COVID Vaccine Questions and Answers

[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. I saw a really sad story on television this morning and in the Sacramento Bee that carries an important message. It was about a California woman in her 30s who declined to get the COVID vaccine because she was pregnant, even though the research shows the vaccine is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses. Yes, the worst possible thing happened, she got COVID and died. The baby was okay apparently but her husband also got COVID and died. In total, they left behind five orphans. That's the newborn plus four others ages two through six.

The reason this is a story of public and not just private concern to them and their loved ones is that it exemplifies in the most tragic possible way, the pitfalls of avoiding the minimal risks associated with the COVID vaccine, therefore, leaving yourself vulnerable to the maximal risks of not getting that protection. The Sacramento Bee article quotes Dr. Fauci from July, noting that 99% of people dying from COVID now are unvaccinated. By the way, this a couple who died, the dad was reported to be Daniel Macias, 38, a middle school math teacher, the mom, Davy Macias, 37, who died before meeting her baby. She was, believe it or not, a labor and delivery nurse.

We'll talk now about a variety of COVID vaccine myths whether from people just making honest choices that the data don't actually support like apparently this couple, or from purposeful disinformation for ideological or political reasons. My guest for this is infectious diseases epidemiologist, Jessica Malaty Rivera, a research fellow at Boston Children's Hospital. Remember, an epidemiologist studies the spread of diseases in populations of people. Dr. Rivera, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Hi, Brian. It's nice to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Can we start with the question underlying this particular tragedy, the fear among some pregnant women that the vaccine could be bad for mother or fetus. Is there epidemiology on that one way or another?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: There is no evidence right now or even historical precedents for that to be a concern for pregnant people. In fact, there is an overwhelming amount of data to show that pregnant people are at a very high risk of experiencing some of the worst outcomes from COVID-19, which could be hospitalization, and in this case of the Sacramento woman, death. We have a number of studies that have been ongoing with that.

I think a lot of people get tripped up when they remember the original clinical trials excluded pregnant people from them. Since then, there have been a number of investigations on how these vaccines benefit pregnant people. We have tons of data from the CDC through V-safe of pregnant people reporting very normal outcomes after being vaccinated. That include them being able to have their full-term pregnancies realized.

Brian Lehrer: Since this is month nine of the vaccine rollout-- I think it's nine, right? Started in January and September is the ninth month of the year and we know how long pregnancy is. I don't know if there is any data yet on vaccine babies and whether there are any effects on them, the newborns from vaccinated pregnant women or maybe there are from the earlier clinical trial. Are there any reports of ill effects on or on the other side of babies being born with immunity?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: That's a great question. There are no reports of ill effects on the fetuses, but there are a number of reports of babies being reported with detectable antibodies, which was transferred from the mom to the fetus. That is quite remarkable. The vaccine does a double protection when a person gets vaccinated.

We say that about other vaccines too when we know that babies are too young to be vaccinated when they're first born for things like pertussis. That's why we encourage pregnant people to get the Tdap vaccine during pregnancy and even the flu vaccine to carry over some of that protection so that babies are not vulnerable at birth. That said, there's also a number of reports of people getting pregnant during the clinical trials and having pregnancies be healthy throughout the clinical trial. I think even relatedly, a lot of the concerns about the impact on fertility have also been debunked through this data as well.

Brian Lehrer: Now, listeners, we're going to invite your questions for Jessica Malaty Rivera if you have not decided to get the COVID vaccine yourself, and screeners, heads up, and everybody else who's already been vaccinated, heads up too, just sit this one out. (646)-435-7280, it's an invitation for your questions for Jessica Malaty Rivera. If you have not yet decided to get the COVID vaccine, (646)-435-7280, you can be any age, any gender avoiding it for any reason.

