontrées jusqu’à présent ?

Il est crucial d’identifier 100 % de ses contacts, car en manquer un seul peut faire courir le risque d’une épidémie. Il faut pour cela retracer les déplacements des malades, interroger les familles, les amis et les lieux où ils auraient pu se faire soigner. La recherche des contacts nécessite un complexe travail de détective.

Dans le cas de la récente épidémie en Guinée, les personnes infectées avaient assisté à l’enterrement d’une infirmière. Avoir connaissance de cet événement est crucial, car cela permet à l’équipe de commencer à cartographier la propagation potentielle de la maladie. Le fait que l’événement ait été un enterrement, qui plus est celui d’une infirmière, indique qu’il s’agit d’une situation super-propagatrice. En effet, les proches qui assistent aux funérailles ont souvent parcouru de longues distances pour s’y rendre, et peuvent même venir d’autres pays.

Sachant cela, des mesures peuvent être prises, notamment en alertant les pays voisins. En 2016, les contrôles aux frontières ont fonctionné : des personnes infectées, qui avaient fui la Guinée pour se réfugier chez des parents au Liberia, ont pu être identifiées.

Dans le cas présent, le fait que la victime ait été une infirmière suggère qu’une épidémie plus importante, non détectée, pourrait être en cours.

2) Que sait-on des caractéristiques démographiques du malade à l’origine de l’alerte (âge, origine ethnique, profession et activités économiques) ?

Connaître ces éléments permet de déterminer avec qui la personne a pu entrer en contact. Par exemple, en 2014, un individu infecté en Guinée est passé en Sierra Leone pour se faire soigner par un guérisseur traditionnel de son groupe ethnique. Cela a ouvert la voie à la plus grande épidémie de Sierra Leone, qui s’est ensuite propagée au Liberia.

3) Quels ont été les déplacements de la personne infectée, et combien d’endroits a-t-elle visités une fois tombée malade ?

Une carte de transmission doit être établie, répertoriant tous les mouvements du malade et lieux où la transmission a pu être possible, y compris les hôpitaux, les cliniques et les endroits où exercent les guérisseurs traditionnels. Si le cas index s’est déplacé en utilisant les transports publics, les journaux de bord des véhicules et les déplacements des autres passagers doivent être consultés.

Au Liberia, nous avons travaillé avec les syndicats des transports, visité les hôpitaux et examiné les dossiers des patients. Nous avons travaillé avec des motards assurant des prestations commerciales afin d’établir des cartes de transmission complexes permettant de déterminer le nombre total de contacts, les lieux où ils se sont produits et le statut des personnes concernées.

La raison pour laquelle cette approche est essentielle est que le contrôle du virus Ebola repose sur un principe de « tout ou rien » : il est nécessaire d’identifier 100 % des contacts et de les tracer afin de s’assurer qu’aucun n’a échappé à la surveillance, tombant malade et mourant au sein de sa communauté, ce qui pourrait initier une nouvelle chaîne de transmission.

Tant que chacune de ces questions restera sans réponse, les pays voisins de celui où s’est déclarée l’épidémie doivent agir comme si elle concernait leur propre territoire : au Liberia, un cas suspect provenant de Guinée a déjà été signalé.

Les prochaines étapes

Les gouvernements de ces pays doivent maintenir les niveaux élevés de vigilance et de préparation qu’ils ont mis en place. Tout doit être fait pour éviter que le virus Ebola ne pénètre dans les zones les plus densément peuplées.

La surveillance doit être particulièrement renforcée dans les villes frontalières. Les équipes de surveillance doivent être attentives aux symptômes suivants : fièvre, maux de tête, douleurs articulaires et rougeur des yeux. Les activités de surveillance doivent également s’attacher à identifier les groupes ethniques auxquels appartiennent les malades. Il est préférable de détecter tous les cas potentiels, plutôt que de risquer d’en manquer un.

Lorsqu’ils sont disponibles, les médicaments et vaccins capables de traiter la maladie doivent pouvoir être déployés rapidement.

Les épidémies dues au virus Ebola commencent et se terminent au sein de la communauté. Pour cette raison, il est essentiel d’en impliquer les membres, de les informer, et de leur donner les moyens de s’exprimer, pour qu’ils puissent signaler toute anomalie.

Par Mosoka Fallah* pour Theconversation.com

* Mosoka Fallah est chargé de cours à temps partiel à la Global Health & Social Medicine, à Harvard Medical School, et chargé de cours à la School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, à l’université du Liberia.

