Covid19-Sources

Different SARS-CoV-2 variants can differentially affect the prevalence of Post Covid-19 Condition (PCC). This prospective study assesses prevalence and severity of symptoms three months after an Omicron infection, compared to Delta, test-negative and population controls. This study also assesses symptomology after reinfection and breakthrough infections . Methods: After a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, cases were classified as Omicron or Delta based on ≥ 85% surveillance prevalence. Population controls were representatively invited and symptomatic test- negative controls enrolled after a negative SARS-CoV-2 test. Three months after enrolment, participants indicated point prevalence for 41 symptoms and severity of four symptoms. Permutation tests identified significantly elevated symptoms in cases compared to controls. PCC prevalence was estimated as the difference in prevalence of at least one elevated symptom in cases compared to population controls. Findings: At three months follow-up, five symptoms and severe dyspnea were significantly elevated in Omicron cases (n = 4138) compared to test-negative (n= 1672) and population controls (n= 2762). PCC prevalence was 10·4% for Omicron cases and 17·7% for Delta cases (n = 6855). Prevalence of severe fatigue and dyspnea were higher in reinfected compared to primary infected Omicron cases, while severity of symptoms did not significantly differ between Omicron cases with a booster or primary vaccination course. Interpretation: Three months after Omicron, prevalence of PCC is 41% lower than after Delta. Reinfection seems associated with more prevalent severe long-term symptoms compared to a first infection. A booster prior to infection does not seem to improve the outcome of long-term symptoms.

Reinfections worse than first time COVID. More breathing difficulty, tiredness (Long COVID) after repeat COVID. Boosters waned/offered limited protection against long term symptoms.Study from National Institute for Public Health, Netherlands.1/2https://t.co/dHbgACnDwz pic.twitter.com/7auoJQLwDL— Rajeev Jayadevan (@RajeevJayadevan) April 8, 2023

Thought COVID was done with the surprises? Not yet, apparently. Those itchy, red eyes you have that you assumed were just the start of allergy season? It could very well be something called “Arcturus” instead. XBB.1.16, a subvariant of the Omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus that has acquired that unusual stellar label, appears to be spreading quickly in some…

Nature - A human–SARS-CoV-2 protein interaction map highlights cellular processes that are hijacked by the virus and that can be targeted by existing drugs, including inhibitors of mRNA...

Indoor superspreading events are significant drivers of transmission of respiratory diseases. In this work, we study the dynamics of airborne transmission in consecutive meetings of individuals in enclosed spaces. In contrast to the usual pairwise-interaction models of infection where effective contacts transmit the disease, we focus on group interactions where individuals with distinct health states meet simultaneously. Specifically, the disease is transmitted by infected individuals exhaling droplets (contributing to the viral load in the closed space) and susceptible ones inhaling the contaminated air. We propose a modeling framework that couples the fast dynamics of the viral load attained over meetings in enclosed spaces and the slow dynamics of disease progression at the population level. Our modeling framework incorporates the multiple time scales involved in different setups in which indoor events may happen, from single-time events to events hosting multiple meetings per day, over many days. We present theoretical and numerical results of trade-offs between the room characteristics (ventilation system efficiency and air mass) and the group’s behavioral and composition characteristics (group size, mask compliance, testing, meeting time, and break times), that inform indoor policies to achieve disease control in closed environments through different pathways. Our results emphasize the impact of break times, mask-wearing, and testing on facilitating the conditions to achieve disease control. We study scenarios of different break times, mask compliance, and testing. We also derive policy guidelines to contain the infection rate under a certain threshold.

Even younger people who had mild COVID-19 showed persistent cognitive impairments.

The mechanism of Long Covid (Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19; PASC) is currently unknown, with no validated diagnostics or therapeutics. SARS-CoV-2 can cause disseminated infections that result in multi-system tissue damage, dysregulated inflammation, and cellular metabolic disruptions. The tissue damage and inflammation has been shown to impair microvascular circulation, resulting in hypoxia, which coupled with virally-induced metabolic reprogramming, increases cellular anaerobic respiration. Both acute and PASC patients show systemic dysregulation of multiple markers of the acid-base balance. Based on these data, we hypothesize that the shift to anaerobic respiration causes an acid-base disruption that can affect every organ system and underpins the symptoms of PASC. This hypothesis can be tested by longitudinally evaluating acid-base markers in PASC patients and controls over the course of a month. If our hypothesis is correct, this could have significant implications for our understanding of PASC and our ability to develop effective diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Our governments and healthcare systems are rolling back COVID protections while largely ignoring the devastating effects these actions will have on reproductive health inequities.

an AI researcher going back to school for immunology

Although treatment with AXA1125 did not improve the primary endpoint (τPCr-measure of mitochondrial respiration), when compared to placebo, there was a significant improvement in fatigue-based symptoms among patients living with Long COVID following a four week treatment period. Further multicentre studies are needed to validate our findings in a larger cohort of patients with fatigue-dominant Long COVID.