She will answer your questions at least from an epidemiologist's standpoint, that is someone who knows who is getting what diseases and what their related exposures are. She also used to be with the COVID information project, so she knows other aspects of COVID science too, but she's an epidemiologist by training. (646)-435-7280, (646)-435-7280. If you have not decided or have decided not to get the COVID vaccine (646)-435-7280, or tweet your question @BrianLehrer. Jessica, the stack that the Sacramento Bee article cited from Dr. Fauci was from early July, that 99% of people dying from COVID in recent times are unvaccinated. What percentage would you use today?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: That number is still almost as high. I would say it's probably above 95% of COVID-19 related deaths happening among the unvaccinated and also representing the vast majority of those who are hospitalized right now with COVID-19.

Brian Lehrer: I want to go down a list of COVID vaccine myths and concerns published by Johns Hopkins University and ask you to address them one by one. Plus, we'll see what questions, of course, we'll get on the phones, but the first one that Johns Hopkins sites, not far from the pregnancy question, is whether it affects fertility. I know we get this one on the phones all the time. Is there data?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: There is no data for this. In fact, I'll go as far as to say, as somebody who's worked in COVID or vaccine education and vaccine advocacy for quite a while, this is just copy-paste from a lot of anti-vaccine rhetoric and the playbook for a lot of anti-vaccine sentiments. There was confusion when people were just trying to understand the mechanism of action of the vaccines.

Somebody actually just opined online about some theory related to the body potentially being confused about which antibodies to create, and if it could possibly attack a protein that was involved in the development of a placenta during pregnancy. That has been completely debunked because there is-- it's actually a guess. It's not actually based on that protein itself, it's a similar protein. Similar is not the burden of proof we need, we would need exact.

I would say that the data actually proves otherwise. There were a number of people who got pregnant during the clinical trial, since the clinical trials and throughout the pandemic, those who've been vaccinated have realized that it has not had a negative impact. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the opposite is true, that COVID-19 infection potentially could have some detrimental impact on male fertility.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a question that came up on the show the other day, not from the Johns Hopkins list. It's that we know there are breakthrough infections, we know vaccinated people with COVID can transmit the virus, what's the point?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Great question. Breakthrough infections are inevitable because the vaccines were never presented as 100% effective. In fact, no vaccine is 100% effective. Our most effective vaccine outside of the COVID-19 vaccine is the measles vaccine which hovers in the 95%, 96% effective. It's that effective when most people are vaccinated. We start to see those breakthrough infections and outbreaks happen when the population starts to have lower vaccination rates.

Breakthrough infections were inevitable. In the context of the pandemic, it's gotten some pretty bad press and makes it correlated to bad vaccine effectiveness. That's simply not the case with something that we absolutely expected. On the case of vaccinated people being able to transmit, there have been a number of studies to compare the viral load between those who are vaccinated, those who are unvaccinated in the ability to shed the infectious virus to others. It's not really that comparable. Those who are unvaccinated have higher viral loads with a much more likelihood of spreading the virus to others compared to those who are vaccinated.

Brian Lehrer: That's a really important answer because it relates to a lot of the current news stories right now about vaccine requirements or vaccine privileges. Since you can transmit COVID even if vaccinated, it's important to know that it's much more likely if you're COVID positive and unvaccinated to transmit, because otherwise, why have these vaccine requirements to go to work or go into restaurants and theaters and gyms if a vaccinated person can spread it?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Absolutely. Especially in the context of Delta, which we know is far more transmissible in the average person who is infected with COVID-19 who is not vaccinated has the ability to infect a large number of people, and that is exponential growth after that first transmission. You have to remember, like you mentioned earlier, vaccinations are more than just protecting yourself. It's protecting other people around you. When we ask what's the point, it's definitely the point to protect other people around you.

Brian Lehrer: Sharon in Hasbrouck Heights, you're on WNYC with Jessica Malaty Rivera, epidemiologist at Boston Children's Hospital. Hi, Sharon. Hi there. We got you.

Sharon: Sharon?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, you. I'm Brian. You are Sharon.

