Jump to content

Menu

wuhan - coronavirus


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

There is also reason to believe that obese people don’t produce the same level of antibodies in response to the Pfizer vaccine.  This is a known problem with other vaccines such as the flu vaccine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9311629/amp/Pfizer-vaccine-effective-people-obesity-says-study.html

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 18.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3719

  • Pen

    2547

  • Arcadia

    1337

  • Corraleno

    322

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

Thought I'd post a pic of my dd, getting ready to spend another day in a coronavirus triage tent!  

4 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Reduction in infection after innoculation with Oxford-AstraZeneca:

https://www.livescience.com/astrazeneca-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-cuts-transmission.html

image.png.55e4bd1931a7cff6bd27fb87a57f31f9.png

Protection from serious illness:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55302595

image.png.f2ef0a69a447f2d98f90a7f7811b5968.png

67pc is definitely better than the 40-50 I thought the podcast mentioned and I can’t find any study that says that.  I think it was maybe an error?  It still means we need nearly 100pc uptake for herd immunity I think.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

67pc is definitely better than the 40-50 I thought the podcast mentioned and I can’t find any study that says that.  I think it was maybe an error?  It still means we need nearly 100pc uptake for herd immunity I think.

Doing okay for this so far, but there's more vaccine hesitancy in younger groups. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

Screenshot_20210305-203001_Chrome.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Doing okay for this so far, but there's more vaccine hesitancy in younger groups. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

Screenshot_20210305-203001_Chrome.jpg

I think my perspective is warped by the comment section under every vaccination related news article.  Presumably these people are the extremes but I have also heard a lot of IRL hesitancy here.  I think it doesn’t seem as urgent due to the closed borders.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the hospital groups here announced they are going to start allowing visitors for Covid patients. There are obviously rules about how many and such, but I think it’s a really good thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 8:53 PM, math teacher said:

Even though Gov. Abbott is lifting the masking mandate, Texas schools are waiting to hear from Texas Education Agency for the guidelines we will follow. When we started school, TEA guidelines were that everyone would be masked and all students have shields at their desks. I expect TEA to uphold this directive until the end of the school year. If I am wrong, I expect some parents will pull their students to Virtual for the remainder of the year.

Looks like TEA punted the decision to let every ISD decide for themselves. UIL did the same.

Our ISD (3rd largest in state) just sent notice that all safety measures will remain in place until end of school year. BUT they are reducing quarantine period to CDC recommendations: contact-exposed (sitting next to kid at school) quarantine 10 days (can reduce to 8 days with negative test), continuously exposed (like at home with family member) must quarantine for full 14 days. That's down from 14 days if exposed no matter what (negative tests before 14 days did not matter). Mask, shields, contact tracing, masks at events/practices/etc still required as they were (some sports have been exempt-depending on actual school, not district).

I cannot tell you how relieved I am that masks will remain in schools for the rest of the year. Pain in butt. Challenging. But with society at large ditching all precautions, the school was a sitting duck. And that made us sitting ducks unless we wear a mask full time at home and kiddo an odd ball at school if she continued to wear hers.

Edited by aggie96
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aggie96 said:

Looks like TEA punted the decision to let every ISD decide for themselves. UIL did the same.

Our ISD (3rd largest in state) just sent notice that all safety measures will remain in place until end of school year. BUT they are reducing quarantine period to CDC recommendations: contact-exposed (sitting next to kid at school) quarantine 10 days (can reduce to 8 days with negative test), continuously exposed (like at home with family member) must quarantine for full 14 days. That's down from 14 days if exposed no matter what (negative tests before 14 days did not matter). Mask, shields, contact tracing, masks at events/practices/etc still required as they were (some sports have been exempt-depending on actual school, not district).

I cannot tell you how relieved I am that masks will remain in schools for the rest of the year. Pain in butt. Challenging. But with society at large ditching all precautions, the school was a sitting duck. And that made us sitting ducks unless we wear a mask full time at home and kiddo an odd ball at school if she continued to wear hers.

My district decided to keep the same protocols in place, as well-masks, shields, breakfast/lunch in classroom, distancing, classrooms not mingling. This is what I expected them to do, and I am relieved.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a recent interview that biochemist Rhonda Patrick did with MedCram’s Dr. Seheult. It is very meaty and long but Rhonda provides a summary, timeline, transcription and even a glossary to make it easier to follow and understand.