Although health outcomes continued to improve, our study suggested that SARS survivors still suffered from physical fatigue, osteoporosis, and necrosis of the femoral head 18 years after discharge, possibly related to plasma metabolic disorders and immunological alterations.

Here the authors report the formation of toxic clumps of protein, similar to amyloid assemblies found in Alzheimer’s disease and suggest their possible role for some of the neurological symptoms of long-COVID.

WHO is the FAMILY XBB.1* ?(XBB.1, XBB.1.5, XBB.1.9, XBB.1.16, ...)(layman terms)Since the emergence of the BQ.1* we said, that the pandemic has changed its face, and that it is necessary to analyze the emergence of variants by family and not by singular variant. pic.twitter.com/2SPSSNkObg— Emmanuel (@ejustin46) April 15, 2023

Background Respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, can infect the eyes or pass into the nose via the nasolacrimal duct. The importance of transmission via the eyes is unknown but might plausibly be reduced in those who wear glasses. Previous studies have mainly focussed on protective eyewear in healthcare settings. Methods Participants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales responded to a questionnaire on the use of glasses and contact lenses. This included frequency of use, purpose, and likelihood of wearing a mask with glasses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage with Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2), weekly questionnaires to self-report positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike). A multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, income and occupation, was used to identify odds of infection depending on the frequency and purpose of using glasses or contact lenses. Findings 19,166 Virus Watch participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore glasses. A multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using glasses always for general use (OR 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, p = 0.002) compared to those who never wore glasses. The protective effect was reduced in those who said that wearing glasses interfered with mask wearing. No protective effect was seen for contact lens wearers. Interpretation People who wear glasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection highlighting the importance of the eye as a route of infection. Eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings. Funding The research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care’s Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. Funding from the HSE Protect study, GOSH Children’s Charity and the Great Ormond Street Hospital BRC supported the involvement of CO in the project. Evidence before the study Despite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes, very few countries have advocated eye protection to reduce transmission amongst the public and, except when providing close care for those known or suspected to be infected, is variable and based on case-by-case assessment of exposure risk. The mechanism, but not the extent, of the transmission route through the eyes is well described in the literature, with several studies reporting detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the tear film, conjunctiva and conjunctival sac. There have been a small number of hospital based observational studies suggesting that eye protection may help prevent COVID-19 infection. A literature search was carried out on 23rd February 2022 across Medline and Embase using the search terms ‘eyewear’, ‘glasses’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘SARS’, ‘transmission’ and ‘infectivity’, providing 105 manuscripts. Of these, only eight investigated the risk of infection associated with eye protection, all in hospital settings or followed a cohort of healthcare workers. Among the studies was a systematic review that identified 5 observational studies from 898 articles that were screened. The cohort study with the largest sample size, 345 healthcare professionals, demonstrated a relative risk of 10.25 (95% CI 1.28–82.39; P = 0.009) for infection when not using eye protection. No studies of the potential protective effect of glasses wearing, for visual correction, in community settings were identified. Added value of this study The Virus Watch study is a prospective community household study across England and Wales. 19,166 participants responded to the monthly questionnaire on glasses and contact lens use, assessing reported frequency, the purpose of use and how likely they were to wear a mask with glasses. Infections were identified in data linked to the Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 testing), weekly surveys seeking self-reports of polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow device results and, in a subset of 11,701, self-collected capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike - nucleocapsid antibodies were taken as evidence of prior infection as these are unaffected by vaccination). Our multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, household income and occupation, demonstrated 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported always using glasses for general use compared to those who never wear glasses. The protective effect was not observed in those who strongly agreed with the statement, ‘I am less likely to wear a face covering when I have my glasses on because my glasses steam up’. Counterfactual analysis of contact lenses did not suggest a protective effect regardless of frequency of use. Implications of all the available evidence The findings of this study demonstrate a moderate reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those who always wear glasses compared to never. Unlike other studies, our results are representative of a community setting, adjust for potential confounders and provide a counterfactual analysis with contact lenses. This extends the current evidence to community settings and validates proposed biological mechanisms of eye protection reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement The research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care's Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. Funding from the HSE Protect study, GOSH Children's Charity and the Great Ormond Street Hospital BRC supported the involvement of CO in the project. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study has been approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee. Ethics approval number - 20/HRA/2320. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Nature Communications - The development of direct-acting antivirals to combat COVID-19 remains an important goal. Here the authors design covalent inhibitors that target the papain-like protease...

