COVID-19 - Facts and Information Only Topic

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I know this was talked about 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/24/coronavirus-latest-news/

 

The Food and Drug Administration Friday morning warned that malaria medicines touted by the president for coronavirus should only be used in hospitals or clinical trials because of dangerous side effects.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Coronavirus live updates: U.S. passes 50,000 deaths

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-covid-19-live-updates-april-24-2020-104503217.html

https://sports.yahoo.com/us-coronavirus-virus-death-toll-151834675.html

[Hapless Bills Fan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/politics/trump-inject-disinfectant-bleach-coronavirus.html

But although companies and doctors have warned about such chemicals for years, officials around the country on Friday were fielding calls and questions about disinfectants and Covid-19. By the afternoon, Maryland’s hotline had received more than 100 calls on the subject, Mike Ricci, the spokesman for Gov. Larry Hogan, said on Twitter.

The calls prompted a response from the Maryland Emergency Management Agency: “Under no circumstances should any disinfectant product be administered into the body through injection, ingestion or any other route.”

https://www.rb.com/media/news/2020/april/improper-use-of-disinfectants/

Improper use of Disinfectants

Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).

As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route).  As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information.

We have a responsibility in providing consumers with access to accurate, up-to-date information as advised by leading public health experts. For this and other myth-busting facts, please visit Covid-19facts.com.

For more information on our response to COVID-19, visit this link: Coronavirus information

https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/covid-19/learn-about-covid-19/clorox-statement-on-the-proper-use-of-disinfecting-products/

Clorox Statement on the Proper Use of Disinfecting Products

Bleach and other disinfectants are not suitable for consumption or injection under any circumstances. People should always read the label for proper usage instructions.

Disinfecting surfaces with bleach and other disinfecting products is one of the ways to help stop the spread of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Our products are safe when used properly. It’s critical that everyone understands the facts in order to keep themselves safe and healthy, which is why we continue to educate people about how to use disinfectants safely and effectively against COVID-19.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Study from Yale on testing saliva samples vs nasopharangeal swabs.  They present evidence that the saliva testing may be more sensitive than NP swabs:

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835v1#disqus_thread

 

When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.

 

Again, this is big if true because it totally takes away the need for specialized swabs and for PPE changes among test sample collectors - it is totally possible to give someone a sample container for saliva in a minimal contact manner and retrieve it the same way.  At times in the NYC outbreak, lack of NP swabs and PPE for sample collectors limited testing capacity.
 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Two studies out looking at expression levels of the two proteins SARS-CoV2 uses to infect cells.

Both broadly agree on what cell types the virus is targeting.

 

https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/goblet-cells-may-play-a-significant-role-in-enabling-covid-19-infections-333911?fbclid=IwAR2yFnl7x7PUvQWG2QBvS61O5AkRM06gYQ5f3VOG81Mn5SfudfnnOSbUnPQ

 

The study revealed that two types of cells in the nasal passage --goblet and ciliated cells -- most highly expressed ACE2 and TMPRSS2. In addition, it found that ACE2 also is expressed in AT2 cells in the lungs. (....) In addition, researchers found expression of ACE2 in absorptive enterocytes within the gut, which could help explain why many COVID-19 patients have GI symptoms.

(they found expression elsewhere too, these were just cells expressing high levels of both proteins)

[Doc Brown]

Just wanted to put this tweet out there to give you an idea of how much the testing capacity has improved in a week.  Sadly, the deaths are still pretty high.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Doc Brown

[Hapless Bills Fan]

The Abbott rapid test may have a 15% false negative rate when tested against known positive samples. 

(Abbott says it's how the swabs were stored.  Lab medicine who did the study says "then prove it")

 

In use, clinicians are raising concerns that as many as 30% of their tests on patients who clinically have covid-19 may be false negatives.

 

https://medcitynews.com/2020/04/report-pathologist-says-abbotts-rapid-covid-19-test-produces-15-false-negative-rate/

 

OK so a couple people have PM'd me asking about this - does it mean it's a bad test and we need a better test?  Based on what I know of RT-PCR, it's actually a very sensitive test, one of the most sensitive, and the CDC-based test uses 3 sets of primers which should make it more sensitive.

My guess, based on prior experience of people in the medical field, is that the false negatives have more to do with
1) How the swab is taken - it has to really make it all the way back.  It's uncomfortable, even painful.  If the patient is given the swab and asked to do it him or herself (I have heard this happens), No Way.  I really hope saliva testing proves out, because it's just so much easier.
2) How the swab is stored and for how long, before testing.  Some places run out of viral storage medium, then the swab sits dry and the normal rate of degradation of virus on a surface applies

3) Where the patient is in the infection cycle.  If it's too early, not enough virus to detect.  If it's too late and they're recovering, their immune system may have taken care of those bad boys and not enough virus to detect.  If the virus isn't in the throat but has moved on to the lungs or GI system, ditto.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

https://weather.com/health/coronavirus/news/2020-04-26-coronavirus-found-on-pollution-particles

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-detected-particles-air-pollution

 

Coronavirus has been detected on particles of air pollution by scientists investigating whether this could enable it to be carried over longer distances and increase the number of people infected.
 

The work is preliminary and it is not yet known if the virus remains viable on pollution particles and in sufficient quantity to cause disease.
 

The Italian scientists used standard techniques to collect outdoor air pollution samples at one urban and one industrial site in Bergamo province and identified a gene highly specific to Covid-19 in multiple samples. The detection was confirmed by blind testing at an independent laboratory.
(....)
A statistical analysis by Setti’s team suggests higher levels of particle pollution could explain higher rates of infection in parts of northern Italy before a lockdown was imposed, an idea supported by another preliminary analysis. The region is one of the most polluted in Europe.

The preprint of the actual article: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20065995v2
 

[Bear in mind this was found in an area with both high degree of pollution, AND high prevalence of covid-19 infection, and that it is testing for covid-19 genes, not live virus]

 

[ChevyVanMiller]

I thought this was the best piece I’ve read concerning the virus and properly reopening the economy.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2020/04/21/3-coronavirus-facts/?fbclid=IwAR1MOx_u3E6JbDTY4BANFw_TUjC3u_UHpiuZizLLB01ZysCddbmg_SfJDls#2c22d4d04721
 

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Overall good read.  A few points:

1) Masks.  I doubt it's coincidence that the countries having the best success containing coronavirus are countries where people are wearing masks in public.  Not just servers in restaurants - EVERYONE.  Step out the front door, put on a mask.  If you're on an isolated forest path or trout stream, take it off, sure, but be ready to put it back on.  And not a freakin' tshirt, thong or scarf, either, a mask.  Make it a national priority to get one for everyone. 