One topic they discuss is vitamin D. Some of you might find that interesting but they also discuss much more. Two hours long but worth the time to listen.

https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/roger-seheult

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BeachGal said:

Here is a recent interview that biochemist Rhonda Patrick did with MedCram’s Dr. Seheult. It is very meaty and long but Rhonda provides a summary, timeline, transcription and even a glossary to make it easier to follow and understand.

One topic they discuss is vitamin D. Some of you might find that interesting but they also discuss much more. Two hours long but worth the time to listen.

https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/roger-seheult

Really excellent interview, thanks so much for linking that!

The information on sleep was really interesting — seems like one of the many factors that can lead to different outcomes that might seem quite puzzling from the outside. Also the discussion of how and why raising the body's core temperature helps the immune system kick into high gear was really useful. The only caveat I would add is that the Spanish Vit D study that Dr. Seheult mentioned has now been pulled from the Lancet website and they are "initiating an investigation into the study."

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The only caveat I would add is that the Spanish Vit D study that Dr. Seheult mentioned has now been pulled from the Lancet website and they are "initiating an investigation into the study."

Was that the crazy one that didn't even look properly randomized?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Was that the crazy one that didn't even look properly randomized?

Yes, it was cluster randomized, but they ran the stats as if it was individually randomized. Plus the treatment group had higher Vit D levels to begin with; the treatment group had more people die than were transferred to ICU (suggesting that physicians may have been reluctant to transfer patients if it would affect their desired outcome); and there appeared to be significant differences between the study approved by the ethics committee and the study they actually conducted. But it was accepted at face value the minute it was posted as a preprint and was widely promoted by various youtubers, bloggers, and even politicians.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Really excellent interview, thanks so much for linking that!

The information on sleep was really interesting — seems like one of the many factors that can lead to different outcomes that might seem quite puzzling from the outside. Also the discussion of how and why raising the body's core temperature helps the immune system kick into high gear was really useful. The only caveat I would add is that the Spanish Vit D study that Dr. Seheult mentioned has now been pulled from the Lancet website and they are "initiating an investigation into the study."

 

It is interesting to read some of the the discussions regarding the vitamin d and Covid studies. Rhonda has a very thorough understanding of vitamin d so I like reading her opinions and critiques of the different studies.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Yes, it was cluster randomized, but they ran the stats as if it was individually randomized. Plus the treatment group had higher Vit D levels to begin with; the treatment group had more people die than were transferred to ICU (suggesting that physicians may have been reluctant to transfer patients if it would affect their desired outcome); and there appeared to be significant differences between the study approved by the ethics committee and the study they actually conducted. But it was accepted at face value the minute it was posted as a preprint and was widely promoted by various youtubers, bloggers, and even politicians.

What does cluster randomised mean?  Sorry to be dense.  Thanks for the summary of the topics covered.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

What does cluster randomised mean?  Sorry to be dense.  Thanks for the summary of the topics covered.

Instead of randomly assigning patients to the treatment and control groups, they just gave Vit D to everyone in 5 wards and compared the results to patients in 3 other wards that did not get Vit D. So some are arguing that the stats should be based on n=8 (8 wards) not n=850 (or however many patients they had), because they were not randomized within the wards. 

And even the "cluster randomization" has been disputed — the authors claim that they randomly chose which wards got the treatment, but they did not provide any explanation of how that was done, or why the wards that were "randomly" assigned to the treatment group had higher Vit D levels to begin with. They also did not provide any details about possible differences between the wards that might have contributed to the different outcomes (e.g. differences in staffing, equipment, levels of care, severity of disease, etc.). It's highly suspicious that more people in the treatment group died than were transferred to the ICU, while in the reverse was true in the nontreatment group. And several people raised concerns about whether they had informed consent for the type of trial they claim to have carried out.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want to spend too much time on this but thought some of you might be interested in reading more about RCTs using nutrients vs drugs.

https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/68/8/478/1842168?login=true

Quote

Although RCTs present one approach toward understanding the efficacy of nutrient interventions, the innate complexities of nutrient actions and interactions cannot always be adequately addressed through any single research design. Because of the limitations inherent in RCTs, particularly of nutrients, it is suggested that nutrient policy decisions will have to be made using the totality of the available evidence.

