我國因莫德納疫苗無法穩定到貨,除原本優先接種疫苗名單第一至第三類人員和孕婦,仍維持間隔28天施打第二劑外,其他都宣佈推遲為間隔10至12週。雖然已是同島不同命,但現在等第二劑的民眾更是焦慮,因為到底能不能在12週內順利完成接種得到足夠的保護力,竟然也得不到政府的保證?在此提醒中央疫情指揮中心,到目前為止找得到有關莫德納疫苗施打的官方指引中,第二劑都是建議4週或6週;就算有疫苗限制,WHO也寫明間隔最長也就是12週!
有關莫德納接種第二劑應該間隔多久,美國CDC和WHO網站寫得很清楚。美國CDC認為間隔為4週,最長為6週,超過6週才接種第二劑的有效性訊息有限。WHO也是建議間隔4週,可延長至6週;若疫苗供應嚴重限制的國家,為提高第一劑的覆蓋率,可考慮將第二劑疫苗延遲至最長12週;建議遵守完整接種時間表,而且兩次接種不建議混打。
附上美國CDC和WHO相關連結和肉容:
➡️美國CDC
♦️英文版:
Moderna COVID-19 vaccine
Get your second shot 4 weeks (or 28 days) after your first.
You should get your second shot as close to the recommended 4-week interval as possible. However, your second dose may be given up to 6 weeks (42 days) after the first dose, if necessary. You should not get the second dose early. There is currently limited information on the effectiveness of receiving your second shot earlier than recommended or later than 6 weeks after the first shot.
♦️中文版:
莫德納COVID-19疫苗
請在接種第一劑後的4週(或28天)接種第二劑。
您應盡可能在建議的4週間隔內接種第二劑。但是,如有必要,第二劑可以在接種第一劑後6週(42天)接種。不應過早接種第二劑。目前,關於在建議的時間之前或第一劑接種6週之後接種第二劑的有效性訊息有限。
♦️網站連結:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/second-shot.html
➡️WHO
♦️英文版:
SAGE recommends the use of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine at a schedule of two doses (100 µg, 0.5 ml each) 28 days apart. If necessary, the interval between the doses may be extended to 42 days.
Studies have shown a high public health impact where the interval has been longer than that recommended by the EUL. Accordingly, countries facing a high incidence of COVID-19 combined with severe vaccine supply constraints could consider delaying the second dose up to 12 weeks in order to achieve a higher first dose coverage in high priority populations.
Compliance with the full schedule is recommended and the same product should be used for both doses.
♦️中文版:
戰略諮詢專家組推薦的莫德納mRNA-1273疫苗使用方案為,分兩次接種(每次100微克,0.5毫升),間隔28天。如有必要,接種間隔可延長至42天。
研究表明,如果間隔時間比《緊急使用清單》建議的時間長,會對公共衛生產生嚴重影響。因此,面臨COVID-19發生和疫苗供應嚴重限制的國家,可考慮將第二劑疫苗延遲至最多12週,以便在高優先人群中實現更高的第一劑覆蓋率。
建議遵守完整接種時間表,兩次接種應使用相同的產品。
♦️網站連結:
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyHAy7nQ2sGbTqgw2vsOWnOTUCKFMFsrQX97xWqq9gHrEy_YAnoBMVsaAprKEALw_wcB
incidence中文 在 Roger Chung 鍾一諾 Facebook 的最讚貼文
今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓,題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿:
It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:
//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.
Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…
In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.
Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.
Thank you very much!//
Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!
Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity
incidence中文 在 「盛行、發生及死亡率如何運用」 什麼是粗率 - YouTube 的推薦與評價
The Relationship Between Incidence and Prevalence. Rahul Patwari ... Incidence and Prevalence - Everything you need to know. Medmastery. ... <看更多>