Coronavirus

[Raven-Knightly]

(STAT, May 22, 2020):

“The world needs Covid-19 vaccines. It may also be overestimating their power”

With a little luck and a lot of science, the world might in the not-too-distant future get vaccines against Covid-19. But those vaccines won’t necessarily prevent all or even most infections. In the public imagination, vaccines are often seen effectively as cure-alls, like inoculations against measles. Rather than those vaccines, however, the Covid-19 vaccines in development may be more like those that protect against influenza - reducing the risk of contracting the disease, and of experiencing severe symptoms should infection occur, a number of experts told STAT. …

… Ideally, vaccines would prevent infection entirely, inducing what’s known as “sterilizing immunity.” But early work on some of the vaccine candidates suggests they may not stop infection in the upper respiratory tract - and they may not stop an infected person from spreading virus by coughing or speaking. A recently released study in which macaques were vaccinated with one vaccine candidate - this one being developed by Oxford Univ. and AstraZeneca - showed the primates were protected from Covid-induced pneumonia. But the macaques still had high levels of virus replicating in upper airways.

Vincent Munster, who leads the team that conducted that study, said a vaccine that could mitigate the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic would still be a significant contribution in a world struggling to co-exist with a dangerous new virus. “If we push the disease from pneumonia to a common cold, then I think that’s a huge step forward,” said Munster, chief of the virus ecology unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana.

The rush to develop vaccines means that ideal solutions may be out of reach in the immediate term; Munster said he anticipates seeing second-generation vaccines that could be more protective. Other scientists, though, are cautious about how much the world can expect from vaccines against this pathogen. Michael Mina, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, thinks achieving sterilizing immunity with a vaccine will not be possible for Covid-19. Experience with human coronaviruses - and with multiple pathogens that cause colds - shows immunity that develops after infection with respiratory tract infections is not lifelong. In some cases, the duration is measured in months, not years.

“If [infection with] natural coronaviruses doesn’t do it, I don’t think that we should necessarily expect or have the anticipation that we’ll be able to get there with the vaccine,” said Mina, who is also associate medical director of clinical microbiology at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Munster agreed trying to develop vaccines that confer sterilizing immunity would be a heavy lift with this coronavirus. “I think we really need to focus on what are the fastest achievable true public health goals of the vaccine, which is protecting the vulnerable people against pneumonia and protecting health care workers as well,” he said.

[Raven-Knightly]

(KING 5 News, May 25, 2020):

“UW study shows staggering numbers of US COVID-19 infection, fatality rates -
A recent University of Washington study shows the novel coronavirus is deadlier
and more contagious than the flu.”

Researchers at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy worked to get a more accurate estimate of the fatality rates of people who get sick with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). According to their calculations, researchers said it’s possible there may be between 350,000 and 1.2 million coronavirus deaths in the United States. These staggering numbers may put to rest the debate over which is deadlier, COVID-19 or the flu. "In the whole of the United States, there were 30,000 to 35,000 deaths from flu in the first two months. This year from COVID, we have more than 100,000 deaths. Surely, this is a different beast that we are talking about,” said Dr. Anirban Basu, director of the Choice Institute at the UW School of Pharmacy.

.

The referenced paper (pre-print):

(Health Affairs, May 7, 2020):

“Estimating The Infection Fatality Rate Among Symptomatic COVID-19 Cases In The United States”

Conclusion:

After modeling the available national data on cumulative deaths and detected COVID-19 cases in the United States, the IFR-S from COVID-19 was estimated to be 1.3%. This estimated rate is substantially higher than the approximate IFR-S of seasonal influenza, which is about 0.1% 19 (34,200 deaths among 35.5 million patients who got sick with influenza). Influenza is also believed to be completely asymptomatic in 16% of the infected population, 20 and this fraction is not included in the calculation of its IFR-S. 21 Our COVID-19 IFR-S estimate is not outside the ballpark of estimates becoming available from other countries, but certainly lower, as expected from addressing the upward bias in those estimates. For example, the COVID-19 fatality rate for China (without correction for the upward bias inherent in looking at observed rates) was initially reported to be 5.6% (95% CI: 5.4–5.8%). 22 By February 20, the crude fatality rate for China was estimated to be 3.8%. 23 The fatality rate outside China was estimated to be 15.2% (95% CI 12.5–17.9%), 22 which may be due to the more considerable upward bias during the beginning part of the pandemic within a county. We see the same patterns in the United States, with observed rates being much higher during the initial part of the pandemic. A recent estimate of CFR using individual-level data from Wuhan residents and also international Wuhan residents who repatriated on six flights was found to range from 0.66% to 1.4%. 24