Quote

While multiple research approaches in nutrition science afford evidence of nutrient effects, there often appears to be an almost exclusive reliance on the RCT as the only type of evidence worthy of such consideration (e.g., references12,–16). However, certain features of EBM [evidence-based medicine] seem ill-suited to the nutrition context.17,–19 Some of the differences between the evaluation of drugs and nutrients cited previously18 are as follows: (i) medical interventions are designed to cure a disease not produced by their absence, while nutrients prevent dysfunction that would result from their inadequate intake; (ii) it is usually not plausible to summon clinical equipoise for basic nutrient effects, thus creating ethical impediments to many trials; (iii) drug effects are generally intended to be large and with limited scope of action, while nutrient effects are typically polyvalent in scope and, in effect size, are typically within the “noise” range of biological variability; (iv) drug effects tend to be monotonic, with response varying in proportion to dose, while nutrient effects are often of a sigmoid character, with useful response occurring only across a portion of the intake range; (v) drug effects can be tested against a nonexposed (placebo) contrast group, whereas it is impossible and/or unethical to attempt a zero intake group for nutrients; and (vi) therapeutic drugs are intended to be efficacious within a relatively short term while the impact of nutrients on the reduction of risk of chronic disease may require decades to demonstrate – a difference with significant implications for the feasibility of conducting pertinent RCTs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2021 at 10:37 AM, melmichigan said:

There is also reason to believe that obese people don’t produce the same level of antibodies in response to the Pfizer vaccine.  This is a known problem with other vaccines such as the flu vaccine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9311629/amp/Pfizer-vaccine-effective-people-obesity-says-study.html

 

I mentioned this on another thread, but with the flu vaccine, there was a study that indicated that the reduced immune response to vaccine in obese people was actually due to the needle being too short to clear the fat pad and get the vaccine in the muscle. Using longer needles solved that. I don’t expect they are doing that with Covid vaccines (one of our board HCW verified they are not where she is), so that might be a reason it could be an issue with the Covid vaccine as well. There are possible fixes for that, but of course they complicate the distribution and might not be palatable to people (special vaccine clinics/days for people with obesity?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeachGal said:

I don’t want to spend too much time on this but thought some of you might be interested in reading more about RCTs using nutrients vs drugs.

https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/68/8/478/1842168?login=true

 

Well the Spanish Vit D study was specifically looking at Vit D as a "drug treatment" in hospitalized patients, so in that context an RCT Is appropriate. So far none of the other studies that involved administration of large doses once a patient was already quite ill have shown a benefit.

OTOH, many studies have shown a pretty clear correlation between Vit D insufficiency prior to illness and worse outcomes, as well as a correlation between higher levels of D and less severe illness. The evidence for that seems pretty solid at this point, so one of the easiest and cheapest things people can do to protect themselves is to make sure their D levels are at least over 30, and preferably over 50, before they get sick. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Well the Spanish Vit D study was specifically looking at Vit D as a "drug treatment" in hospitalized patients, so in that context an RCT Is appropriate. So far none of the other studies that involved administration of large doses once a patient was already quite ill have shown a benefit.

And I haven't followed what they've said, but I remember doing some back of the envelope calculations using the numbers, and assuming actual randomization, the chance of their groups looking like they did was something like under 1%. So I figured they didn't actually randomize and decided to ignore them. 

 

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

OTOH, many studies have shown a pretty clear correlation between Vit D insufficiency prior to illness and worse outcomes, as well as a correlation between higher levels of D and less severe illness. The evidence for that seems pretty solid at this point, so one of the easiest and cheapest things people can do to protect themselves is to make sure their D levels are at least over 30, and preferably over 50, before they get sick. 

I mean, maybe. Or maybe it's correlated to something else that makes you more likely to get sick and that taking vitamin D is like trying to make the weather warmer by buying ice cream in the winter 😉 . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Well the Spanish Vit D study was specifically looking at Vit D as a "drug treatment" in hospitalized patients, so in that context an RCT Is appropriate. So far none of the other studies that involved administration of large doses once a patient was already quite ill have shown a benefit.

OTOH, many studies have shown a pretty clear correlation between Vit D insufficiency prior to illness and worse outcomes, as well as a correlation between higher levels of D and less severe illness. The evidence for that seems pretty solid at this point, so one of the easiest and cheapest things people can do to protect themselves is to make sure their D levels are at least over 30, and preferably over 50, before they get sick. 

I agree with what you’re saying but was trying to point out (not to you specifically) that in studies, using nutrients as therapies presents challenges that aren't encountered in studies using drugs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeachGal said:

I agree with what you’re saying but was trying to point out (not to you specifically) that in studies, using nutrients as therapies presents challenges that aren't encountered in studies using drugs.