Mask doesn't mean you're a weenie cowering in fear, it means you're a chivalrous Knight, showing concern for those weaker than yourself.

2) Too vague about protecting the vulnerable.  it's not enough to provide food, housing and safe transport.  Many elderly need far more care, and far more intimate, care.  Those who care for them MUST be tested regularly, and MUST be provided with not only PPE, but with medical care and with paid time off to quarantine.  Nursing homes and small hospitals were specifically exempted from the legislation passed requiring this.

3) The importance of saliva-based testing.  Emerging data showing it is as good as NP swab.  This MUST be verified and adopted.  The impact on PPE and testing supplies is huge.

4) In addition to health care workers and those caring for the vulnerable, testing needs to focus on industries where public contact is high (first responders, grocery stores, etc) and where quarters are unavoidably close (restaurant kitchens, meat packing plants, shipping warehouses)

 

5) It's not that the number of cases has gone beyond #testtraceisolate.  Part of the original point of social distancing was to bring cases back down to where test-trace-isolate could work.  However, it's become clear that the national leadership necessary to mobilize the country and implement a workable #testtraceisolate plan is going to be AWOL.  I could be wrong, but I don't think individual states acting individually can pull this off.

 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

https://halosil.com/products/the-halo-disinfection-system/

 

HaloFogger® STD

 

The HaloFogger delivers complete surface disinfection throughout any room with the press of a button, delivering a precise amount of disinfectant solution to eliminate pathogens in a myriad of complex spaces found in healthcare, long-term care, and life sciences facilities, as well as in daycares, schools, athletic facilities and more.

 

Seems to be a method to kill virus'

 

 

late edit

$10 K per unit

[looks like it's essentially a hydrogen peroxide vaporizer with silver added.  probably works well.  hydrogen peroxide vapor is kind of the "gold standard" for disinfection]

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Independent review of antibody tests the FDA has allowed on the market without approval. 

 

Bottom line: most of them don't work very well and have unacceptable "false positive" rates.

 

Article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Group doing the work https://covidtestingproject.org/

Preprint manuscript: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cd1628cau09288a/SARS-CoV-2_Serology_Manuscript.pdf?dl=0

 

Each test was evaluated with the same set of blood samples: from 80 people known to be infected with the coronavirus, at different points after infection; 108 samples donated before the pandemic; and 52 samples from people who were positive for other viral infections but had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Tests made by Sure Biotech and Wondfo Biotech, along with an in-house Elisa test, produced the fewest false positives.
 

A test made by Bioperfectus detected antibodies in 100 percent of the infected samples, but only after three weeks of infection. None of the tests did better than 80 percent until that time period, which was longer than expected, Dr. Hsu said. [Edit: IOW, until 3 weeks post-infection, there was at least 20% false-negative rate]   The lesson is that the tests are less likely to produce false negatives the longer ago the initial infection occurred, he said.
 

The tests were particularly variable when looking for a transient antibody that comes up soon after infection, called IgM, and more consistent in identifying a subsequent antibody, called IgG, that may signal longer-term immunity.

[plenzmd1]

 

18 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

A bit more detail here, but can't find actual trial results yet.  It's certainly not amazing, but anything that might provide a treatment that shortens the course of hospitalization and keeps people out of ICU would be a huge help:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-gilead-remdesivir-idUSKBN22B1T9

[Justin C]

https://www.newsweek.com/south-korea-experts-say-recovered-coronavirus-patients-retested-positive-because-dead-virus-parts-1500998

Quote

 

Health experts in South Korea are addressing the nation's growing incidence of former coronavirus patients who have retested positive for the disease after having previously recovered. According to Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, figures published Wednesday indicated that 292 people countrywide had tested positive for the respiratory illness since initially contracting it and later testing negative, suggesting conceivable recovery from infection. However, discussing the upward trend in positive retests during a recent news conference, officials from KCDC's clinical committee for emerging disease control said the pattern does not necessarily reflect a reoccurrence of active infection.

 

Committee head Oh Myoung-don instead attributed positive test results following recovery to "dead," or inactive, virus components still present in patients' cells, multiple outlets based in South Korea reported on Wednesday.

 

"RNA fragments still can exist in a cell even if the virus is inactivated," Oh said during the conference, according to government-funded media organization Yonhap News Agency. "It is more likely that those who tested positive again picked up virus RNA that has already been inactivated," he continued, going on to explain that the coronavirus' biological interactions with human DNA strands show its lack of ability to "create chronic infections."

 

Still, concerns over South Korea's growing number of positive retests have circulated throughout April, as the number of second-time diagnoses among "recovered" individuals has steadily risen. Less than two weeks ago, KCDC reported that 163 patients had tested positive for the virus again following recovery and subsequent discharge from isolation. At the time, repeat diagnoses accounted for slightly more than 2 percent of the country's recovered population. On Wednesday, approximately 2.7 percent of previously recovered adults had tested positive for the coronavirus a second time, as well as 3.4 percent of children.

KCDC shared preliminary findings of an investigation into the retests on April 17, saying the average time between a recovered coronavirus patient's discharge and positive test result was roughly 13.5 days, with an overall range of one to 35 days. Of 137 cases studied, KCDC reported that 61 patients showed mild symptoms, 72 were asymptomatic and four were still being explored. The disease control center also said there were no secondary infections identified in any successive cases.

 

By Sunday, South Korea had confirmed 263 cases of positive test results in formerly recovered coronavirus patients, and KCDC said its investigation remained ongoing.

"Contact tracing on these re-positive cases is also underway to identify possibility of secondary infection," its April 26 report read. "No new case has yet been confirmed that resulted from exposure to the re-positive cases (during the period in which they were re-positive). The contacts are still under monitoring."

 

As of Wednesday morning, 10,761 coronavirus cases and 246 resulting deaths had been confirmed across South Korea, according to Johns Hopkins University's tracker. Reports from its Department of Health as well as KCDC show less than 15 people have tested positive for the first time each day since April 19.

 

 

I'd say that's good news.