If we carry out a thought experiment where 35.5 million individuals would contract COVID-19 illness this year in the US (i.e., the same number as flu last year) 19 then, in the absence of any mitigation strategies or social distancing behaviors and the supply of health care services under typical conditions, our IFR-S estimate predicts that there would have been nearly 500,000 COVID-19 deaths this year. To the extent that COVID-19 is more infectious than flu and does not have any protection from a vaccine or treatment, the number of infections, and hence the number of deaths, would be higher. Certainly, with mitigation strategies, the death toll will be lower. For example, the recent White House COVID-19 Taskforce projections of 100,000 - 200,000 deaths this year from COVID-19 is made with assumptions about the effectiveness of social distancing directives and measures currently in place. 25

Our estimated IFR-S applies under the assumption that the current supply (until April 20) of health care services, including hospital beds, ventilators, and access to healthcare providers, would continue in the future. Constraints in the supply of health care services could surely increase IFR and the overall fatality rates. We hope that simulations to understand and forecast the impact of such shortages can be improved using our estimates of IFR-S as the baseline.

[Raven-Knightly]

Probably something of a rare but welcome oasis amidst stormy deserts of unsettling evidences:

(The Lancet, May 25, 2020):

“Tobacco smoking and COVID-19 infection”

Robust evidence suggests that several mechanisms might increase the risk of respiratory tract infections in smokers. Smoking impairs the immune system and almost doubles the risk of tuberculosis infection (latent and active) due to impairment of immune function; specifically, smoking affects the macrophage and cytokine response and hence the ability to contain infection. Similarly the risk for pneumococcal, legionella, and mycoplasma pneumonia infection is about 3-5 times higher in smokers. Users of tobacco and e-cigarettes have increased adherence of pneumococci and colonisation, as a result of the upregulation of the pneumococcal receptor molecule (platelet activating receptor factor); smokers are also 5 times more likely to contract influenza than non-smokers. …

… Currently, no evidence suggests that e-cigarette use
increases the risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2.

[Raven-Knightly]

(CDC, May 23, 2020):

“Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing -
Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing
in Clinical and Public Health Settings”

In the current pandemic, maximizing specificity and thus positive predictive value in a serologic algorithm is preferred in most instances, since the overall prevalence of antibodies in most populations is likely low.

For example, in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49%. In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies. …

… Serologic test results should not be used to make decisions about grouping persons residing in or being admitted to congregate settings, such as schools, dormitories, or correctional facilities.

Serologic test results should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.

Until more information is available about the dynamics of IgA detection in serum, testing for IgA antibodies is not recommended.

.

(Smithsonian Magazine, May 26, 2020):

“Why Immunity to the Novel Coronavirus Is So Complicated -
Some immune responses may be enough to make a person impervious to reinfection, but scientists don’t yet know how the human body reacts to this new virus”

… while a positive antibody test (serology test) can say a lot about the past, it may not indicate much about a person’s future. Researchers still don’t know if antibodies that recognize SARS-CoV-2 prevent people from catching the virus a second time - or, if they do, how long that protection might last.

Immunity isn’t binary, but a continuum - and having an immune response, like those that can be measured by antibody tests, doesn’t make a person impervious to disease. “There’s this impression that ‘immunity’ means you’re 100 percent protected, that you’ll never be infected again,” says Rachel Graham, an virologist studying coronaviruses at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health. “But having immunity just means your immune system is responding to something” - not how well it’s poised to guard you from subsequent harm.

