Coronavirus

General Pandemic
2609

A high quality recent article about Vitamins D in relation to immune-system functionality and health.

(BMJ, April 30, 2020):

“Vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 virus/COVID-19 disease”

… we recommend appropriate vitamin D RCTs to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation on COVID-19 infections. Until there is more robust scientific evidence for vitamin D, we … caution against the use of high vitamin D supplementation (greater than the upper limit of 4000 IU/day (100 µg/day)).

Note: For older adults, a maximum of 2000 IU/day is generally thought to be sufficient as well as safe.

3 Likes
2610

For what it (may) be worth, CDC "COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios" (May 20, 2020):

CDC_1
CDC_11150×1000 375 KB

CDC_2
CDC_21150×1040 419 KB

2611

(Drug Target Review, May 22, 2020):

“Blood test could identify those most at risk from COVID-19 -
Collaborative research has revealed two hallmarks of COVID-19 infection
associated with more severe symptoms that can be identified by a blood test.”

Researchers have identified an ‘immunological signature’ of COVID-19 in the blood of patients, which could be used to identify those at greater risk of severe complications at an early stage of the disease who may need additional care and also guide treatment strategies. … preliminary analysis highlighted the 60 patients had two prominent differences from normal blood samples: a dysregulation of a subset of T cells responsible for eradicating virus-infected cells and a dramatic loss of basophils, immune cells involved in tissue repair. …

… Project lead Adrian Hayday, who heads the Crick’s Immunosurveillance Laboratory and is Professor of Immunobiology at King’s College London, said: “The changes we’ve observed in the blood are not subtle and patients with these features seem more likely to experience severe disease, requiring intensive management.” … “There’s a lot we still don’t know about this virus, but we have seen that it doesn’t simply discriminate according to age and underlying condition. Although in smaller numbers, younger, healthy individuals can also be struck down with severe symptoms." …

… the perturbation of specific T cells leaves the patient unable to mount an effective immune response to combat the virus, as this situation persists and worsens, the remaining immune cells can become dysregulated and cause damage to the lungs and other vital organs.

.

(BBC, May 22, 2020):

“Coronavirus: Immune clue sparks treatment hope”

It has been found those with the most severe form of the disease have extremely low numbers of an immune cell called a T-cell. T-cells clear infection from the body. … They have looked at immune cells in the blood of 60 Covid-19 patients and found an apparent crash in the numbers of T-cells.

Prof Adrian Hayday from the Crick Institute said it was a “great surprise” to see what was happening with the immune cells. "They’re trying to protect us, but the virus seems to be doing something that’s pulling the rug from under them, because their numbers have declined dramatically. In a microlitre (0.001ml) drop of blood, normal healthy adults have between 2,000 and 4,000 T-cells, also called T lymphocytes. The Covid patients the team tested had between 200-1,200.

.

Based on the detailed preliminary analysis of 60 COVID-19 patients at St Thomas’ Hospital, the team has identified an ‘immunological signature’ of the disease. Within this, a small set of factors, or clues, could be used to identify the patients most likely to do worse and require additional treatment. In their preliminary analysis, the team have identified two prominent clues - an overt dysregulation in a specific type of T cell that ordinarily eradicates virus-infected cells, and a dramatic loss of immune cells called basophils that can be involved in tissue repair.

1 Like
2612

(The Atlantic, May 20, 2020):

“America’s Patchwork Pandemic Is Fraying Even Further -
The coronavirus is coursing through different parts of the U.S. in different ways,
making the crisis harder to predict, control, or understand.”

I spoke with two dozen experts who agreed that in the absence of a vaccine, the patchwork will continue. Cities that thought the worst had passed may be hit anew. States that had lucky escapes may find themselves less lucky. The future is uncertain, but Americans should expect neither a swift return to normalcy nor a unified national experience, with an initial spring wave, a summer lull, and a fall resurgence. “The talk of a second wave as if we’ve exited the first doesn’t capture what’s really happening,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. What’s happening is not one crisis, but many interconnected ones. As we shall see, it will be harder to come to terms with such a crisis. It will be harder to bring it to heel. And it will be harder to grapple with the historical legacies that have shaped today’s patchwork. …

… The pandemic patchwork exists because the U.S. is a patchwork to its core. New outbreaks will continue to flare and fester unless the country makes a serious effort to protect its most vulnerable citizens, recognizing that their risk is the result of societal failures, not personal ones. …

… Of all the threats we know, the COVID-19 pandemic is most like a very rapid version of climate change - global in its scope, erratic in its unfolding, and unequal in its distribution. And like climate change, there is no easy fix. Our choices are to remake society or let it be remade, to smooth the patchworks old and new or let them fray even further.