[Edit: additional article on the topic https://time.com/5810454/coronavirus-immunity-reinfection/]
 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/29/848034963/antiviral-drug-remdesivir-shows-promise-for-treating-coronavirus-in-nih-study
 

Preliminary results of a major study of the antiviral drug remdesivir show it can help hospitalized patients with COVID-19 recover faster. Dr. Anthony Fauci hailed the findings, released Wednesday, as "quite good news."

Randomized, double-blind study of 1000 hospitalized patients in multiple countries: NIH released the results after an analysis by the data safety monitoring board overseeing the trial.

 

The preliminary results showed that patients who received remdesivir recovered 31% faster — the median time to recovery was 11 days rather than 15 days. The results also suggest a slightly lower mortality rate for the group receiving remdesivir, but until the complete data are analyzed, it's not certain if that effect is significant.  The study defined "recovery" as being well enough to be discharged from the hospital or returning to normal activity.

 

Fauci said that new studies will examine combining remdesivir with other drugs, such as an anti-inflammatory drug, to see how those compare with using remdesivir alone.

 

Actual trial results or preprint not yet available, and some are a bit nonplussed by this; they want to know what adverse events were seen before treatment begins.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/health/gilead-remdesivir-coronavirus.html

 

A "senior administration official" says the FDA will issue emergency use approval for Remdesivir.

Note of caution: a smaller study from China published in the Lancet today showed no effect of Remdesivir, but did show significant adverse events:

Between Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87–1·75]).

but in this study

Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir–ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. and

Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.
It's a smaller study and possible concurrent use of kaletra (lopinavir-ritonavir) as well as interferons and corticosteriods could have confounded any effects vs. placebo.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

A possible strategy to increase test throughput of asymptomatic people by combining samples:

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30362-5.pdf

 

The authors say they were able to combine up to 30 samples in a single RT-PCR test with acceptable sensitivity.  The idea is if you're testing a whole building of people, you bin them into pools and then only run individual tests if the pool sample is positive.  Hmmm.....in theory, could be a savings on limiting reagents. 

 

It still requires individual RNA extraction for each sample, which may be the limiting step in many places.

Israel and India are apparently also looking at this strategy:
https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/pooling-method-for-accelerated-testing-of-covid-19/?article_id=728381

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-takes-cue-from-israel-to-use-pooling-method-to-test-samples-for-covid-19/story-IFriWFUaLKR8euVT5WpQTM.html

Edit: these guys took it one step further and developed a pooling strategy to increase throughput 8 times, while still identifying individual positive samples.  The pooling itself takes significant time ("<5 hrs" with an automated robotic liquid handler).  But if reagents for running the tests are what is limiting, might be a good trade-off.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

How contact tracing works in Australia using a Google or Apple phone and bluetooth:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/30/covid-safe-app-faq-review-how-to-download-australian-government-covidsafe-tracing-download-install-ios-app-store-iphone-phone-number-google-play-android-australia-coronavirus-tracking

 

There is a plan apparently to develop something similar in this country, but ?it is supposed to be developed individually by all 50 states with cooperation from Apple and Google? (sounds inefficient and likely to take longer):
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/on-the-trail-of-covid-19-contact-tracing-the-virus/?fbclid=IwAR1OygrDHh7QMHTkCwCrbVeSaum6bQZWwvHyYRrBN9GqO8KzpJmDIkhMfq0

A friend of mine who is employed at Google gave me some explanation of how this works (quoted by permission):
"So, the general idea is that you don't share any personal data -- only the random codes that you transmit via bluetooth. In the current plan, your phone only uploads even those impersonal codes to the state department of health if you get COVID-19 and you agree. The protocol itself doesn't track your location, so you only upload to your home state database. But, they perhaps might ask you what states you've been in lately, and share your group of codes to other states that you've been in.

Then, your app periodically downloads your state database, and compares the list of codes in the database to the codes it received via bluetooth. Presumably, you could download the database from another state if you've been there recently.

So, to handle the case of a truck driver who gets COVID, the home-state health department doesn't need to share anything more than "Here's a list of codes for an infected person who was in your state on Tuesday, May 23."

And to handle the case of the truck driver who's worried about picking up COVID on the road, he/she tells their app to grab Missouri, ... Colorado, ... California databases, and then it just works. The requests could be done as anonymously as any web page is. And, even if someone notices you, all they can deduce is that you were probably in Colorado on May 19.

This would all work fine with a national database, but the size of the database might be a little bit large. The database size is (14 days) * (16 bytes for each person's daily key) * (Total number of people who get COVID in the region per day) = 14 * 16 * 20,000 = 4 megabytes.

Actually, that's not especially huge. So, you could just have a national list, and it's all simple.  And, the download could be a bit clever. You tell the database 'I last downloaded yesterday evening at 22:32:05, just give me changes since then." and that'll cut the size of the download by 90% or so."

For those who say, "I don't have a smartphone, what about me?" your contact tracing would have to be done manually.  The suggestion is that you keep a written log of each day, where you went at what time, and known individuals you encountered so that you could protect their health and society's ability to stay open, by choosing to provide your log to public health, should you be tested positive.  But if an app can do automated contact tracing on, say, 30% of the population, it would help decrease manual contact tracing to a more manageable quantity.

[meazza]

https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/update-on-covid-19-epidemiology-and-impact-on-medical-care-in-children-april-2020

[ExiledInIllinois]

NOT sure if this was posted.  It has to have been updated during the previous weeks.  The floor part as vector is wild:

 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/transmission/

 

70% in ICU:

 

Floor

"The rate of positivity was relatively high for floor swab samples (ICU 7/10, 70%; GW 2/13, 15.4%), perhaps because of gravity and air flow causing most virus droplets to float to the ground.

In addition, as medical staff walk around the ward, the virus can be tracked all over the floor, as indicated by the 100% rate of positivity from the floor in the pharmacy, where there were no patients.

Furthermore, half of the samples from the soles of the ICU medical staff shoes tested positive. Therefore, the soles of medical staff shoes might function as carriers. The 3 weak positive results from the floor of dressing room 4 might also arise from these carriers. We highly recommend that persons disinfect shoe soles before walking out of wards containing COVID-19 patients." [source]

[Foxx]

CDC PDF

[sherpa]

My daughter works as a project manager for a national printing company, and they got their largest ever single order yesterday.

Half million dollar order for masks for the NYC Police Dept.

[Hap sez: I'm confused: has the printing company retooled to make masks, or is the NYPD having something printed on the mask? @sherpa, clarify?]