It takes a symphony of cells. In discussions of immunity, antibodies often end up hogging the spotlight - but they’re not the only weapons the body wields against invaders. The sheer multitude of molecules at work helps explain why “immunity” is such a slippery concept. …

… Antibodies aren’t perfect. Even the most sensitive laboratory tests have their limits, and finding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is no guarantee that those molecules are high-quality defenders or that a person is protected from reinfection. …

… One common misconception is that a positive antibody test means a person no longer has the virus in their system, which isn’t necessarily the case. …

… A person who has recovered from their first brush with a new pathogen like SARS-CoV-2 may travel one of several immunological routes, Goldberg says - not all of which end in complete protection from another infection. …

… not everyone reacts the same way to a given microbe. People can experience varying shades of partial protection in the wake of an infection, Goldberg says. In some cases, a bug might infect a person a second time but struggle to replicate in the body, causing only mild symptoms (or none at all) before it’s purged once more. The person may never notice the germ’s return. Still, even a temporary rendezvous between human and microbe can create a conduit for transmission, allowing the pathogen to hop into another susceptible individual. Under rarer circumstances, patients may experience symptoms that are similar to, or perhaps even more severe, than the first time their body encountered the pathogen. …

… A person’s immunity to a pathogen can wane over the course of months or years, eventually dropping below a threshold that leaves them susceptible to disease once again. Researchers don’t yet know whether that will be the case for SARS-CoV-2. …

… So far, early studies in both humans and animals suggest exposure to SARS-CoV-2 marshals a strong immune response. But until researchers have more clarity, Graham advises continued vigilance - even for those who have gotten positive results from antibody tests, or have other reason to believe they were infected with COVID-19.

.

(Rockefeller University, May 22, 2020):

“First results from human COVID-19 immunology study
reveal universally effective antibodies”

The first round of results from an immunological study of 149 people who have recovered from COVID-19 show that although the amount of antibodies they generated varies widely, most individuals had generated at least some that were intrinsically capable of neutralizing the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Antibodies vary widely in their efficacy. While many may latch on to the virus, only some are truly “neutralizing,” meaning that they actually block the virus from entering the cells. Since April 1, a team of immunologists, medical scientists, and virologists, has been collecting blood samples from volunteers who have recovered from COVID-19. The majority of the samples they have studied showed poor to modest “neutralizing activity,” indicating a weak antibody response. However, a closer look revealed everyone’s immune system is capable of generating effective antibodies - just not necessarily enough of them. Even when neutralizing antibodies were not present in an individual’s serum in large quantities, researchers could find some rare immune cells that make them. …

… “We now know what an effective antibody looks like and we have found similar ones in more than one person,” Robbiani says. “This is important information for people who are designing and testing vaccines. If they see their vaccine can elicit these antibodies, they know they are on the right track.”

The research paper referenced in the above-quoted article:

“Convergent Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Infection
in Convalescent Individuals”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infected millions of people and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. Virus entry into cells depends on the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S). Although there is no vaccine, it is likely that antibodies will be essential for protection. However, little is known about the human antibody response to SARS-CoV-21-5. Here we report on 149 COVID-19 convalescent individuals. Plasmas collected an average of 39 days after the onset of symptoms had variable half-maximal neutralizing titers ranging from undetectable in 33% to below 1:1000 in 79%, while only 1% showed titers >1:5000. Most convalescent plasmas obtained from individuals who recover from COVID-19 do not contain high levels of neutralizing activity. Nevertheless, rare but recurring RBD-specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity were found in all individuals tested, suggesting that a vaccine designed to elicit such antibodies could be broadly effective.

[SessionDrummer]

[SessionDrummer]

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-new-antibody-study-strong-evidence-lockdown-strategy-wrong-course/

On Friday, Stanford University’s school of medicine announced the findings of the first publicly released random sample antibody study of an entire county in the United States. Researchers sampled 3,330 Santa Clara County residents of all demographics to see how many had the antibodies of SARS-2 in their blood, which would demonstrate how many have already been exposed to the virus and are immune to it. Using basic serology, the researchers at the nation’s fourth highest-rated medical research school concluded that anywhere from 2.49%-4.16% of the people in this county of 1.9 million already had the antibodies in them.