Inhibitor molecule disrupts the infection mechanism of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

Negativer Effekt: Eine zu salzreiche Kost kann die Energieversorgung wichtiger Kontrollzellen unseres Immunsystems schwächen – und dadurch

Scientific Reports - Cerebral hypoperfusion in post-COVID-19 cognitively impaired subjects revealed by arterial spin labeling MRI

null

Aim To evaluate the effect of vaccination/booster administration dynamics on the reduction of excess mortality during COVID-19 infection waves in European countries. Methods We selected twenty-nine countries from the OurWorldInData project database according to their population size of more than one million and the availability of information on dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants during COVID-19 infection waves. After selection, we categorized countries according to their “faster” or “slower” vaccination rates. The first category included countries that reached 60% of vaccinated residents by October 2021 and 70% by January 2022. The second or “slower” category included all other countries. In the first or “faster” category, two groups, “boosters faster’’ and “boosters slower” were created. Pearson correlation analysis, linear regression, and chi-square test for categorical data were used to identify the association between vaccination rate and excess mortality. We chose time intervals corresponding to the dominance of viral variants: Wuhan, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1/2. Results The “faster” countries, as opposed to the “slower” ones, did better in protecting their residents from mortality during all periods of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and even before vaccination. Perhaps higher GDP per capita contributed to their better performance throughout the pandemic. During mass vaccination, when the Delta variant prevailed, the contrast in mortality rates between the “faster” and “slower” categories was strongest. The average excess mortality in the “slower” countries was nearly 5 times higher than in the “faster” countries, and the odds ratio (OR) was 4.9 (95% CI 4.4 to 5.4). Slower booster rates were associated with significantly higher mortality during periods dominated by Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, with an OR of 2.6 (CI 95%. 2.1 to 3.3). Among the European countries we analyzed, Denmark, Norway, and Ireland did best, with a pandemic mortality rate of 0.1% of the population or less. By comparison, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Russia had a much higher mortality rate of up to 1% of the population. Thus, slow vaccination and booster administration was a major factor contributing to an order of magnitude higher excess mortality in “slower” European countries compared to more rapidly immunized countries. ![Figure][1] ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (SAS). ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: OurWorldinData public data depository. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus World bank open data https://data.worldbank.org/ I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data used in the study are from public resources and open-access databases. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus https://data.worldbank.org/ [1]: pending:yes

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs) possess mutations that confer resistance to neutralizing antibodies within the Spike protein and are associated with breakthrough infection and reinfection. By contrast, less is known about the escape from CD8+ T cell-mediated immunity by VOC. Here, we demonstrated that all SARS-CoV-2 VOCs possess the ability to suppress major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I) expression. We identified several viral genes that contribute to the suppression of MHC I expression. Notably, MHC-I upregulation was strongly inhibited after SARS-CoV-2 but not influenza virus infection in vivo. While earlier VOCs possess similar capacity as the ancestral strain to suppress MHC-I, the Omicron subvariants exhibited a greater ability to suppress surface MHC-I expression. We identified a common mutation in the E protein of Omicron that further suppressed MHC-I expression. Collectively, our data suggest that in addition to escaping from neutralizing antibodies, the success of Omicron subvariants to cause breakthrough infection and reinfection may in part be due to its optimized evasion from T cell recognition.

Mortality Data Many Countries

Bis November 2022 gab es in Deutschland rund 36 Millionen offiziell registrierte SARS-CoV-2-Infektionen (1). Der Anteil unerkannter Infektionen wird auf das 1,5- bis 4-fache der erfassten Fälle geschätzt (2, 3). Der Anteil der nicht erfassten Fälle...

This study uses data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 remains associated with higher risk of death compared with seasonal influenza in fall-winter 2022-2023.