1 Like
2613

(Forbes, May 14, 2020):

“Why The Largest Cyberattack In History Could Happen Within Six Months”

The coronavirus is laying the groundwork for a massive cyberattack. In fact, I’m on record today saying we’ll see the largest cyberattack in history within the next six months. Nobody is talking about this today. Fighting hackers is the last thing on most folks’ minds. But coronavirus practically guarantees “largest cyberattack ever" will soon be plastered all over the frontpages. …

Practically every employee in every firm in America is working from a makeshift desk on their kitchen table. Firms only had days to cobble together remote work plans. So you can bet most didn’t set up secure systems, like the one my friend is using. In fact, the vast majority of employees probably don’t even have dedicated work laptops.

So hundreds of millions of folks are using personal laptops - on unsecured home internet connections - to access work files. Many of which likely contain confidential information and personal data. This is a dream come true for cyber criminals. Hackers only need to gain access through one entry point to seize control of a whole network. Once they’re in they can steal data, secrets, lock you out of the network. …

… In the past couple months, hackers have targeted the US Department of Health. And attacks against the World Health Organization have more than doubled. These are only the hacks we know about. Cyber intelligence firm CYFIRMA revealed cyberthreats related to coronavirus shot up 600% from February to March. It’s only a matter of time before we hear about a major cyber breach.

.

(ZDnet, May 22, 2020):

“Microsoft: Beware this massive phishing campaign using malicious Excel macros to hack PCs -
Hundreds of different Excel files have been used to trick PC users
into installing a remote access tool that attackers can use to control their machine.”

… emails being sent out claim to come from the Johns Hopkins Center bearing the title “WHO COVID-19 SITUATION REPORT”. If the recipient attempts to open the attached Excel files it will open with a security warning, and show a graph of supposed coronavirus cases in the US. But if allowed to run, the malicious Excel 4.0 macro also downloads and runs NetSupport Manager. … “For several months now, we’ve been seeing a steady increase in the use of malicious Excel 4.0 macros in malware campaigns. In April, these Excel 4.0 campaigns jumped on the bandwagon and started using COVID-19 themed lures,” Microsoft’s Security Intelligence team said in a series of tweets. … This is not the only new security threat Microsoft’s security team has spotted: it has also warned of a new Trickbot campaign, launched on May 18, that uses emails claiming to offer a “personal coronavirus check” - a variation of the “free COVID-19 test” seen in previous Trickbot spam runs. Trickbot remains one of the most common payloads in COVID-19 themed campaigns.

2614

Snap 2020-05-23 at 16.39.13
Snap 2020-05-23 at 16.39.131161×762 289 KB

3 Likes
2615

(The Science Times, May 22, 2020):

“Study Reveals Coronavirus Immunity Only Lasts for 6 Months
Casting Doubts on 'Immunity Passports’ for Survivors”

… a study from the University of Amsterdam, says that within six months, a patient can get reinfected. How is this possible? For 35 years, Professor Lia van der Hoek from the University of Amsterdam and other researchers tested 10 male individuals regularly for four types of coronaviruses, which cause the common cold.

While most of the subjects were reinfected within 3 years, alarming results included that frequent reinfections occurred at 12 months after infection. There were also significant drops in antibody levels within six months post-infection. ‘Coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting’ as stated in the study. Within the limitations of their scientific research, Hoek notes that ‘achieving herd immunity may be challenging due to rapid loss of protective immunity.’

.

A CDC published document listing all of the known Coronavirus types that are currently in circulation.

1 Like
2616

Its going to be around for a long time, Raven… only thing we can do is be prepared.

2 Likes
2617

I’m still trying to find a valid # of false positives or negatives found in the testing.I’ve not been able to find the current % of either.

1 Like
2618

(Business Insider, May 15, 2020):

“The White House is testing its staff for coronavirus using a device that often gives false negatives”

The New York Times reported that the White House is using the ID Now rapid testing system, which can give results in less than 13 minutes.

However, a study released Tuesday by researchers at New York University found that the system missed a third of the positive samples when using nasal swabs in vials, and more than 48% when using dry nasal swabs. The report hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Another study in late April found that it was showing a false negative in around 15% of cases - a result affirmed by the director of the National Institutes of Health. Around the same time, Abbott said that the tests work properly when swabs are put directly into the device as opposed to dissolved in liquid.