Edited May 2, 2020 by Hapless Bills Fan
request clarification

[sherpa]

On 5/2/2020 at 6:28 AM, sherpa said:

[Hap sez: I'm confused: has the printing company retooled to make masks, or is the NYPD having something printed on the mask? @sherpa, clarify?]

 

Gladly.

The company is Custom Ink.

They've designed three mask products in  response to this and their latest is quite good.

It's not simply printing a logo on them, it's the entire manufacturing procss.

[Edit: found an ad and link for Custom Ink mask products today
https://www.customink.com/products/categories/face-masks/205/styles?li_did=f23eee69-e81a-3bcd-99d4-4e56245aa3fc]

[Justin C]

@Hapless Bills Fan any thoughts on this? https://www.indiatvnews.com/science/covid-19-vaccine-in-1-month-csir-pins-hope-on-sepsivac-613529

Quote

 

India's top research and development organization, the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), which is currently testing a "repurposed" vaccine against Covid-19 in a Phase 2 trial, is hoping to seek approval from the drug controller for its wider use against the pandemic in as early as 30 days from now, the scientist who is coordinating the effort said on Saturday.

 

CSIR is currently testing Cadila Pharmaceuticals' "Sepsivac" against COVID-19.

This treatment was developed as a result of a partnership between CSIR and Cadila Pharmaceuticals many years ago. This immunotherapy treatment, which boosts "innate immunity", was initially approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for gram negative sepsis which is a disease caused by bacteria.

But the scientists found that the pathological symptoms of this disease and Covid-19 were quite similar. And given the urgency of finding a solution to the rapidly rising Covid-19 cases across the world, the scientists thought of testing the treatment against the current pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

CSIR got the approval to test "Sepsivac" against Covid-19 in a Phase 2 clinical trial about 10 days ago. The trial is being conducted on 50 patients at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, AIIMS Bhopal, and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

 

"We expect the results from this Phase 2 trial within 30-45 days from now. And if the results are encouraging, we will seek approval from the drug controller because of emergency and keep on continuing the Phase 3 trial. That's how it happens," Ram Vishwakarma, Director, Integrative Medicine (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research), Jammu, told IANS.

Vishwakarma said that once it applies, the approval from the drug controller is expected to come fast as it is an emergency situation.

 

So if the Phase 2 trial shows that "Sepsivac" is effective against Covid-19, the world may have a vaccine against the disease as early as one month from now, at least for emergency use.

 

Meanwhile, Vishwakarma informed that CSIR has also got approval for conducting Phase 3 clinical trial of "Sepsivac" against Covid-19.

"The Phase 3 trials will be done on 1,100 people -- 600 will be those who have tested positive but non- symptomatic, and 500 will be those who are out of hospital," Vishwakarma said.

 

How does Sepsivac work?

It contains heat-killed mycobacterium w (Mw), an immunomodulator, which is a non-pathogenic mycobacterium.

 

"Normally when you develop a vaccine, you grow the organism and kill it. It is called heat killed. Here we heat killed the bacteria. It is a standard vaccine concept," Vishwakarma said, adding that the bacterium is produced by fermentation.

 

"The treatment we are testing against Covid-19 is designed to enhance innate immunity which is very critical. People who are weak in innate immunity will get the infection faster," he said.

 

Vishwakarma explained that it is a non-specific vaccine which could be used to both cure and protect people. He explained that there are generally three types of vaccines.

"There are therapeutic vaccines, where you give them as a drug for curing. There are prophylactic vaccines, which you give to people to protect them. And there are some which have both the properties, which are called immunomodulators.

 

"Sepsivac will be an immunomodulator, which will have protective effect and therapeutic effect both," he said.

 

Vishwakarma is hopeful that the Phase 2 clinical trials of the treatment will provide positive results. And because the drug is already in use for sepsis or septic shock treatment, "human safety is already assured," he said, adding that it will be applicable for all age groups.

"We are keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best," Vishwakarma said.

As developing a vaccine against a new disease takes time, researchers the world over are rushing to repurpose existing drugs, vaccines against the disease.

 

 

On 5/3/2020 at 12:31 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I need to look into it, but it sounds a lot like the theory behind current clinical trials of already-approved BCG vaccine, which is currently in Phase 3 clinical trials in Australia and the Netherlands for use against covid-19

Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine is a live-bacteria vaccine given to protect against tuberculosis, using a weakened strain of Mycobacterium bovis (the cause of tuberculosis disease in Cattle).  It is still a routine infant immunization in a number of countries.  It was discontinued at various points in other countries.  It was never given routinely in the US because the risk of acquiring tuberculosis is considered less than the protection provided by the vaccine (which is variable - it's not a very effective vaccine) + the risks of the vaccine.

BCG vaccine has been shown to have a protective effect against sepsis and respiratory infections - essentially, to function as an immunomodulator.  There are some studies showing it has an interesting effect on the immune system - that it upregulates part of the immune system and makes it more effective.

 

Sepsivac seems to be a heat-killed vaccine from a different strain of Mycobacteria, and might work through a similar mechanism.

Edit: here's some stuff from the company that developed Sepsivac as a general treatment for sepsis:
https://www.cadilapharma.com/sepsivac-sepsis-saviour-cadila/
Indications are certain leprosy cases, Non-small cell lung cancer, and gram-negative sepsis.

BCG has become a fairly standard treatment for bladder cancer, so seeing a cancer indication for Sepsivac supports the idea it may work in a similar way.  It's not an anti-viral or a direct anti-cancer chemotherapy, it's an immunomodulator.

FWIW, I think it's a great approach to try (both BCG and this approach) because it's totally different than a strict preventive vaccine that works by trying to train the immune system to recognize and respond to SARS-CoV2.  Since we don't know yet what will work, it only makes sense to try a wide range of different approaches.

I don't think it would be given to the population at large; I think it would be targeted to people most at-risk, and also to covid-19 positive patients who fit a high-risk profile.

 

Edit: adding this in here - it's not about Sepsivac, but it's another piece that explains the potential immune-boosting effect of vaccines like BCG and possibly oral polio vaccine.  If Sepsivac works, it would likely be through a similar mechanism.

TL;DR your body has two immune responses, innate and adaptive.  Adaptive immune response is what develops after you contract and recover from a disease, or are vaccinated against a disease - your body learns to produce specific antibodies against that organism and churns them out quickly in response to a future exposure.