Background: Different SARS-CoV-2 variants can differentially affect the prevalence of Post Covid-19 Condition (PCC). This prospective study assesses prevalence and severity of symptoms three months after an Omicron infection, compared to Delta, test-negative and population controls. This study also assesses symptomology after reinfection and breakthrough infections . Methods: After a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, cases were classified as Omicron or Delta based on ≥ 85% surveillance prevalence. Population controls were representatively invited and symptomatic test-negative controls enrolled after a negative SARS-CoV-2 test. Three months after enrolment, participants indicated point prevalence for 41 symptoms and severity of four symptoms. Permutation tests identified significantly elevated symptoms in cases compared to controls. PCC prevalence was estimated as the difference in prevalence of at least one elevated symptom in cases compared to population controls. Findings: At three months follow-up, five symptoms and severe dyspnea were significantly elevated in Omicron cases (n = 4138) compared to test-negative (n= 1672) and population controls (n= 2762). PCC prevalence was 10.4% for Omicron cases and 17.7% for Delta cases (n = 6855). Prevalence of severe fatigue and dyspnea were higher in reinfected compared to primary infected Omicron cases, while severity of symptoms did not significantly differ between Omicron cases with a booster or primary vaccination course. Interpretation: Three months after Omicron, prevalence of PCC is 41% lower than after Delta. Reinfection seems associated with more prevalent severe long-term symptoms compared to a first infection. A booster prior to infection does not seem to improve the outcome of long-term symptoms. Funding: The study is executed by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment by order of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement The study is executed by the National Institute for Public Health by order of the Ministry of Health. The study is not the result of a competitive grant. The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport does not have a role in the design of this study, its execution, analyses and interpretation of results. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Utrecht Medical Ethics Committee of NedMec gave ethical approval for this work (protocol number 21-124/C) I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Supporting clinical documents including the study protocol and statistical analysis plan will be available immediately following publication of this Article for at least 1 year. Researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal will within the applicable privacy legislation be allowed to access to the de-identified individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article. Proposals should be sent to the corresponding author. These proposals will be reviewed and approved by the investigators on the basis of scientific merit. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been associated mainly with a range of neurological symptoms, including brain fog and brain tissue loss, raising concerns about the virus's acute and potential chronic impact on the central nervous system. In this study, we utilized mouse models and human post-mortem tissues to investigate the presence and distribution of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the skull-meninges-brain axis. Our results revealed the accumulation of the spike protein in the skull marrow, brain meninges, and brain parenchyma. The injection of the spike protein alone caused cell death in the brain, highlighting a direct effect on brain tissue. Furthermore, we observed the presence of spike protein in the skull of deceased long after their COVID-19 infection, suggesting that the spike's persistence may contribute to long-term neurological symptoms. The spike protein was associated with neutrophil-related pathways and dysregulation of the proteins involved in the PI3K-AKT as well as complement and coagulation pathway. Overall, our findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein trafficking from CNS borders into the brain parenchyma and identified differentially regulated pathways may present insights into mechanisms underlying immediate and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 and present diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Long covid follows 10-20% of first-time SARS-CoV-2 infections, but the societal burden of long covid and risk factors for the condition are not well-understood. Here, we report findings about self-reported sick leave and risk factors thereof from a hybrid survey and register study, which included 37,482 RT- PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 51,336 test-negative controls who were tested during the index and alpha waves. An additional 33 individuals per 1000 took substantial sick leave following acute infection compared to persons with no known history of infection, where substantial sick leave was defined as 1 month of sick leave within the period 1-9 months after the RT-PCR test date. Being female, ≥50 years, and having certain pre-existing conditions such as fibromyalgia increased risks for taking substantial sick leave. Further research exploring this heterogeneity is urgently needed and may provide important evidence for more targeted preventative strategies. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement No specific funding was received for this work. The study was conducted as part of the advisory tasks of the governmental institution Statens Serum Institut for the Danish Ministry of Health. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Ethics approval This study was performed as a surveillance study as part of the advisory tasks conducted by the governmental institution Statens Serum Institut (SSI) for the Danish Ministry of Health. The purpose of Statens Serum institut is to monitor and fight the spread of disease in accordance with section 222 of the Danish Health Act. According to Danish law, national surveillance activities carried out by SSI do not require approval from an ethics committee. Participation in the study was voluntary. The invitation letter to participants contained information about their rights under the Danish General Data Protection Regulation (rights to access data, rectification, deletion, restriction of processing and objection). After reading this information, it was considered informed consent if participants agreed and clicked on the link to fill in the questionnaires. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes The datasets used in this study comprise sensitive, individual-level information from completed questionnaires and national register data. According to the Danish data protection legislation, the authors are not permitted to share these sensitive data directly upon request. However, the data are available for research purposes upon request to the Danish Health Authority (register data, email: kontakt@sundhedsdata.dk) and Statens Serum Institut (questionnaire data, email: aii@ssi.dk), as well as within the framework of the Danish data protection legislation and any required permission from authorities. Data request processing can take an expected three to six months.

Nature Microbiology - Comparison of mucosal and systemic immunity after vaccination with the live-attenuated vaccine sCPD9, mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 or an adenovirus-vectored vaccine following...

null