Sharon: Hi, Brian. No, I was listening to the radio, and it was on delay. I was at the hospital last week with my grandmother who has COVID. She coughed in my face, and I went to get a COVID test. I am negative. I also decided to get an antibody test, which I have. I'm sorry, I was exercising. Yesterday, I was in the city. I was not allowed to go into a diner or a museum because I'm not vaccinated, but I do have antibodies. My thing is, why am I required to get a vaccine that I don't need?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: That's a great question, Sharon. I will just start by saying that vaccine protection and having a presence of antibodies are not actually equal measurements. The vaccine does more than just create antibodies that triggers a robust immune response that includes T-cells and B-cells The vaccine will give you antibodies that are specific to the spike protein, and that they are much more long-lasting than possible antibodies related to natural infection. We also know that the vaccines are very effective against the variants that are known to, and those who've had previous infection don't have that same protection against the Delta variant, which is much more transmissible.

We know that the vaccine-induced antibodies are vast, much more durable, and we know too that those who have antibodies, it's not a standardized measurement. You might have a very high antibody number, the person who was exposed or infected at the same time, as you may have minimal. Because it's not standardized, it's impossible to use that as a threshold for people being safe enough to do public things, which is why it can't be considered equal to or sufficient for some of those things that require vaccination.

Brian Lehrer: Sharon, you want to follow up or reflect on that?

Sharon: Yes. It seems that you also don't have complete answers on how long your antibodies last with people who have been vaccinated. You don't know for sure. It does decrease month to month. I had COVID in November, and I still have antibodies. I've been tested three times. My grandmother coughed on me. I also asked if she had the Delta virus, and they said they did not test for that. Something just doesn't line up for me.

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Right. The Delta variant, if you're saying that, did she cough on you recently or was that back in November, or did you have the COVID infection--

Sharon: Yes, last week. Last week, I stayed with her three days. She was not in intensive care yet, like one step below intensive care, where she needed full oxygen. I was taking care of her. I was walking her to the bathroom. She had a nasal cannula. I was sipping water and she coughed on me. She coughed on me many times. I tested and I tested for the antibodies. I'm just not sure that being forced to get a vaccine that I don't necessarily need is fair.

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Well, yes, I hear what you're saying, but I also want to encourage you to consider the fact that the antibodies that are present with some people are variable. There is no way to determine that the antibodies that you have are enough to protect you. You have been protected so far, but again, when you're doing a regular antibody test, that's not actually giving you a full picture of your protection. It's just showing you that antibodies are detected. If you're talking about those at home IgG and IgM tests, you would have to do a full tighter scan to really see what--

Sharon: Wouldn't one be able to argue the same thing for people who have been vaccinated, that we wouldn't be able to know their antibodies?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Well, people who have been vaccinated are being monitored because those people are in clinical trials where that is one of the things that they are detecting, the durability and the longevity of those antibodies that are induced by vaccination, which is a much more standardized way to do that. We know that vaccines have historically provided longer, more robust, and better protection from the virus, including the variants than natural infection. Those who have been infected plus vaccinated actually have proven to be some of the most protected people in our population. I would say because you've had previous exposure, previous infection, a vaccine will be actually the protection that you're looking for.

Brian Lehrer: Sharon, before you go, and I'll move on to some other callers and some other questions, what's your hesitancy, besides the fact that you're arguing because you had COVID and you're testing with antibodies, why wouldn't you want that "superwoman protection" of getting the vaccine too? What are you afraid the downside is, and based on what?

Sharon: I just feel like we haven't been given full information, it hasn't been long enough. The fact that you still can have breakthrough infection, it just seems unfair that, again, if I had no antibodies, I would consider, yes, because as time goes by and people aren't really that sick from getting the shot, but again, because I feel like I have some natural immunity, that counts for something. That's my position.

Brian Lehrer: Sharon, we appreciate your call. Thank you very much. Now here's a doctor, says he's a doctor, Dan in Brooklyn, who wants to follow up on Sharon's call and talk more about the difference between natural immunity and vaccine immunity. Dan, do I have that right? Are you a doctor, and that's why you're calling in?

Dan: Yes. At Rockefeller, they did studies where they looked at the antibodies over time in infected people as opposed to vaccinated people. The vaccinated people have these evolving antibodies that get better and better at seizing the antigen so that as the virus evolves, so do the B-cells making the antibodies.