But it's long been observed that people vaccinated with some vaccines, like BCG, become less likely to die from other diseases.  The current evidence (and it's small) is that it has to do with priming your innate immune system to become more efficient and effective. 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Hapless Bills Fan
another reference about how this might work

[thebandit27]

Big win if the accuracy being reported is correct:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roche-coronavirus-antibody-test-wins-fda-approval-for-emergency-use-11588505019?fbclid=IwAR3uiUrBRwHGsean2eOhl-uu8qX_zGQO7GPrCSWl1VABEeLrFWiwA7w5jRo
 

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Eh, no test is ever as accurate "out in the wild" as it is during its laboratory validation tests.  But the Roche test is probably very good.  The Abbott test, which Washington State is using and which also has EUA, is said by the U of Washington lab medicine people to be "fantastic" (a word they use only when specificity  approaches 100% and sensitivity is great).

Other tests that have shown very high performance in independent tests include >99% specificity for an in-house Elisa developed at Icahn School of Medicine Mt Sinai and for assays from Wondfo and Sure Biotech.   Some of the publicized antibody tests being used to determine prevalence have been done with tests that did not fare so well in the independent assessment of specificity.

I'm not sure what test Mayo Clinic is using, but they're usually pretty good.  All the NYS "random testing" is being done with a Wadsworth Center (NYS DOH) developed test that uses a dried blood spot  - their description says "93-100% specificity".  I think they may have traded off a bit of specificity for ease of collection and processing.

 

 

[muppy]

I have a question for anyone who has information regarding this topic. Is it proven that folks whom have recovered from covid-19 have "immunity" from catching it again? I keep hearing the phrase "herd immunity". I wonder if that is a theory or has it been proven that the more people catch the virus the less dangerous the virus will be for themselves? For others they are not socially distant from?

 

And secondly am I right to think that a vaccine is the best chance we have of really curtailing this type of pandemic from occurring again? I get a flu shot yearly so that the flu should I catch it be considerably less destructive but my understanding is I still am at risk of catching it. Conceivably would a covid-19 vaccine be the same in hoes of lessening symptoms vs not being transmitters of the virus to others, especially if you have had covid-19 previously and recovered?
 

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'll try to take this on.

1) No, it is not yet proven that folks recovered from covid-19 have immunity from catching it again.  But most scientist consider it probable, for several reasons:

    a) We know people develop adaptive immunity, also known as antibodies, in response to being ill with covid-19 then recovering.  Adaptive immunity is what keeps you from getting a disease for a second time, provided the disease agent doesn't mutate too fast.  What we don't know yet (because, new), is how long this immunity will last.  Sometimes adaptive immunity subsides after a short time - 6 months to several years.  Sometimes it's lifelong.

    b) There are two (I think) studies where non-human primates were exposed then re-exposed, or vaccinated then exposed to covid-19, and did not become ill while a control non-vaccinated group did, which is evidence that the adaptive immunity kept them from developing the disease [it's considered unethical to deliberately re-expose people].

    c) Adaptive immunity works best if the virus overall mutates slowly.  With influenza, the virus/organism mutates too quickly from year to year.   That's why there's a new flu vaccine every year, using the "best guess" as to which strains will circulate.   So far the mutation rates scientists are seeing with >4,400 genomes sequenced to date, are consistent with a SARS-CoV2 vaccine providing immunity for at least several years (but no promises, because new).  It could be longer, because it's possible that mutations that interfere with the site the vaccine will target, will interfere with its ability to infect people.  It could also be shorter.  We don't yet know.

Where I think WHO and similar health experts are going with cautions about "it's not yet proven" is in regard to some country's proposals to issue "health passports" or "certificates of immunity" to people test as having anti-covid antibodies.  They feel that's a Very Bad Idea because we don't yet know how accurate the tests are, and we dont yet know how long the antibodies will persist or even for sure that they're protective.  So it's a bad idea to restrict people's activity or permit exposure based on the test results.  Better to continue to take precautions until we know more.

[muppy]

Thank you HaplessBillsFan that was a great explanation. Would you mind explaining what herd immunity means? My guess it it means the more people that test as having the antibodies (have already recovered from covid-19) they are not potential infectors hence the herd of folks that could transmit the virus to others is reduced?  Is that close?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 hours ago, Margarita said:

Thank you HaplessBillsFan that was a great explanation. Would you mind explaining what herd immunity means? My guess it it means the more people that test as having the antibodies (have already recovered from covid-19) they are not potential infectors hence the herd of folks that could transmit the virus to others is reduced?  Is that close?

 

Sure, I'll give it a try.  Testing isn't necessary, but having antibodies (from having already recovered from covid-19, as you say) or being vaccinated is The Thing.  And yes, you're pretty close.

 

This Youtube Video has a try at explaining, using Gummi Bears to represent susceptible people who can be infected, infected people, and immune (or vaccinated) people.  The guy kinda talks too fast for my Southernized ears, but the visual may be helpful.

 

When you look at this graphic (from the OP in this thread) which shows how transmission chains are blocked by social distancing (people staying home or not traveling), basically similar principle: when enough people are immune, you get a similar effect of stopping the transmission chains because most of the people in contact with an infected person are immune.  Replace all the little squares with "IMMUNE!" and you got it.

 

How many people need to be immune?  It depends upon something called the "basic reproduction number" or R0 of a disease, meaning on average, how many people will an infected person infect?  Flu has an R0 of 1.3.   T

The current calculations for covid-19 is R0 between 2 and 3, which would require 50-60% of the population to be immune.

[muppy]

19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Sure, I'll give it a try.  Testing isn't necessary, but having antibodies (from having already recovered from covid-19, as you say) or being vaccinated is The Thing.  And yes, you're pretty close.

 

This Youtube Video has a try at explaining, using Gummi Bears to represent susceptible people who can be infected, infected people, and immune (or vaccinated) people.  The guy kinda talks too fast for my Southernized ears, but the visual may be helpful.

 

When you look at this graphic (from the OP in this thread) which shows how transmission chains are blocked by social distancing (people staying home or not traveling), basically similar principle: when enough people are immune, you get a similar effect of stopping the transmission chains because most of the people in contact with an infected person are immune.  Replace all the little squares with "IMMUNE!" and you got it.

 

How many people need to be immune?  It depends upon something called the "basic reproduction number" or R0 of a disease, meaning on average, how many people will an infected person infect?  Flu has an R0 of 1.3.   T

The current calculations for covid-19 is R0 between 2 and 3, which would require 50-60% of the population to be immune.