Why would it present challenges? Mind summarizing? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BeachGal said:

The challenges are summarized in the second post on this page in the second quote.

But in this specific case, people were studying Vitamin D as a drug that you could administer after the patients were ill, anyway. So it was being studied as a drug, not as a nutrient. 

I see what they are saying about vitamin studies in general, although I also think they are trying to explain away the fact that attempts to use them rarely shows an effect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I mean, maybe. Or maybe it's correlated to something else that makes you more likely to get sick and that taking vitamin D is like trying to make the weather warmer by buying ice cream in the winter 😉 . 

But immune modulation is literally one of the functions of Vit D in the human body, and we know the specific mechanisms involved in that:

"Vitamin D has been found to modulate macrophages’ response, preventing them from releasing too many inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Vitamin D deficiency also impairs the ability of macrophages to mature, to produce macrophage-specific surface antigens, to produce the lysosomal enzyme acid phosphatase, and to secrete H2O2, a function integral to their antimicrobial function. ... [T]he addition of 1,25(OH)2D increased expression of macrophage-specific surface antigens and the lysosomal enzyme acid phosphatase while stimulating their ‘oxidative burst’ function. 

1,25(OH)2D dramatically stimulates genetic expression of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) in human monocytes, neutrophils, and other human cell lines. ... AMP display broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, including antiviral activity, and have been shown to inactivate the influenza virus. Not only do neutrophils, macrophages, and natural killer cells secrete AMP, but epithelial cells lining the upper and lower respiratory tract secrete them as well, where they play a major role in pulmonary defense."

The recent studies that show a specific correlation between Vit D deficiency and more severe outcomes with covid are just confirming that what we already know about Vit D and immune response certainly applies to covid. The bolded seems particularly significant, given the role of cytokine storm in ARDS and increased mortality.

The only issue that really remains unresolved is whether giving large doses of Vit D after someone is already ill can help them fight covid, and unfortunately most studies so far seem to suggest that it's too late by that point.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

"Vitamin D has been found to modulate macrophages’ response, preventing them from re- leasing too many inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Vitamin D deficiency also impairs the ability of macrophages to mature, to produce macrophage-specific surface antigens, to produce the lysosomal enzyme acid phosphatase, and to secrete H2O2, a function integral to their antimicrobial function. ... [T]he addition of 1,25(OH)2D increased expression of macrophage-specific surface antigens and the lysosomal enzyme acid phosphatase while stimulating their ‘oxidative burst’ function. 

But we've never actually managed to increase immune function by giving people Vitamin D, right? So that makes me a bit suspicious. Like, I believe that Vitamin D is an important part of the process (although I think people are pretty fuzzy on what "deficient" means, within the body), but it's possible that something else is going on. 

I dunno. I think we have a pretty poor understanding of all of these things. What you're saying makes sense, but it makes sense in a fuzzy, foggy sort of way. It could be that taking Vitamin D is enough. And it could be that something about the production process of getting Vitamin D from sunlight is actually essential to functioning and we simply don't quite understand what. I just have no clue. I feel like the only way you could TEST it would be to actually run a study where you gave people Vitamin D for a long time, measured their levels, and made observations. It wouldn't actually be hard to design; it would just take a long time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I feel like the only way you could TEST it would be to actually run a study where you gave people Vitamin D for a long time, measured their levels, and made observations. It wouldn't actually be hard to design; it would just take a long time. 

I feel like this has been done. I can’t look for it now, but I will later. I want to say perhaps they ran a study in nursing homes with one group getting vitamin D and one not and then later measured the rates of flu the two different groups. But maybe I made up that study design in my head 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But we've never actually managed to increase immune function by giving people Vitamin D, right? So that makes me a bit suspicious. Like, I believe that Vitamin D is an important part of the process (although I think people are pretty fuzzy on what "deficient" means, within the body), but it's possible that something else is going on. 

I dunno. I think we have a pretty poor understanding of all of these things. What you're saying makes sense, but it makes sense in a fuzzy, foggy sort of way. It could be that taking Vitamin D is enough. And it could be that something about the production process of getting Vitamin D from sunlight is actually essential to functioning and we simply don't quite understand what. I just have no clue. I feel like the only way you could TEST it would be to actually run a study where you gave people Vitamin D for a long time, measured their levels, and made observations. It wouldn't actually be hard to design; it would just take a long time. 