Why is this such a bombshell? It means that instead of fewer than 2,000 people having the disease, as public tallies based on testing show, the virus has really infected 50 to 85 times more people in Santa Clara County. More importantly, what that means is that the infection fatality rate is equally 50-85 times lower than what the government data suggests. For example, in Santa Clara County, the California Department of Health reports that 70 people have died from the virus and that the fatality rate is 3.8%. But based on the new discoveries by Stanford, that fatality rate plummets to roughly flu-like levels.

“If our estimates of 48,000-81,000 infections represent the cumulative total on April 1, and we project deaths to April 22, we estimate about 100 deaths in the county,” concluded the study. “A hundred deaths out of 48,000-81,000 infections corresponds to an infection fatality rate of 0.12-0.2%.”

That is a very different story from the 3-4% figure the global governments and the World Health Organization have been working with.

[Raven-Knightly]

(Medium Science, April 17, 2020):

“Peer Review of COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, CA -
The high reported positive rate in this serosurvey may be explained by the false positive rate of the test and/or by sample recruitment issues.”

First, the false positive rate may be high enough to generate many of the reported 50 positives out of 3330 samples. … Second, the study may have enriched for COVID-19 cases by (a) serving as a test-of-last-resort for symptomatic or exposed people who couldn’t get tests elsewhere in the Bay Area and/or (b) allowing said people to recruit other COVID-19 cases to the study in private groups. … Third, in order to produce the visible excess mortality numbers that COVID-19 is already piling up in Europe and NYC, the study would imply that COVID-19 is spreading significantly faster than past pandemics like H1N1, many of which had multiple waves and took more than a year to run their course.

.

(SF Gate, April 18, 2020):

“Experts question results of startling Santa Clara coronavirus antibody study”

Dr. George Rutherford, an epidemiologist at UCSF, highlighted the fact that the antibody test the researchers used was not FDA-approved, as very few antibody tests have received approval to this point. The Stanford researchers acknowledged as much in the study and used test performance weights to scale results, but Rutherford was skeptical of these weights, as well as the population weights the researchers used. Instead, Rutherford believes we should just look at the raw antibody prevalence percentage of 1.5 percent. “At end of day, the percent positive for antibodies was 1.5 percent,” he said. “I don’t know what to make of the original sample, I don’t know what to make of their adjustments for laboratory tests or the general population weight. I walk away thinking they found 1.5 percent of people have antibodies. They’re smart as whips but felt crushed to get this out quickly, which is understandable.” Rutherford added that a 1.5 percent antibody prevalence is in line with what he would have expected. “In the medical community, the thought is that one percent of people have been exposed in the Bay Area, and it’s a little higher in Santa Clara County,” he said.

.

(SF Gate, May 11, 2020):

“Researchers adjust results of startling Santa Clara antibody study”

After originally reporting that coronavirus infections in Santa Clara County have been underreported by a factor of 50-85, the researchers behind a widely-shared antibody study have adjusted their results. Researchers initially found a raw antibody prevalence of 1.5 percent, which was scaled up to 2.5-4.2 percent when adjusting for population and test performance characteristics. In a second draft recently uploaded to medial preprint website medRxiv, the Stanford University researchers settle in on a weighted prevalence of 2.8 percent, which translates to an underreporting of infections by a factor of 54.

(Version 2, Revised April 30, 2020):

“COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California”

.

(CDC, May 23, 2020):

“Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing -
Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing
in Clinical and Public Health Settings”

… in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49% . In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies.

[Raven-Knightly]

(Annals of Internal Medicine, May 13, 2020):

“Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase
Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure”

Over the 4 days of infection before the typical time of symptom onset (day 5), the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreases from 100% (95% CI, 100% to 100%) on day 1 to 67% (CI, 27% to 94%) on day 4. On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18% to 65%). This decreased to 20% (CI, 12% to 30%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset) then began to increase again, from 21% (CI, 13% to 31%) on day 9 to 66% (CI, 54% to 77%) on day 21. …

… Care must be taken in interpreting RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection -particularly early in the course of infection - when using these results as a basis for removing precautions intended to prevent onward transmission. If clinical suspicion is high, infection should not be ruled out on the basis of RT-PCR alone, and the clinical and epidemiologic situation should be carefully considered.