You’re the bomb hot diggety THANK YOU for  this! We all hope that threshold number be reached ASAP that’s for sure. Stay well and always great to read you

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This is a ***** idea that actually makes great sense, and Kudos to BioBot Analytics for doing 100s of analyses a week, pro bono

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-29/coronavirus-sewage-testing?fbclid=IwAR1DlfhRMagNSxrnf-h0VQtJSU7D5BW5J4iE_stLbu34g1hVBPgqZ_1jdiY

 

"Since this pilot study in Massachusetts, hundreds of wastewater treatment facilities across the country — including more than a dozen in California — have asked Biobot to analyze their sewage. The researchers, doing the weekly (sometimes biweekly) analysis pro bono, hope to work with as many as 10,000 facilities to create a more comprehensive picture of how the virus is spreading or “flattening” in different parts of the United States."

 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This is an example of an RNA vaccine candidate in rapid development

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-vaccine-us-trials-start-for-pfizer-biontech-mrna-2020-5

 

In contrast to some who haven't done it and have no idea what the logistics and the supply chain really look like, Pfizer does know what it takes - IF the vaccine works.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

French scientists retrospectively test samples from patients with pneumonias of unknown origin and find a positive from late December.

Patient in question had no travel history to China or known connection, indicating probable community spread.  Careful study, positive result confirmed different test.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920301643?via%3Dihub#!

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Paper on a mutation in the Sars-CoV2 spike protein

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1

 

First some background: Sars-CoV2 (the virus that causes covid-19 disease) uses RNA as its genetic material instead of DNA (it's an RNA virus).  As such, it mutates about 2x a month, just because the RNA polymerase that copies the RNA genetic material tends to make mistakes.  So there are literally thousands of mutations at this point, known because something like 4,500 viral genomes have been sequenced and made publicly available. 

 

Most of them don't matter, but mutations in the spike protein that the virus uses to attach to and enter human cells may - in part, because those are the parts of the virus vaccines will target.  They're also the parts where a mutation might make the virus more efficient at infecting people, which would cause that mutation to spread.

 

This paper asserts that a mutation in the spike protein, known as D614G (substitutes the amino acid glycine for the amino acid aspartic acid at position 164 in the spike protein polypeptide), is more transmissible: "The mutation Spike D614G is of urgent concern; it began spreading in Europe in early February, and when introduced to new regions it rapidly becomes the dominant form."

 

It's possible.  I'm not entirely persuaded by their arguments, but since I'm not an epidemiologist or a virologist let's see what someone with more credentials has to say:

 

Bedford argues that D614G is predominant in European sequences of the virus because of a "founder effect" where it was present in the initial introduction.

Covid-19 in the US and Australia were seeded from both China and Europe and have a mixture of both strains.

 

The authors of the paper claim that the frequency of this mutation in sequenced viral genomes is increasing over time. 
Bedford can reproduce their work:

but he points out:

 

He agrees that the G variant seems to accompany a higher viral load (fewer cycles needed to detect virus by PCR) - they reproduced this finding as well.

 

Bedford agrees with the finding in the paper that this mutation shows NO EFFECT on clinical outcomes.  It has to do with how transmissible the virus is.

 

The LA Times has taken this paper and run with it in a kind of sensational way.  The key point is that there is no measurable effect on patient outcome.  The authors of the paper speculate that the change might mean people who developed immunity to the D614 strain could be re-infected by the G614 strain because the antibodies might not recognize it.

 

This is a hypothesis that is simple and straightforward to test experimentally: take antibodies from a patient infected with one strain, and see if they recognize the other strain (a cross-reactivity test) We normally raise a gamisch of antibodies (polyclonal antibodies) against an antigen, so chances are pretty good.    I would want to see the results before I stress about it.  Even when people get a flu vaccine that isn't a great match to this year's viruses, there is usually some degree of protection. 

BUT - in theory, it could explain some of the results where people have tested negative, then tested positive a short time later - if, for example, they encountered a different strain against which they had enough immunity that they only developed mild symptoms, but not quite enough to knock it completely out.

 

Where this is potentially Very Bad News Indeed is with regard to potential monoclonal antibody therapeutics.  A monoclonal antibody means "one antibody molecule".  If it was designed to react to one strain, and doesn't react to the other, it would be useless.  But again, it's straightforward to test.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

apologies if already posted

 

Covid burnout has had me ignoring this thread the past week.

 

Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19 .. https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/03/26/genomic-research-points-to-natural-origin-of-covid-19/  

 

 

No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally.

 

The reassuring findings are the result of genomic analyses conducted by an international research team, partly supported by NIH. In their study in the journal Nature Medicine, Kristian Andersen, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; Robert Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans; and their colleagues used sophisticated bioinformatic tools to compare publicly available genomic data from several coronaviruses, including the new one that causes COVID-19.

Edited May 6, 2020 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[Punching Bag]

Quote

Government to distribute free reusable masks to all citizens (with photo / video)

     The Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) announced today (May 5) that the Government will distribute free reusable CuMask+™ to all Hong Kong citizens.
      
     The CuMask+™ is developed by the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel. It is a six-layer mask with special ergonomic features. Two of its layers contain copper which is capable of immobilising bacteria, common viruses and other harmful substances. The mask complies with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2100 Level 1 Standard in terms of particle filtration efficiency (PFE), bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE), resistance to penetration by synthetic blood, flammability and pressure resistance, and is reusable for up to 60 washes.

 

That is HONG KONG government news release.

https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202005/05/P2020050500692.htm

 

Info on CuMask+™ 

https://www.qmask.gov.hk/

[edit: WOW.  Good work Hong Kong!]

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Troubling new learning about covid-19: healthy-feeling or barely ill young patients showing up in hospital with serious strokes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/

It isn’t just the number of patients that was unusual. The first wave of the pandemic has hit the elderly and those with heart disease, diabetes, obesity or other preexisting conditions disproportionately. The covid-19 patients treated for stroke at Mount Sinai were younger and mostly without risk factors.

On average, the covid-19 stroke patients were 15 years younger than stroke patients without the virus.

“These are people among the least likely statistically to have a stroke,” Mocco said.

(...)

In a letter to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine next week, the Mount Sinai team details five case studies of young patients who had strokes at home from March 23 to April 7. They make for difficult reading: The victims’ ages are 33, 37, 39, 44 and 49, and they were all home when they began to experience sudden symptoms, including slurred speech, confusion, drooping on one side of the face and a dead feeling in one arm.