On the other hand, when you get an infection, it's always one step behind. As you evolve in symptomatology, you're at greater risk of getting very, very sick even if you have antibodies that subside because the stimulation isn't there anymore to make antibodies, but when you're vaccinated, the B-cells are constantly changing the antibody so it seizes better and reacts better to the antigen. You see what I'm saying?

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to put that over to Jessica Malaty Rivera and ask, do you see what he's saying?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: I do. That's what was my point in saying that there's a much more robust combination of responses that the vaccine triggers in the body that includes those T-cells and B-cells with memory that allows the body to better and more smartly adapt to the antigen threats.

Brian Lehrer: Dan, thank you very much for your call. It's interesting some of the tweets that we're getting from one that says, "Not for nothing, but I'm thrilled Sharon can't sit in a restaurant or museum with me." That's one listener. Another one says, "Appreciate the effort, Brian, but I can't bear to hear these clowns spew their ignorance on the air." That's another one. Another one says, "Nobody is forcing caller to get vaccinated. She may choose not to get the vaccine, but she won't have the privileges those of us who are vaxxed have." These aren't science questions or comments, Jessica, but they reflect part of the tension that's out there in society over this, right?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: They do. I actually think that that last point is a really important point because I think a lot of people are redefining mandates as something that is authoritarian or totalitarian. I think that that's just not true. What a mandate actually means is that it's a mandate to make a choice. It's a mandate to have a decision with yourself on whether or not you're going to participate in vaccination because if you do, then you can be allowed these privileges, which are based on private businesses and companies who want to protect their patrons and their employees. If you do make that choice, you can enjoy those privileges. If you don't, then that means that you'll have to sit it up with. The mandate doesn't actually force anybody to lift up their shirt and raise their arm to get vaccinated, it's a mandate to make a decision.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take another call. Daniel in Lynden, you're on WNYC with epidemiologist at Boston Children's Hospital, Jessica Malaty Rivera. Hi, Daniel.

Daniel: Hello. How are you, Brian? I'm very happy. I'm proud of all I have learned from your show about this. I have this question, you know that the only studies has maximum one year now and in particular, the RNA vaccines are a new kind of technology where the anti-cell, in this case, is protein expressing a different cell that is a muscle. My question is, I'm pro-vaccine, but what could happen with a different recognition and future auto-immunity disease generated from the expression of this protein in a context that is not the normal context for this virus?

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. His question, I think, is whether the mRNA vaccines can cause autoimmune problems in the long run, is that how you understood it? Jessica, are you there?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Yes, I did. That's a great question. I'll start by saying that it's a misconception to consider RNA vaccine or mRNA vaccine technology as new. The technology is decades old, and in the context of vaccines, it goes back at least 30 years, it's being investigated in the use of humans. We investigated it in clinical trials for other diseases, including flu and chikungunya and other diseases, so it's actually based on years and years of preclinical and clinical research.

That said, even the vaccine itself, when we talk about how it actually works, what it's doing is essentially just giving your body a blueprint of the spike protein. It's showing your body what to look out for, not actually giving it any piece of the virus, any type of infection, it's giving it a preview of what to look out for so that the body develops that and then fights it. That whole process takes between 24 to 72 hours, the amount of time that that mRNA is in your body is actually quite short because mRNA is exceptionally fragile. It degrades and it's eaten up by your body shortly after.

The spike proteins from that vaccine are in your body for probably just a few days. Before, it's just your immune system, your trained immune system that takes over. I know that there are a lot of people who have been concerned about its impact on DNA. That's certainly impossible because your DNA is safely in your nucleus, it doesn't have any interaction with your DNA, and it cannot possibly change your DNA.

When it comes to altering things about your immune system, it really hasn't proven in any way to do that either. There have been studies to see any sort of impact on the inflammation system on your immune system, if it could trigger anything, and there have been no proven outcomes of antibody-dependent enhancement or long-term autoimmune issues. The time in which the vaccine is working in your body is very, very short. The rest of it is your immune system that is specifically trained to identify a very specific spike protein, and that's it.