As to whether it might be something else about the process of getting Vit D from sunlight that actually causes the difference in disease severity, rather than actual Vit D levels, very few people in the US can get sufficient Vit D from sunlight without supplementation. Above the 37th parallel, it's not even possible to get enough Vit D from sunlight from November to March, even if someone is outside a lot, which is why we fortify milk, orange juice, and breakfast cereals with Vit D. So most of the US population is getting their Vit D, at least in winter and in many cases year round, from supplementation, whether that comes from taking capsules or consuming fortified foods. 

There have been RCTs that looked at the effect of supplementation on respiratory tract infections. A 2017 meta-analysis published in the BMJ found that:

"Meta-analysis of data from trials in which vitamin D was administered using a daily or weekly regimen without additional bolus doses revealed a protective effect against acute respiratory tract infection .... [and] daily or weekly vitamin D treatment was associated with an even greater degree of protection against acute respiratory tract infection among participants with baseline circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations less than 25 nmol/L ... Moreover, use of daily or weekly vitamin D also protected against acute respiratory tract infection among participants with higher baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations." They found that single bolus doses were not protective.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There have been RCTs that looked at the effect of supplementation on respiratory tract infections. A 2017 meta-analysis published in the BMJ found that:

I don’t trust meta-analyses. I’ll be happy to discuss specific studies. When I looked, things looked pretty inconclusive, but I’m willing to be convinced.

Do you have a favorite specific study?

 

20 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So most of the US population is getting their Vit D, at least in winter and in many cases year round, from supplementation, whether that comes from taking capsules or consuming fortified foods. 

Or maybe people’s Vitamin D is being lowered by other processes that deactivate the immune system. I really don’t trust correlations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, kand said:

I mentioned this on another thread, but with the flu vaccine, there was a study that indicated that the reduced immune response to vaccine in obese people was actually due to the needle being too short to clear the fat pad and get the vaccine in the muscle. Using longer needles solved that. I don’t expect they are doing that with Covid vaccines (one of our board HCW verified they are not where she is), so that might be a reason it could be an issue with the Covid vaccine as well. There are possible fixes for that, but of course they complicate the distribution and might not be palatable to people (special vaccine clinics/days for people with obesity?)

Just did a mass vaccine clinic this morning and we were talking about that. We just had one length needle in our section but they said there were other needles available, and they were trying to direct people who might need them to one of the sections. So there was an awareness, and an attempt to do something about it, but I don’t know how effective it was.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TCB said:

Just did a mass vaccine clinic this morning and we were talking about that. We just had one length needle in our section but they said there were other needles available, and they were trying to direct people who might need them to one of the sections. So there was an awareness, and an attempt to do something about it, but I don’t know how effective it was.

That’s something to hear at least people were talking about it and considering it. I don’t think that is generally much of a thing yet, so kudos to your organization for thinking about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

Just did a mass vaccine clinic this morning and we were talking about that. We just had one length needle in our section but they said there were other needles available, and they were trying to direct people who might need them to one of the sections. So there was an awareness, and an attempt to do something about it, but I don’t know how effective it was.

When the time comes, do you think I could ask for this, or would I be laughed at? Medical people here don’t like to be questioned, sigh.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kbutton said:

When the time comes, do you think I could ask for this, or would I be laughed at? Medical people here don’t like to be questioned, sigh.

I’m sorry they are like that there! If I was giving you your vaccine, and you asked me, I would have no problem whatsoever with using a different needle. I actually prefer a bigger gauge needle when getting an IM injection, like a vaccine, because I think it doesn’t hurt so much as it’s not being injected under so much pressure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TCB said:

I’m sorry they are like that there! If I was giving you your vaccine, and you asked me, I would have no problem whatsoever with using a different needle. I actually prefer a bigger gauge needle when getting an IM injection, like a vaccine, because I think it doesn’t hurt so much as it’s not being injected under so much pressure.

Is a bigger gauge needle also longer?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Many ‘Long Covid’ Patients Had No Symptoms From Their Initial Infection https://nyti.ms/3l0TwjI

Screenshot_20210309-135148_NYTimes.jpg

I wonder if part of what happens with the asymptomatic infections is that your immune system doesn't stop it at the entry points, so it's allowed to get further into your body? That's not very precise and therefore might be total nonsense... just a thought.

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bookbard said:

Israel really needs to live up to its obligation to provide Covid vaccines to Palestinians.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-immunizations-coronavirus-pandemic-west-bank-5d18f75cbce3fa8df5c8b885599d81b4

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel’s leaders Monday celebrated the country’s 5 millionth coronavirus vaccination on the same day the government began vaccinating Palestinian laborers who work in the country. The time lag has drawn international criticism and highlighted global disparities.