One died, two are still hospitalized, one was released to rehabilitation, and one was released home to the care of his brother. Only one of the five, a 33-year-old woman, is able to speak.

Oxley, the interventional neurologist, said one striking aspect of the cases is how long many waited before seeking emergency care.

The 33-year-old woman was previously healthy but had a cough and headache for about a week. Over the course of 28 hours, she noticed her speech was slurred and that she was going numb and weak on her left side but, the researchers wrote, “delayed seeking emergency care due to fear of the covid-19 outbreak.” (she was already infected)

(...)

Oxley said the most important thing for people to understand is that large strokes are very treatable. Doctors are often able to reopen blocked blood vessels through techniques such as pulling out clots or inserting stents. But it has to be done quickly, ideally within six hours, but no longer than 24 hours: “The message we are trying to get out is if you have symptoms of stroke, you need to call the ambulance urgently. ”

PSA: to screen yourself or a loved one for stroke, Use the FAST test to check for the most common symptoms of a stroke in yourself or someone else.

Face: Smile and see if one side of the face droops.

Arms: Raise both arms. Does one arm drop down?

Speech: Say a short phrase and check for slurred or strange speech.

Time: If the answer to any of these is yes, call 911 right away and write down the time when symptoms started.

 

18 hours ago, CardinalScotts said:

these were previously healthy people?

 

Yes.  Previously healthy, no risk factors.

Edit: Adding some more links. NEJM letter now published and linked above.
One physician's personal experience:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86324?fbclid=IwAR2ne3hYbI8ho6I10p4j4KoyjWUoQzPCc1dgS4hgPERug5ZZkCCQQlx7cp8
Medpage today summary of several places:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86205

Northern Italy:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009166

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Plandemic and Judy Mikovits.  Gotta "bite the snake" here. 

 

This is the best (and carefully researched) deconstruction I've seen, by Vanderbilt-trained epidemiologist and pathologist Kat Montgomery.

**EDITED TO ADD: I wrote this post to help my friends sort through misinformation and did not expect it to go viral. Several commenters have asked me to cite sources, and I agree that this is important to do. I still have a day job, but I have edited to include primary sources for all points when possible.**SECOND EDIT: People seem to not understand that PubMed (ncbi) is the international database for cataloguing medical research studies and instead think it only contains government-funded information or research. This is not the case. It is basically the Google of peer-reviewed research studies.**

*The following statements represent my personal informed views and not those of any institution*

First, background: I’m a physician (specifically a board-certified pathologist, which includes microbiology and laboratory medicine) with a master’s degree in epidemiology.
 

In the last day or two, several friends have shared or posted about a video “documentary” called “Plandemic”. The film depicts now-discredited former researcher Judy Mikovits who shares a plausible-sounding narrative about the current pandemic. The problem here is that nearly all of her scientific statements are demonstrably false. If you have more to add to this list, or credible data to the contrary, please start a discussion. I suspect there are many more false claims in this video, but these are just the ones that stuck out to me as a physician with epidemiology training.
 

- She states “There is no vaccine for any RNA virus that works." Incorrect: Polio, hepatitis A, measles, to name a few. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763971/)
- Her retracted paper was actually not about vaccines at all, even though she insinuates that it was. (Here is the article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815723)
- She states that Ebola could not infect humans until it was engineered to do so in her laboratory. This is false. (Here is an article describing an outbreak of Ebola in 1976, long before Dr. Mikovits was conducting research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27357339)
- Likewise, many other zoonotic viruses have been shown to gain mutations that allow them to infect humans. This would not be some kind of new, crazy idea. We actually predicted it years ago: we just didn’t know exactly which virus or when it would occur. (Here is an article from 2015 discussing the likely emergence of future coronavirus pandemics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687304/ )
- She states that the US was working with Wuhan to study coronaviruses years ago, like it’s a “gotcha” moment: yes, of course we were doing this – Wuhan is a coronavirus hotspot and it makes sense to study this family of viruses where it naturally occurs. (Same article as above: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687304/ )
- She states that COPD lungs are identical to COVID-19 lungs. As a pathologist, this is ludicrous – any practicing physician would be able to tell COPD from COVID-19, both clinically and histologically. (One article discussing an overview of tools for diagnosing COVID19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144809/, one about CT specifically https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191895/, and one about histology specifically https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184436/ )
- The statement taken out of context from the CDC death certificate recommendation reads in full “In cases where a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but is suspected or likely (the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed”. In these instances, certifiers should use their best judgment in determining if a COVID-19 diagnosis was likely. Testing for COVID-19 should be conducted whenever possible.”. My physician colleagues are not being pressured to put COVID-19 on death certificates when it should not be there. (Here is the actual document with instructions for
filling out death certificates from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf )
- The idea that physicians are incorrectly diagnosing COVID-19 due to financial incentive is also ridiculous. Medicare sometimes bundles payments for some conditions (i.e. if you have a heart attack, medicare may pay XX for your treatment) – it’s possible the hospital could get paid $13,000 for your COVID-19 admission, but do you know what that’s based on? The fact that the average cost of a hospital admission for a respiratory condition is $13,297. (I can’t post a scientific study here, since this isn’t a scientific fact, but this article describes the procedure in detail: https://www.usatoday.com/…/fact-check-medicare-…/3000638001/ )
- She states that hydroxychloroquine has been “extensively studied in this family of viruses” – in fact, it has not been studied well in coronaviruses. It HAS been studied in malaria, which is not a virus. (Here is the one study that was performed that people like to cite, and it is an in vitro study (not in humans), of SARS (not COVID-19), and chloroquine (not hydroxychloroquine): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ ). And yes, it is considered an essential medicine for the treatment of malaria. Not for coronaviruses.
- Furthermore, the data on hydroxychloroquine are much weaker than they originally appeared: the small study that was highly publicized was not a randomized controlled trial, and the only patients who died were those who received hydroxychloroquine (and these were EXCLUDED FROM ANALYSIS!). This is terrible science. Even so, we want to investigate all possible treatments, so controlled trials are being conducted on hydroxychloroquine right now. (One study published on May 7 shows no benefit to using hydroxychloroquine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32379955 )
- She insinuates that there is a hydroxychloroquine shortage as a result of reduced production. In fact, the shortage has resulted from an increase in demand: people who take this medication regularly are writing extended prescriptions and because physicians are using it for COVID19 patients because they have nothing else to try. (https://jamanetwork.com/c…/health-forum/fullarticle/2764607…).
- “All flu vaccines contain coronaviruses”. Nope, absolutely false. (In fact, it’s so false based on the way vaccines are made that there are no studies specifically stating this claim. It would be like trying to conduct a study to examine whether humans can live with zero oxygen. Nope, we can’t. No study needed.)
- The ideas that sheltering in place somehow harms your immune system or that you may reactivate a virus in yourself by wearing a mask have been thoroughly debunked in other posts and I won’t get into the details here. Both national societies of emergency medicine have condemned the statements of these doctors, one of whom is not board-certified. (Please refer to Dr. Kasten’s post and others about these)