[Raven-Knightly]

(Market Watch, May 24, 2020):

“Is your city reopening after coronavirus lockdown?
Scientists say avoid these places”

Talking spreads coronavirus - and likely plays a part in its contagiousness. … “there is a substantial probability that normal speaking causes airborne virus transmission in confined environments”. … "Speech droplets generated by asymptomatic carriers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are increasingly considered to be a likely mode of disease transmission” … In a closed, stagnant-air environment, they disappear from view after 8 minutes to 14 minutes, “which corresponds to droplet nuclei of ca. 4um diameter, or 12um to 21um droplets prior to dehydration,” the researchers wrote. One micrometer, um, is equivalent to one millionth of a meter. The coronavirus is 0.125 um. … while it’s long been recognized that respiratory viruses such as coronavirus can be transmitted via droplets generated by coughing or sneezing, it’s less widely known that normal speaking also produces thousands of oral fluid droplets. High viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 have been detected in oral fluids of COVID-19-positive patients, including asymptomatic ones. …

… High-traffic areas are best to be avoided, especially where there’s moisture. … Public transportation is also a hot spot, according to a working paper released on April 24 by Jeffrey Harris, professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “Maps of subway station turnstile entries, superimposed upon zip code-level maps of reported coronavirus incidence, are strongly consistent with subway-facilitated disease propagation.” …

… Another study in The New England Journal of Medicine from scientists at Princeton University, UCLA and the National Institutes of Health concluded that the virus could remain airborne for “up to 3 hours post aerosolization.” It was detectable in the air for up to three hours, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard, and 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.

Health professionals recommend you remain at least 6 feet away from others, but an investigation by researchers led by a team at the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in Beijing, published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, an open-access peer-reviewed journal published monthly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said droplets can spread up to 13 feet.

The life span of the virus will also vary, depending on the type of surface it is on, temperature and/or humidity. Bathrooms are a welcoming environment for coronaviruses. “Previous coronaviruses can remain viable in cold, moist surfaces up to nine days,” Ostrosky said. So if you are sharing a home with someone who has coronavirus, he strongly advises against sharing the same bathroom. …

… The terminal velocity of a falling coronavirus droplet scales as the square of its diameter, the latest study concluded. “Once airborne, speech-generated droplets rapidly dehydrate due to evaporation, thereby decreasing in size and slowing their fall,” they wrote. The volume of the speech, age of the speaker and dehydration of the oral cavity during breathing all play a role.

[SessionDrummer]

DT News - India - New estimate by CDC reduces COVID-19 ...

New estimate by CDC reduces COVID-19 death rate to just 0.26% (IFR) from WHO’s 3.4% (CFR)

For the first time, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has given a realistic estimate of the overall death rate for COVID-19, which in its most likely scenario is 0.26 %. They estimate a 0.4 % fatality rate among the symptomatic cases. If you consider their projection that 35% of all infected cases remain asymptomatic, the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) drops to just 0.26 %. This is almost exactly what the Stanford researchers had projected in April 2020.

[Raven-Knightly]

(CDC, May 23, 2020):

“Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing -
Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing
in Clinical and Public Health Settings”

… in a population where the prevalence is 5%, a test with 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity will yield a positive predictive value of 49% . In other words, less than half of those testing positive will truly have antibodies.

.

(Axios, May 21, 2020):

“CDC chief: States’ coronavirus data “regularly” incomplete or delayed”

Essential data to track the spread of the novel coronavirus in the U.S. is regularly delayed and incomplete when sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Director Robert Redfield told the Financial Times on Wednesday.

… Redfield told the FT the outbreak that’s brought the “nation to its knees” is "no one particular person’s fault. “This nation has been unprepared for that for decades,” he said.

.