Brian Lehrer: Daniel, thank you for that interesting call. Related, another myth that Johns Hopkins lists is that the COVID-19 vaccine can actually give you COVID-19. Where does that one come from, and what's the real answer?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: The real answer is no because there's no part of the virus that's actually in the vaccine, it is just a mRNA description of the spike protein. This is based on understanding previous types of vaccines. In the case of flu, you're dealing with an inactivated dead version of the flu, which also cannot give you the flu virus. When people hear vaccines, a lot of times, they have in their mind this idea that there is a part of the virus, or a weakened virus, or a virus that could possibly give you a minor infection to trigger an immune response. That's not how the mRNA vaccines, or even the adenovirus vector vaccines, are working. None of them have any part of the virus that could cause a true infection.

Brian Lehrer: What are the worst side effects of the COVID vaccine? We know people can get a little sick for a day or two. What are the worst side effects in the most extreme cases, and is there anybody who really should not get this vaccine?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Those who have been vaccinated have reported a variety of COVID-19 vaccine side effects. So far, not in a life-threatening type of way, but there have been cases of anaphylaxis, and there have also been reports of anaphylaxis in dose one that they were still recommended to get it in dose two because the anaphylaxis was very easily mitigated or remedied shortly after. It's why there is the precedence of having to wait 15 minutes after your dose, just to make sure that everything's okay and that you are attended to right away.

Brian Lehrer: Anaphylaxis is an extreme allergic reaction that usually sets in right away, right?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Correct. It doesn't really happen in a delayed effect, it would happen usually within the first moments of vaccination. The majority of side effects are pretty mild, and right now, what seems like the only specific contraindication or reason to not get vaccinated includes those people who have a specific allergy to polyethylene glycol. Those who have that allergy would know it, it is the active ingredient in MiraLAX. That doesn't represent a large population in the US, or even in the world, but those who do have that specific allergy might be recommended to get a different type of vaccine and not one of the mRNA ones.

Again, there isn't a huge population who is recommended to not get it. Again, that is also very specific to a conversation between you and your provider, if there are other reasons that your providers would encourage you to wait or not get it, that's between you and your doctor. So far, the wide recommendation is that everybody get the vaccine.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute. In a few minutes, I'll say we're going to gawk at California's recall election today and see what that weird situation actually is involving on election day itself. That's coming up later this hour after a little more with Jessica Malaty Rivera, and your calls and tweets. Oh, some of these tweets that are coming in, I'll read some after the break. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We're taking calls from those of you who have not decided to get the COVID vaccine, at least not yet, and your reasons for why, and your questions for Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at Boston Children's Hospital. Lee in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Lee.

Lee: Yes, hi there, Brian. I love your show, you're just really great. I want to ask some questions, I'm not taking the vaccine because one-fourth of my friends now are having reactions as a result of the vaccine. Also, I'd like to know why the two top people at the FDA just quit and walked off the job. By the way, the FDA is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Does that influence things?

Brian Lehrer: Jessica, I don't know if this is in your bailiwick as an epidemiologist at Boston Children's Hospital. Do you know anything about that?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Yes, I do know about these resignations. I think that that has a lot more to do with the politics of how things move forward, and when it comes to how things are considered for review and approval. That is not based on any sort of concern over the actual scientific durability of what is being presented for review.

This was also very specific in the conversation of boosters, not on safety and efficacy of the vaccines. I think that that is a very important clarification, that that fight really was on the conversation of boosters. We're not talking about people who are disagreeing on whether or not these vaccines should be recommended for the population, whether or not they're safe, whether or not they're effective, whether or not they should be recommended.