- Lastly, private companies removing false information from their platforms does not represent repression or promotion of propaganda. It’s helping to promote the spread of sound scientific information. If you think lies should be permitted to circulate freely alongside the truth with the intention of reaching people who won’t be able to tell the difference, you are part of the problem.

 

Me again:

Judy Mikovits is not "one of the most accomplished scientists of her generation" - not even close.  She had a paper on a virus causing chronic fatigue syndrome retracted by Science, and that is not done lightly - others failed to reproduce the results, and she herself was part of a study that contradicted it.  She's a known, longtime antivaxxer conspiracy theorist. Plandemic is misinformation, plain and simple. 

 

Please, please, please get your information elsewhere than Youtube.  Please consider that if someone has been dismissed by "mainstream" science, more than likely there is reason.  

Please consider that if someone makes false statement after statement that someone in the field can go through and readily disprove Zap Zap Zap Zap,  it is more than likely that their whole construction is a house of cards unsupported by fact.

Debate will be redirected -> PPP,  if you must model a tin-foil-hat, go there.

[BillsFan4]

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by BillsFan4

[BillsFan4]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

 

Quote

We examined the association between hydroxychloroquine use and intubation or death at a large medical center in New York City.

Data were obtained regarding consecutive patients hospitalized with Covid-19, excluding those who were intubated, died, or discharged within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department (study baseline). The primary end point was a composite of intubation or death in a time-to-event analysis. We compared outcomes in patients who received hydroxychloroquine with those in patients who did not, using a multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score.

 

Quote

Results:

Of 1446 consecutive patients, 70 patients were intubated, died, or discharged within 24 hours after presentation and were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 1376 patients, during a median follow-up of 22.5 days, 811 (58.9%) received hydroxychloroquine (600 mg twice on day 1, then 400 mg daily for a median of 5 days); 45.8% of the patients were treated within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, and 85.9% within 48 hours. Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, 223 vs. 360). Overall, 346 patients (25.1%) had a primary end-point event (180 patients were intubated, of whom 66 subsequently died, and 166 died without intubation). In the main analysis, there was no significant association between hydroxychloroquine use and intubation or death (hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.32). Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses.

 

Quote

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study involving patients with Covid-19 who had been admitted to the hospital, hydroxychloroquine administration was not associated with either a greatly lowered or an increased risk of the composite end point of intubation or death. Randomized, controlled trials of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19 are needed. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.)

 

Quote

our findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine at present, outside randomized clinical trials testing its efficacy.

 

 

[Lurker]

Good blog post on how the virus is transmitted -- and how difficult it will be to open up certain businesses...

 

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR30mZZKdxD2GZRzPkGD6t38qxSpVTGRVdocCkIzIeXAV5rdVtKDBXxbRyc

 

Restaurants: Some really great shoe-leather epidemiology demonstrated clearly the effect of a single asymptomatic carrier in a restaurant environment (see below). The infected person (A1) sat at a table and had dinner with 9 friends. Dinner took about 1 to 1.5 hours. During this meal, the asymptomatic carrier released low-levels of virus into the air from their breathing. Airflow (from the restaurant's various airflow vents) was from right to left. Approximately 50% of the people at the infected person's table became sick over the next 7 days. 75% of the people on the adjacent downwind table became infected. And even 2 of the 7 people on the upwind table were infected (believed to happen by turbulent airflow). No one at tables E or F became infected, they were out of the main airflow from the air conditioner on the right to the exhaust fan on the left of the room. (Ref) 

 

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

This exact figure was posted a few posts back, along with the link to the original article - not a blog post, the original study.

I'll put it up in here and delete the original, I do ask look over the thread a bit before posting.  Thanks.

On 5/3/2020 at 11:16 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Make of this what you will.  Contact-tracing report from China.  Conclusion is that 3 families (B and C) ultimately became infected because airflow patterns from the air conditioning in a restaurant carried respiratory droplets from a pre-symptomatic index case (A1) patient.  Seating chart  below.
 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I think this is the first: 

FDA EUA for detection of a covid-19 protein in a nasopharangeal or nasal swab.  Looks like 15 minute test. 

 

https://ir.quidel.com/news/news-release-details/2020/Quidel-Receives-Emergency-Authorization-for-Rapid-Antigen-COVID-19-Diagnostic-Assay/default.aspx

 

It requires a special instrument to read, but many clinics and Drs offices use their machine for rapid flu, RSV, Strep, and Lyme testing.

 

Current diagnostic tests are all based on detecting the viral RNA.  A test like this is helpful (assuming sensitivity and accuracy are good) because it uses different reagents than the current RT-PCR tests.

 

If one such company has such a test on the market, hopefully more for different machines will soon follow.

[shoshin]

This is the Google/Verily Project Baseline Covid study. If you're symptom free and live near a testing site, you can get a free test. 

 

http://projectbaseline.com/study/covid-19

 

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

Not really understand why they are looking for symptom free people to test.

 

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind the whole project. 

 

On their website, they talk about screening and about "At the screening sites, qualified healthcare professionals from our partners can collect samples from those deemed high risk, with results returned back to the individual."

 

So it sounds as though they initially (at least) were trying to ramp up testing for individuals considered at "high risk" either because of their personal health or their job.  That makes sense - high-risk people or people in jobs that put them in contact with high risk people, should be able to be tested even if without symptoms to avoid asymptomatic transmission.

 

But then they say "We are already working with the government to identify new site locations and to develop site playbooks in order to expand these services to more members of the community in the coming weeks and months."

 

The motives and the security of the data collection are somewhat opaque to me, personally.  Welcome anyone who can explain.