There was no indication the two events were coordinated, but their split-screen quality offered a stark contrast between Israel’s world-leading vaccination blitz and the plight of 5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Progress in places like Israel, the United States and Britain has heightened concerns among human rights advocates of driving a wider gap between wealthy countries and those that can’t afford pricey vaccination programs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites


ABC Aus 

UK COVID-19 variant has a significantly higher death rate, study finds

A highly infectious variant of COVID-19 that has spread around the world since it was first discovered in Britain late last year is between 30 per cent and 100 per cent more deadly than previous dominant variants, according to British researchers.

A study that compared death rates among people in Britain infected with the new SARS-CoV-2 variant - known as B.1.1.7 - against those infected with other variants found that the new variant's mortality rate was "significantly higher".

The B.1.1.7 variant was first detected in Britain in September 2020, and has since also been found in more than 100 other countries.

It has 23 mutations in its genetic code - a relatively high number - and some of them have made it far more easily spread.

Scientists say it is about 40 per cent to 70 per cent more transmissible than previous dominant variants that were circulating.

In the UK study, published in the British Medical Journal on Wednesday, infection with the new variant led to 227 deaths in a sample of 54,906 COVID-19 patients, compared with 141 among the same number of patients infected with other variants.

"Coupled with its ability to spread rapidly, this makes B.1.1.7 a threat that should be taken seriously," said Robert Challen, a researcher at Exeter University who co-led the research.

Independent experts said this study's findings add to previous preliminary evidence linking infection with the B.1.1.7 virus variant with an increased risk of dying from COVID-19.

Initial findings from the study were presented to the UK government earlier this year, along with other research, by experts on its New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, or NERVTAG, panel.

Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at Warwick University, said the precise mechanisms behind the higher death rate of the B.1.1.7 variant were still not clear, but "could be related to higher levels of virus replication as well as increased transmissibility".

He warned that the UK variant was likely fuelling a recent surge in infections across Europe. 


 

I haven’t had time to read the study in detail but sounds bad... I’m assuming 100pc means effectively double the number of deaths?

  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are very much "life as normal" around here. Attached pictures from basketball game yesterday. No masks by staff or customers at the local vet yesterday with inside service. Grocery store has removed the one-way signs (not that anyone followed them). Eye doctor's office still had mask usage, thankfully, but didn't seem to be wiping surfaces down between patients (even though they were very good about doing it pre-COVID). 

1615473033156.jpg

1615473027788.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://bit.ly/3vfgcRO?cc=1647f7625a0285f24f5f88788f2acde2
 

Novavax revealed the final results of its Phase 3 human trials of NVX-CoV2373 in a press release; the findings have not been submitted for peer-review in a scientific journal yet. The company reported that overall, its vaccine was 96% efficacious in protecting people from mild, moderate or severe COVID-19 disease if they were infected with the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. The vaccine was slightly less efficacious, at 86%, in protecting against disease if people were infected with the B.1.1.7 strain of the virus, which is becoming dominant in the U.K., where the study was conducted. That gives the vaccine an overall efficacy of 89.7% against both the original and U.K. variants. By comparison, Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine is 95% efficacious against COVID-19 disease, Moderna’s is 94%, and Johnson & Johnson’s is 66%.

In an ongoing, Phase 2B study of the vaccine in South Africa, where a more worrisome variant is increasingly responsible for a growing share of new infections, Novavax’s shot is so far 55% efficacious in protecting against COVID-19 symptoms.

“I did not think it was possible to have a vaccine prevent 96% of any respiratory disease,” says Dr. Gregory Glenn, president of research and development at Novavax. “That’s outstanding, and I’m personally ecstatic. If you had asked me a year ago [to predict] the very best vaccine we could expect, I would have said 80% or 85% efficacy against any respiratory disease would be pretty amazing.”


 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Wow. That is impressive, particularly considering they were one of the first places hit and initially had a very high death rate. Story says if the whole US had handled it the same way, we would have had 300,000 fewer people die than we have so far. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

San Francisco also shut early and did well. Basically, the metro areas that acted promptly were seriously rewarded. 

Man, I really hate de Blasio. (And now with Cuomo's scandals, he isn't exactly worth supporting either, even though I still think he's twice smarter than our mayor. Blergh. NY needs better leadership.) 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...