Brian Lehrer: Wasn't there on the ethics of boosters in the context of maybe Americans who are vaccinated shouldn't be taking away vaccine doses from people in developing countries who have a shortage of them, for their first and second shots?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Right, there is a huge ethical debate that is being had right now in a number of closed and open rooms, when it comes to vaccine equity and our responsibility to make sure that everybody on this planet who is affected by this pandemic get protected as soon as possible. I have gone on the record a few times to say that I think it's unfathomable that we're talking about third doses for generally healthy and protected people in the United States when we know that 2% of Africa is vaccinated and a number of countries have yet to see a single dose. When we talk about a global pandemic, it requires a global response and we, as America, which is a very wealthy country and has access to tons of doses, have a moral obligation to make sure that we're sharing them globally.

Brian Lehrer: Vincent, in Locust Valley, you're on WNYC with epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera. Hi, Vincent.

Vincent: Hello, Brian. Thank you for taking my call. This conversation is very dangerous. Doctor, you're not referring to accurate information. The VAERS report shows that the death count from this shot alone has surpassed the past 20 years of all vaccinations added up. How can you explain that? How can you propose that it's a good idea to give the children what is an experimental gene therapy technology?

The FDA people that stepped down, that's because this is not approved by the FDA. The administration and everyone else is running along saying that it is approved by the FDA, and they want their names off of it, and I don't blame them. If you look at the paperwork the FDA released, they approved the application for a core nazi, it's another shot. It's the application, it takes five to seven years before someone sees at number one, and all the other did was extend the emergency use authorization. The deception that we're getting from agencies that we trust is on a grand scale and everyone's pushing this narrative, and it's dangerous. We need to start telling the truth, guys.

Brian Lehrer: Vincent, thank you very much. Well, this is some of what's out there. We could take more calls like this if we wanted to. Let's do a little fact-checking on these specific claims, and maybe you can talk about a bigger picture of things like that that are going around, which I think we can label much of as simple disinformation. He referred to something called the VAERS report. Do you know what that is? He claimed that more people have died from this vaccine than from all the other vaccines put together in the last 20 years. What can you say?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: That is just simply untrue, and Brian, I just want to address the fact that almost every single thing he said is just a repetition of a lot of anti-vaccine talking points that are very actually, in his words, dangerous. VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It's a database that goes back to the '80s, I believe, to track self-reported events that are adverse in relation to vaccine. It is an unregulated database. It is open source in the sense that anybody could be posting something.

You have to remember that this database is useful when it is properly analyzed, but for years, it has been manipulated, misused, misinterpreted to create narratives that are just not there. Every single extremely adverse event and death that is reported on VAERS related to the vaccine is investigated by the CDC and the FDA.

Most recently, there was a pre-print paper that was published this week talking about some correlation and causation claim about the impact of myocarditis among kids based on various data that was very quickly debunked, because again, this database has been a, for lack of better words, a place where people go dumpster diving for facts. It is not something that is considered a reliable at face value source of information. It is unnecessary place that we are glad that it exists so that people can report those things, but every single thing has to be investigated because there are outlandish claims on there, like people's hair changing color after vaccination and people who are misusing it to be kind of cheeky.

When it comes to even the claim of this vaccine not being approved, again, that is a complete misunderstanding of the regulatory process. What was submitted was a biological license agreement. The BLA is considered FDA approval. The vaccine community, which is the product name of the Pfizer vaccine is absolutely FDA approved. The FDA has released statements after approving it by sharing the information and the approval number of this vaccine. It is just simply true that people are saying it's not actually FDA approved.

When we talk about deaths and make light of the actual COVID-19 related deaths, I find that to be not only insulting to the families who have lost loved ones, but to our healthcare workers, who for a third consecutive winter season that is upcoming, are dealing with hospitals being overwhelmed, with shortened staff, with their staff getting sick, and so coming to the illness as well for refusing the vaccine and just the trauma of having to deal with this pandemic, which simply won't end because there are too many people refusing the vaccine.

Brian Lehrer: How do you understand the prevalence of the anti-vax movement based on disinformation?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: It's not a simple answer, but misinformation and disinformation have circulated around the spread of infectious diseases since the beginning of time. Those of us who have studied outbreaks of diseases have also studied outbreaks of misinformation. We call them infodemics. Infodemics can refer to just the overwhelming saturation of information, as well as the higher incidents of bad actors releasing everything from snake oil salesperson type of information, to propaganda, to disinformation intended to harm people. That is a phenomenon that has existed for a while.

