Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 11(5)2023 May 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232662

RESUMEN

Prior research generally finds that the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA1273) COVID-19 vaccines provide similar protection against mortality, sometimes with a Moderna advantage due to slower waning. However, most comparisons do not address selection effects for those who are vaccinated and with which vaccine. We report evidence on large selection effects, and use a novel method to control for these effects. Instead of directly studying COVID-19 mortality, we study the COVID-19 excess mortality percentage (CEMP), defined as the COVID-19 deaths divided by non-COVID-19 natural deaths for the same population, converted to a percentage. The CEMP measure uses non-COVID-19 natural deaths to proxy for population health and control for selection effects. We report the relative mortality risk (RMR) for each vaccine relative to the unvaccinated population and to the other vaccine, using linked mortality and vaccination records for all adults in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, from 1 April 2021 through 30 June 2022. For two-dose vaccinees aged 60+, RMRs for Pfizer vaccinees were consistently over twice those for Moderna, and averaged 248% of Moderna (95% CI = 175%,353%). In the Omicron period, Pfizer RMR was 57% versus 23% for Moderna. Both vaccines demonstrated waning of two-dose effectiveness over time, especially for ages 60+. For booster recipients, the Pfizer-Moderna gap is much smaller and statistically insignificant. A possible explanation for the Moderna advantage for older persons is the higher Moderna dose of 100 µg, versus 30 µg for Pfizer. Younger persons (aged 18-59) were well-protected against death by two doses of either vaccine, and highly protected by three doses (no deaths among over 100,000 vaccinees). These results support the importance of a booster dose for ages 60+, especially for Pfizer recipients. They suggest, but do not prove, that a larger vaccine dose may be appropriate for older persons than for younger persons.

2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 11(2)2023 Feb 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2227716

RESUMEN

COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives; however, understanding the long-term effectiveness of these vaccines is imperative to developing recommendations for booster doses and other precautions. Comparisons of mortality rates between more and less vaccinated groups may be misleading due to selection bias, as these groups may differ in underlying health status. We studied all adult deaths during the period of 1 April 2021-30 June 2022 in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, linked to vaccination records, and we used mortality from other natural causes to proxy for underlying health. We report relative COVID-19 mortality risk (RMR) for those vaccinated with two and three doses versus the unvaccinated, using a novel outcome measure that controls for selection effects. This measure, COVID Excess Mortality Percentage (CEMP), uses the non-COVID natural mortality rate (Non-COVID-NMR) as a measure of population risk of COVID mortality without vaccination. We validate this measure during the pre-vaccine period (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.97) and demonstrate that selection effects are large, with non-COVID-NMRs for two-dose vaccinees often less than half those for the unvaccinated, and non-COVID NMRs often still lower for three-dose (booster) recipients. Progressive waning of two-dose effectiveness is observed, with an RMR of 10.6% for two-dose vaccinees aged 60+ versus the unvaccinated during April-June 2021, rising steadily to 36.2% during the Omicron period (January-June, 2022). A booster dose reduced RMR to 9.5% and 10.8% for ages 60+ during the two periods when boosters were available (October-December, 2021; January-June, 2022). Boosters thus provide important additional protection against mortality.

3.
The elder law journal ; 30:33-80, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1980957

RESUMEN

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the elderly. This Article provides a detailed analysis of those effects, drawing primarily on individual-level mortality data covering almost three million persons aged 65+ in three Midwest states (Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin). We report sometimes surprising findings on population fatality rates (“PFR”), the ratio of COVID to non-COVID deaths, reported as a percentage, which we call the “Covid Mortality Percentage,” and mean life expectancy loss (“LEL”). We examine how these COVID-19 outcomes vary with age, gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, and time period during the pandemic. For all persons in the three Midwest areas, COVID PFR through year-end 2021 was 0.22%, mean years of life lost (“YLL“) was 13.0 years, the COVID Mortality Percentage was 12.4%, and LEL was 0.028 years (eleven days). In contrast, for the elderly, PFR was 1.03%;YLL was 8.8 years, the COVID Mortality Percentage was 13.2%, and LEL was 0.091 years (thirty-four days). Controlling for gender, PFR and LEL were substantially higher for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites at all ages. Racial/ethnic disparities for the elderly were large early in the pandemic but diminished later. Although COVID-19 mortality was much higher for the elderly, the COVID Mortality Percentage over the full pandemic period was only modestly higher for the elderly, at 13.2%, than for non-elderly adults aged 25–64, at 11.1%. Indeed, in 2021, this ratio was lower for the elderly than for the middle-aged, reflecting higher elderly vaccination rates.

4.
Empir Econ ; 62(6): 3041-3060, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813647

RESUMEN

This paper studies the effect of the economic impact payment (EIP) on individual contributions to COVID-19 mitigation efforts in the USA, where the mitigation efforts are measured by the reduction of daily human mobility. I empirically estimate the effect of the EIP in April 2020 and use cellphone GPS data of 45 million smartphone devices as a proxy for human mobility across 216,069 Census Block Groups. The results show that when receiving the EIP, households significantly increased "Median Home Dwell Time" by an average of 3-5% (about 26-45 min). The paper highlights this unintended effect of the EIP, namely, that in addition to providing economic assistance, the EIP also helped increase individual contributions to mitigation efforts that slowed COVID-19 virus transmission in early 2020. Supplementary Information: The online version supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00181-021-02117-0.

5.
J Environ Econ Manage ; 110: 102554, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466604

RESUMEN

The decline in human mobility and socioeconomic activities during the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by reports of significant improvements in air quality. We evaluate whether there was a uniform improvement in air quality across neighborhoods, with a special attention on differences by race. We focus on the COVID-19 lockdown in New York State, an early epicenter of the pandemic in the United States. Using a triple difference-in-differences model, we find that, despite the seasonal decline in particulate matter pollution starting late March (concurrent with the lockdown period), the lockdown narrowed the disparity in air quality between census tracts with high and low shares of non-white population in rural New York, whereas the racial gap in air quality remained unchanged in urban New York.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA