COVID-19 Severity Among American Indians and Alaska Natives in 16 States - January 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021

Objective: To compare rates and risk factors of severe COVID-19-related outcomes between American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and non-Hispanic White people (NHW). Methods: Aggregate Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), COVID-19-related risk factor, hospitalization, and mortality data were obtained from 16 states for January 1, 2020-March 31, 2021. Generalized estimating equation Poisson regression models calculated age-adjusted cumulative incidences, incidence ratios (IR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing AI/AN and NHW persons by age, sex, and county-level SVI status. Results: Race data were missing for 42.7% of COVID-19 cases, 24.7% of hospitalizations, and 10.1% of deaths. Risk of AI/AN COVID-19 mortality was 2.6 times that of NHW persons (IR 2.6, 95% CI: 1.7 – 3.4); risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization among AI/AN persons was 3.5 times that of NHW (IR: 3.5, 95% CI: 2.7 – 4.3). Severe COVID-19 outcomes were significantly higher for AI/AN persons compared to NHW persons across all age and sex groups. There was no statistically significant difference in COVID-19 outcomes by SVI status. Associations between severe COVID-19 outcomes and co-morbid risk factors were inconsistent. Conclusions: Results describe increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes for AI/AN persons compared to NHW persons despite quality issues in public health surveillance data. Data linkages and improved ascertainment reduce race/ethnicity misclassification and improve data quality. COVID-19-related health burdens among AI/AN persons warrant improved access for AI/AN communities to medical countermeasures and healthcare resources

A Study on Hybrid Cars: Environmental Effects and Consumer Habits

The focus of this hybrid vehicle technology paper was whether hybrids meet the expectations for environmental benefits suggested by society. Types of hybrids, the future of the technology, technical aspects of production and efficiency were analyzed and focus groups revealed buyer trends. We concluded that hybrids have drawbacks that offset their fuel efficiency. Their price is generally a poor economic investment and energy efficient processing techniques need to be developed for the advanced materials in hybrids. Widespread change to hybrid technologies is not a feasible option in the near future due to cost and the limited amount of hybrids on the road today. Hybrid technology has potential in the future, but as for right now they are not a significant improvement over today's engine

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

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