I will say that because of how much information there is about COVID-19 and social media and the politics behind some of the policies and the responses between states and the federal government, we are in a very acutely bad situation when it comes to vaccine misinformation. Part of that is a failure of the federal response to prioritize things like science communication and specifically vaccine communication when it came to the rollout of the vaccine. Part of it is because we have just much more access to content that goes unchecked and spreads virally much faster than evidence-based material.

Brian Lehrer: The one other specific claim that that last caller made, I have another one like that on Twitter who references what the caller said is gene therapy experimentation, I may not be getting the exact words right, on children. That the listener on Twitter says, in the UK, they're recommending only one dose for children, because they're not sure of the effects of two doses. Do you know anything about that? Is that real, or is that fake?

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Well, thank you for reminding me about that claim, because I'd forgotten to address that. The claims of gene therapy are erroneous. That is based on a misunderstanding of how the vaccine works. That is an assumption that the mRNA vaccines can modify the DNA, which could therefore modify your genes, that simply does not happen. The mRNA does not even come into contact with the DNA that is inside the nucleus of a human cells.

That said, when comparing the recommendations of the UK and the US, you have to remember the fact that there is a huge difference in the general population's vaccination rates. There are a lot more adults that are vaccinated in the UK than there are in the US. As a result, the assumed protection and the literal protection that those who are not yet eligible for vaccination yet is there compared to what it is here. I have a good friend of mine who is a infectious disease physician in the UK, and we talk often about the varying policies and the understanding of what relative risk is for those populations, because we're dealing with very, very different vaccination rates overall.

If there were more adults vaccinated in the US, I do wonder too what the urgency would be on those vaccinations for those who are children, those in the pediatric population. As of right now, we have to include children in these vaccines, that's why we've prioritized the studies, that's why we expanded the studies. Pfizer has enrolled even more kids between the ages of 5 to 11 in these pediatric trials so that we can make sure that these populations are also protected since we can't really rely on only the adults to do that protection for those who are younger.

Brian Lehrer: When people want to narrowly focus on alleged risks of the vaccine, they always overlook the death toll, and then they even questioned that. Yesterday, I happened to mention that in recent times, we're having 1,500 deaths per day, again, in this country, which we haven't had for a while from COVID in 911 every other day, considering the anniversary we just observed to make that comparison. Then somebody tweeted, "Well, those numbers come from Johns Hopkins. Why should I believe Johns Hopkins," which is such a level of skepticism out there that I don't know if it's new to this country, but it's dangerous to not believe the people who were doing the most earnest work.

Jessica Malaty Rivera: It's extremely dangerous, and it's extremely traumatizing, like I mentioned earlier, to those who have experienced those losses because we know that every single one of these deaths is preventable, especially now that we have these incredible tools in our toolkit. The vaccine is not perfect. It is extremely effective. It is very, very safe. We know that you have a much higher likelihood of getting infected and becoming hospitalized if you are not vaccinated. We know that those risks of hospitalization and severe outcomes dramatically reduce once you're vaccinated. To know that there are people who are still dying from a preventable disease in that regard is very, very difficult to swallow.

Brian Lehrer: There, we will leave it with infectious diseases epidemiologist, Jessica Malaty Rivera. She's a research fellow now at Boston Children's Hospital. If you want to see more of her work and related to all these questions about the vaccine, her Instagram is really good. It's chock-full of information, including saved stories, where she has tons of information on stuff like COVID and kids, breakthrough infections, et cetera. On Instagram, it's just at her name, Jessica Malaty, that's M-A-L-A-T-Y Rivera, at Jessica Malati Rivera. Jessica, thank you so much for this pretty challenging, I think, session with us.

Jessica Malaty Rivera: Thanks, Brian. I'm happy to do it.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer in WNYC. Coming up next, we're going to look in on California's recall election, which has going on right now.

 

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.