Informe alternativo sobre el cumplimiento del Estado de Costa Rica para el Comité de las Naciones Unidas para la Eliminación de la Discriminación contra la Mujer (CEDAW/C/67/1).

Información adicional al informe del Estado de Costa Rica para la audiencia del Comité CEDAW en su 67 sesión.El presente documento fue elaborado por un conjunto de organizaciones de sociedad civil y colectivas ciudadanas de derechos humanos en Costa Rica. Debido a que no se cuenta con los recursos para abarcar un informe que enfoque todas las problemáticas, hemos tenido que priorizar algunos temas por su urgencia y gravedad sin que por ello los temas no mencionados carezcan de importancia. Se encuentra estructurado en : Información adicional al informe del Estado de Costa Rica para la audiencia del Comité CEDAW en su 67 sesión - Contexto Nacional General - Acceso al Aborto impune - Datos estatales y casos concretos - Incumplimiento de observaciones y recomendaciones de Comités de Derechos Humanos - Barreras y obstáculos adicionales para el acceso al aborto impune - Preguntas para el Estado sobre el acceso al aborto impune - Acceso a la anticoncepción de emergencia - Preguntas para el Estado sobre el acceso a la anticoncepción de emergencia - Situación de las lesbianas - Situación de las mujeres lesbianas, bisexuales y trans mayores de 60 años en Costa Rica - Preguntas al Estado Costarricense sobre la situación de las mujeres lesbianas y bisexuales adultas mayores - Situación de las mujeres trans - Violencia institucional - Derecho a la salud - Derecho a la educación - Derecho al trabajo - La discriminación contra las mujeres en la publicidad y los medios de comunicación - Acoso sexual callejero (en espacios públicos y transporte) - Violencia patrimonial y pensiones alimentarias - Femicidio

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health