On Thursday, the US Food and Drug Administration said it’s received no less than 15 reports of Abbott’s device returning false negatives and is aware of the recent research. Abbott has agreed to run more studies and sent out a letter notifying customers that negative results needed to be confirmed with another test, the FDA said. …

… Some staff are still working in the White House during the outbreak, and at least a dozen people who may work near Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have tested positive for the virus in the past week. … The Washington Post reported on Sunday that White House staff are not being given clear instructions whether to work from home or not.

.

(April 21, 2020):

… another study that also has not yet undergone peer review indicated that false negatives could be a problem with RT-PCR tests. That study, by researchers in Europe, consisted of a review of existing literature - five studies that enlisted 957 patients. While the study found that the evidence collected came with several limitations like a risk of bias, high degree of heterogeneity and concerns about applicability, the findings showed that up to 29% of patients could have initial RT-PCR results that are false negatives and thus “reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

.

(The referenced paper): The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 29% of patients could have an initial RT-PCR false-negative result.

.

1 Like
2619

ty! if they do false positives at almost 50% then my friend may not have it. Today is her 10th day in quarantine and no symptoms.

at 48% no wonder we have to wear PPE!!! That’s a saaadd #.

1 Like
2620

Strange how magical thinking begets magical thinking, through confirmation or dis-confirmation filters.

1 Like
2621

with a margin of error at 48%, You might as well go all in on that bet. The house never gives you odds like that! why don’t they save the money on the tests and tell you to flip a coin???

Most patients have detectable IgG antibodies by day 14 following symptom onset.

The likelihood of detection increases over time. In studies, antibody tests that detected both IgG and IgM were positive in 90% of symptomatic individuals by days 11 - 24.,`

Q:

  • does that mean they have the disease? An 11-14 day incubation period. That’s incredible.

A:

Looking still. be back with an answer asap (under construction)

1 Like
2622

(SF Gate, May 6, 2020):

“These are most - and least - accurate COVID-19 tests”

Cleveland Clinic researchers tested 239 specimens known to contain the virus using some of the most commonly used coronavirus PCR tests. Here are the findings for each: The CDC-developed test, which returns results in a few days, detected 100% of positive samples. A similar test from Roche detected 96.5% of samples, and a test from Cepheid that produces results in less than hour detected 98.2% of positive samples. However, Abbott’s ID NOW test - one that returns results in less than 15 minutes - detected virus in only 85.2% of positive samples, meaning it had a false negative rate of 14.8%.

Dr. Gary Procop, the head of the study, told NPR a test should be at least 95% reliable. “So that means if you had 100 patients that were positive, 15% of those patients would be falsely called negative,” he said. “They’d be told that they’re negative for COVID when they’re really positive. That’s not too good.” Abbott defended the test, and said potential problems could stem from storing samples in a solution called “viral transport media” before insertion into the testing machine. The company advocates for placing samples directly into the testing machine to ensure the most accurate results.

2623

Those look like rather reliable #s to me. However, the antibody’s show at 11-14 days. How are these tests more accurate in less time is the question at hand. There are two large conflicting articles here. Next gen tests perhaps? If so, the quarantine time is based off an older test.

In Virginia, they don’t test you if you “think” you have it. they give you some pills and send you home.I wonder how many hypochondriacs abuse the testing system? The only thing that’s perfect is imperfection. However imperfection has it’s shortcomings too. That makes That would make it imperfectly imperfect.

1 Like
2624

Not quite that simple a matter. At 14 days, IGg is not yet produced; IGm detectable at (around) 9 days:

image
image1204×857 50.5 KB

Figure 1: Variation of the Levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Antigen, IgM and IgG after infection.
Source: Page Not Found | Diazyme Laboratories, Inc.

From:

Et tu, Brute ?
:joy:

2625

{erspma;u O][k pogogmgomg os a wott;e wkaI undterstand the reahcers goals here9; u d
.0
Actually I want to learn what to expect from this thing. How are they testing for it and finding it within a few days? If the antibody’s don’t appear until 11-14 days, Does that mean you’re contagious for that amount of time? are you infectious for 11-14 days?If you got the disease the chart shows become sympathetic around 9-0 days.Is that correct???

my keyboard is messing up bad,

1 Like
2626

Right. Exactly. Spot on. Could not have said it better. Keep up the good work (clean PS-2 connector).

2627

its a roflmao!!! wireless thats

ROFLMAO!!!

keyboard about 15 years old ( spiked the landing on that one eh???)

it hit the ground… that’s technically considered landing!!!
So there were a few (100) that didn’t walk away… Details!!! lmao

The pilot’s totally entrenched (between the yoke and bedrock) about it too!

1 Like
2628


1 Like