L’article Retour d’Ebola en Afrique de l’Ouest : six questions pour comprendre est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

INQUIÉTUDE. Après avoir choisi le vaccin Johnson & Johnson, l’Afrique du Sud se dit prête à revendre ses doses d’AstraZeneca, retardant un peu plus sa campagne.

Une semaine après avoir reçu en grande pompe son premier million de doses de vaccin d’AstraZeneca contre le Covid-19, le gouvernement sud-africain vient de suspendre temporairement le déploiement de son programme de vaccination avant même qu’il ne débute.

En effet, le vaccin à vecteur viral, développé par le laboratoire britannique AstraZeneca et l’université d’Oxford, a connu des déboires ces dernières semaines, son efficacité ayant été mise en cause pour les personnes âgées de plus de 65 ans et dans les pays où les variants sont présents. Ce qui est malheureusement le cas de l’Afrique du Sud, très touchée. Du coup, le gouvernement s’est dit prêt, mercredi, à revendre ou à échanger un million de doses du vaccin AstraZeneca, au profit de celui de Johnson & Johnson.

Changement de stratégie

Dimanche, les autorités avaient suspendu le programme de vaccination qui devait débuter dans les jours suivants avec le vaccin AstraZeneca/Oxford, après une étude révélant notamment une efficacité « limitée » contre le nouveau variant sud-africain du virus, baptisé 501Y.V2.

Selon les premiers résultats de cette étude de l’université sud-africaine du Witwatersrand à Johannesburg, le vaccin d’AstraZeneca/Oxford est efficace à seulement 22 % contre les formes modérées du variant sud-africain. Aucun résultat n’est encore disponible sur son efficacité contre les formes graves.

Mercredi, le ministre sud-africain de la Santé, Zweli Mkhize, a annoncé qu’« étant donné les résultats des études d’efficacité, [le gouvernement] poursuivra la première phase de vaccination prévue en utilisant les vaccins Johnson & Johnson au lieu du vaccin AstraZeneca ». « L’efficacité du vaccin Johnson & Johnson contre le variant 501Y.V2 a été prouvée », a-t-il souligné, sans préciser la date de lancement de la campagne.

Le gouvernement d’Afrique du Sud, pays africain le plus durement frappé par le coronavirus, s’est fixé pour objectif de vacciner 40 millions de personnes, soit 67 % de sa population, d’ici à la fin de l’année. Dans ce but, il avait reçu le 1^er février un million de doses du vaccin AstraZeneca, qui doivent en théorie arriver à expiration fin avril, et 500 000 autres avaient également été commandées.

Parmi les options étudiées après l’abandon de ce vaccin, le gouvernement envisage de vendre ou d’échanger ses lots avec des pays touchés par la souche originelle de coronavirus. « Selon leurs avis, les vaccins seront échangés avant la date d’expiration », a déclaré Zweli Mkhize, en assurant qu’« il y a déjà des pays qui demandent de le leur vendre ».

« Nos scientifiques vont continuer à délibérer sur l’utilisation du vaccin d’AstraZeneca en Afrique du Sud », a-t-il indiqué. Certains ont évoqué la possibilité de l’administrer à plusieurs milliers de gens dans le pays pour évaluer ses effets sur les formes sévères de contamination au variant 501Y.V2.

Une campagne de vaccination qui s’éloigne

À l’heure actuelle, neuf millions de doses de vaccins Johnson & Johnson ont été commandées, dont une première livraison, en petite quantité, est attendue la semaine prochaine. Le premier arrivage sera probablement utilisé comme « stock de recherche », a indiqué le ministre.

La société pharmaceutique sud-africaine Aspen, fabricant agréé pour le vaccin Johnson & Johnson, « est très déterminée à accélérer la production en Afrique du Sud », a déclaré Zweli Mkhize, affirmant que ces premières doses seraient disponibles en avril. Contacté par l’AFP, Aspen a indiqué n’avoir « pas plus d’information » sur un accord avec Johnson & Johnson et que tout commentaire était « prématuré ».

Après avoir tardé à se lancer dans la course mondiale aux vaccins, le gouvernement sud-africain cherche également à se procurer d’autres vaccins auprès du laboratoire américain Pfizer, ainsi qu’à travers le mécanisme Covax, mis en place par l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) pour tenter de garantir une distribution équitable des moyens de lutte contre le Covid-19.

L’Afrique du Sud est frappée par une deuxième vague de coronavirus, largement causée par un variant local réputé beaucoup plus contagieux que le virus originel. Depuis le début de la pandémie, le pays a enregistré près de 1,5 million de cas de contamination et plus de 46 800 décès dus au coronavirus.

World Opinions News – agences

L’article Afrique du Sud : vous avez dit casse-tête vaccinal ? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.