(Buzz Feed News, May 27, 2020):

“The CDC Released New Death Rate Estimates For The Coronavirus.
Many Scientists Say They’re Too Low”

New CDC estimates of coronavirus death rates look suspiciously low and present almost no data to back them up, say public health experts who are concerned that the agency is buckling under political pressure to restart the economy. … Researchers also lambasted the CDC’s lack of transparency about its data sources. The eight-page document disclosed almost nothing about its numbers, citing only internal data and a preprint - a study that has not been peer-reviewed - led by scientists in Iran. … The CDC did not return multiple requests for comment. … estimates in hot spots outside the US are higher than CDC’s deadliest estimate.

… the CDC document provided almost no sources for its projections, making it impossible for scientists to understand how it came up with them. The white paper, posted May 20, states that it is based on “data received by CDC” prior to April 29, and its death rate projections on “preliminary COVID-19 estimates, CDC.” The only coronavirus-related study cited is a preprint about the virus’s incubation period, led by Iranian researchers and released nearly two months ago. The CDC did not respond to questions about its data sources or why the preprint was the only coronavirus study cited. (The paper’s lead scientist in Iran also did not return a request for comment.)

[Raven-Knightly]

(New York Times, May 28, 2020):

“What’s the Risk of Catching Coronavirus From a Surface? -
Touching contaminated objects and then infecting ourselves
with the germs is not typically how the virus spreads. But it can happen.”

[Raven-Knightly]

(New York Times, May 28, 2020):

“The World Is Still Far From Herd Immunity for Coronavirus”

The coronavirus still has a long way to go. That’s the message from a crop of new studies across the world that are trying to quantify how many people have been infected. Official case counts often substantially underestimate the number of coronavirus infections. But in new studies that test the population more broadly, the percentage of people who have been infected so far is still in the single digits. The numbers are a fraction of the threshold known as herd immunity, at which the virus can no longer spread widely. The precise herd immunity threshold for the novel coronavirus is not yet clear; but several experts said they believed it would be higher than 60 percent.

Even in some of the hardest-hit cities in the world, the studies suggest, the vast majority of people still remain vulnerable to the virus. Some countries - notably Sweden, and briefly Britain - have experimented with limited lockdowns in an effort to build up immunity in their populations. But even in these places, recent studies indicate that no more than 7 to 17 percent of people have been infected so far. In New York City, which has had the largest coronavirus outbreak in the United States, around 20 percent of the city’s residents have been infected by the virus as of early May, according to a survey of people in grocery stores and community centers released by the governor’s office. Similar surveys are underway in China, where the coronavirus first emerged, but results have not yet been reported. A study from a single hospital in the city of Wuhan found that about 10 percent of people seeking to go back to work had been infected with the virus. …

… The herd immunity threshold may differ from place to place, depending on factors like density and social interaction, he said. But, on average, experts say it will require at least 60 percent immunity in the population. If the disease spreads more easily than is currently believed, the number could be higher. If there is a lot of variation in people’s likelihood of becoming infected when they are exposed, that could push the number down.

All estimates of herd immunity assume that a past infection will protect people from becoming sick a second time. There is suggestive evidence that people do achieve immunity to the coronavirus, but it is not yet certain whether that is true in all cases; how robust the immunity may be; or how long it will last.

[Raven-Knightly]

(NPR, May 28, 2020):

“COVID-19 Has Killed Close To 300 U.S. Health Care Workers,
New Data From CDC Shows”

More than 60,000 health care workers have been infected, and close to 300 have died from COVID-19, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The numbers mark a staggering increase from six weeks ago when the CDC first released data on coronavirus infections and deaths among nurses, doctors, pharmacists, EMTs, technicians and other medical employees. On April 15, the agency reported 27 deaths and > 9,000 cases of infection in health care workers.

The latest tally doesn’t provide a full picture of illness in this essential workforce, because only 21% of the case reports sent to the CDC included information that could help identify the patient as a health care worker. Among known health care workers, there was also missing information about how many of those people actually died. …

… A recent NNU survey of 23,000 nurses found that more than 80% had not yet been tested for the coronavirus. Across the country, many nurses say they still don’t have enough personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks and gowns and are required to reuse N95 masks and other supplies - practices that were considered substandard before the pandemic. Many hospitals and nursing homes continue to operate with inadequate supplies and are rationing them.

