Believe it or not, we are approaching the five-year milestone of the COVID era. The disease that changed our world no longer dominates the headlines as it once did, but its impact remains. Variants continue to evolve, making vaccine boosters and modifications essential.
Against this background, the Australian government could soon announce the rollout of two new COVID vaccines. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) records show applications for the approval of new COVID-19 vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna.
Strangely, though, neither of these vaccines target Australia’s two most common subvariants of COVID, leaving some to wonder why.
Variations on a COVID theme
A Yale Medicine news article this week announced that the US will roll out a vaccine targeting a COVID strain called KP.2. “The new shots … are expected to provide protection against severe illness, hospitalisation, and death related to COVID,” it said.
As it happens, KP.2 is one of the two most common subvariants here. The other is KP.3. According to an SBS News article, “the KP.2 and KP.3 subvariants that make up the majority of the country’s caseload.”
And yet, the applications received from Pfizer and Moderna both target another variant called JN.1. In turn JN.1 belongs to a subset of variants dubbed ‘FLiRT’.
So why the focus on the JN.1 variant of COVID? A news.com.au article appears to provide a clue, although it appears to contradict the SBS News piece. The news.com.au article states: “According to the most recent Australian Respiratory Surveillance Report, JN.1 remains the dominant variant in Australia.”
That would explain the applications from Pfizer and Moderna. But how can JN.1 remain “the dominant variant” at the same time as KP.2 and KP.3 making up “the majority of the country’s caseload”?
This has me confused, so I went to the federal government source, the latest Australian Respiratory Surveillance Report. The report, covering the period 29 July to 11 August 2024, does not use the term ‘subvariant’. Rather, it refers to ‘sub-lineages’, and then goes further, discussing ‘sub-sub-lineages’.
It can all get very confusing, but the key is on page 1 of the COVID-focused report. “The KP.3 sub-sub-lineage represents the most common JN.1 sub-lineage … followed [by] KP.2, JN.1.18 and JN.1.7.”
In other words, KP.2 and KP.3 actually come under the umbrella of JN.1.
What does all this mean in practical terms?
In terms of avoiding COVID, that’s probably the most important question. Catherine Bennett, chair of epidemiology at Deakin University, provided a reassuring answer. “These variants are all part of the larger FLiRT group,” she said. And those variants “are closely enough related to expect some cross-protection from vaccination or infection across variants”.
Adrian Esterman, chair of biostatistics and epidemiology at the University of South Australia, provided further assurance. He said the new vaccines would work “extremely well” against strains currently circulating in Australia.
Of course, all of that reassurance will not mean much if your vaccinations are not up to date. To reduce your risk of contracting COVID, make sure you have the latest iterations of the vaccine relevant to you. If you are unsure whether you are, check with your local pharmacist or GP.
Are your COVID vaccinations up to date? Will you be getting one of the new versions when they arrive in Australia? If so, did you consider a link between the two? Let us know via the comments section below.
Also read: New government initiatives launched for long COVID sufferers
Disclaimer: This article contains general information about health issues and is not advice. For health advice, consult your medical practitioner.
Even Pfizer admits they never even tested their product to see if it stopped people catching this virus. It does nothing to stop transmission at all. Why do you keep pushing this fallacy?