[Raven-Knightly]

(The Guardian, May 27, 2020):

“French tests show even mild coronavirus illness leads to antibodies -
Study raises hope of immunity even for those without severe symptoms”

A medical study in France suggests even mild cases of coronavirus infection, not requiring hospital treatment, produce antibodies in almost all patients, with the body’s defences against the virus increasing during the weeks of recovery. The research, led by a team from the Pasteur Institute, raises hopes that everyone who has had the disease could acquire some degree of immunity, although it is not clear for how long or to what degree.

.

(The Jerusalem Post, May 28, 2020):

“COVID-19 immunity lasts only six months, reinfection possible - study”

Getting re-infected by the novel coronavirus could be possible within six months of recovery, according to a new study published by a team in Amsterdam. If that is the case, then Israel’s hope of testing 1 million Israelis for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 partially to keep the economy open in any subsequent rounds may be shattered.

A team of 13 researchers from the country located in the Western Netherlands recently uploaded a paper to Medrxiv, an internet site that distributes unpublished manuscripts about health sciences, after monitoring 10 subjects who had contracted at least one of four species of seasonal coronaviruses over a time span of 35 years (1985 to 2020). In “Human coronavirus reinfection dynamics: lessons for SARS‐CoV‐2,” they claim that “an alarmingly short duration of protective immunity to coronaviruses was found… We saw frequent reinfections at 12 months post‐infection and substantial reduction in antibody levels as soon as 6 months …”

.

(New York Magazine, May 27, 2020):

“Here’s the Latest Good (and Bad) News About the Coronavirus”

Coronavirus patients cease to be infectious two weeks after developing symptoms. This was already conventional wisdom. But a new study from Singapore fortifies the consensus by finding that 100 percent of its 73 observed coronavirus sufferers ceased to have a viable virus in their bodies 11 days after the onset of symptoms.

… The coronavirus’s mutations don’t appear to have made it more infectious.
Viruses evolve constantly. And SARS-CoV-2 is no exception: According to researchers at University College London (UCL), the novel coronavirus has produced 273 mutations; of these, 31 have become prevalent. One nightmare scenario for SARS-CoV-2 is that it will evolve into something even more lethal and infectious, as the 1918 influenza virus did before its devastating second wave. Fortunately, a new study from UCL indicates that none of the 31 prevalent mutations of the novel coronavirus are more virulent than the original brand. …

… The evidence that people who contract the coronavirus develop immunity-conferring antibodies is steadily growing. Last week’s roundup included multiple studies indicating that COVID-19 survivors develop neutralizing antibodies and thus face no immediate risk of reinfection (how long such immunity lasts remains unclear). Now, a study of 160 French doctors and nurses who contracted mild cases of COVID-19 finds that 159 possessed neutralizing antibodies 41 days after showing symptoms. This is significant because many have feared that mild cases of COVID-19 might be insufficient to confer immunity. …

… Herd immunity will take a lot more time and death to achieve than Sweden had hoped. … Things aren’t working out as planned. The Swedish economy has suffered roughly as severe a downturn as that of Denmark. And in recent days, it’s had the highest per-capita coronavirus death rate in Europe. Until last week, defenders of the Swedish strategy could still argue that it might pay off eventually: The policy was never intended to minimize coronavirus deaths in the immediate term, after all. And if keeping things open gets Sweden to herd immunity faster than other countries do, then the strategy could yield an aberrantly high fatality rate in the early months of the pandemic but an exceptionally low one over its full duration. Unfortunately for Sweden - and for anyone hoping America’s reopenings will get us to herd immunity in short order - a recent study of residents in Stockholm found that just 7.3 percent of people in the Swedish city possessed COVID-19 antibodies in late April. …

… In the developing world, young people are dying from COVID-19 at unprecedented rates. In wealthy countries, COVID-19 deaths have been overwhelmingly concentrated among the old. But as the novel coronavirus gains ground in less prosperous places, fatality rates are rising among the young. … this alarming trend appears more attributable to grotesque international inequalities than to any viral mutation: Due to high levels of extreme poverty and underfunded health systems, many young people who would recover from COVID-19 with proper medical care are dying in the developing world without it. …

… Even as America reopens, half of its states have uncontrolled coronavirus spread. A study from the Imperial College of London suggests that 24 U.S. states have an R higher than one - meaning that, on average, every person infected with the novel coronavirus gives the bug to at least one other person. Meanwhile, a separate, peer-reviewed study published in Health Affairs indicates that areas of the U.S. that refused to impose social-distancing orders saw 35 times greater spread of the novel coronavirus than those that did implement such orders. …

… On a global level, the daily count of new coronavirus infections is as high as it’s ever been. Worldwide, the number of new, confirmed coronavirus cases is growing by about 100,000 a day, which is the highest sustained rate of new infections we’ve seen since the pandemic began.

.

(New York Times, May 28, 2020):

“Coronavirus Pandemic’s Spread Quickens: Live Coverage”

“Even as countries move to reopen, the pandemic is growing at a faster pace.”

The coronavirus pandemic’s pace is quickening worldwide, with nearly 700,000 new known infections reported in the last week after the pathogen found greater footholds in Latin America and the Gulf states. …

… The increases in some countries can be attributed to improved testing programs. In others, though, it appears that the virus has only now arrived with wide scope and fatal force. … Outbreaks have accelerated especially sharply in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, with caseloads doubling in some countries about every two weeks. On Tuesday, the World Health Organization said it considered the Americas to be the new epicenter of the pandemic. And although much of the Middle East seemed to avert early catastrophe even as the virus ravaged Iran, case counts have lately been swelling in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. …

… new studies suggest that even in some of the world’s hardest-hit cities, the vast majority of people remain vulnerable to the virus. Researchers said it is possible that percentage of people who have been infected so far is still in single digits. …

… In the United States, where the virus death toll has surpassed 100,000, large-scale testing did not happen as the virus spread with ferocity from late January to early March. The result was a lost month, when the world’s richest country - armed with some of the best-trained scientists and infectious disease specialists - missed a chance to contain the virus’s spread. But even countries that have provided ample testing have not escaped second-wave infections.

[Raven-Knightly]

Social factors in the USA that would undermine the effectiveness of any vaccine. Some who are immune-compromised (in highest risk groups) may have concerns - as “under” (or “over”) active immune-systems may not respond as will be intended.

.

(Associated Press, May 28, 2020):

“Expectations for a COVID-19 Vaccine”

Twenty percent of Americans anticipate that a COVID-19 vaccine will be available to the public before the end of the year, while 61% expect it during 2021 and only 17% think it will take longer than that.

If a vaccine against coronavirus becomes available to the public, 49% say they plan to get vaccinated, and 20% say they will not. Another 31% are not sure. A 2019 survey conducted for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases found a similar number, 52%, planned to get vaccinated against the flu that season. …

… Among all Americans, 79% say that a vaccine is an important criteria for re-opening activities and businesses in their area, including 46% who say it’s essential for re-opening and 33% who say it’s important but not essential. Among those that feel a vaccine is essential for a safe re-opening, 65% would get immunized when a vaccine is available.

Those planning to get the vaccine are doing so primarily to protect themselves and their families. But many also want to protect their community and believe widespread vaccination is necessary for life to go back to normal.

Among the 20% of Americans who say they will not get the vaccine, concern about side effects is overwhelmingly the top reason for avoiding the vaccine:

Source: http://www.apnorc.org/projects/PublishingImages/052620_g3.JPG

[Raven-Knightly]

(Josh Bloom, ACSH, May 27, 2020):

“Put Your Money On A COVID Drug Before A Vaccine”

[Mew]

Eerily beyond the grave words from George Carlin about the virus.

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

[anon84779643]

So…

Who all is going? They dont have things like this where I am at… gee…

Huge post-coronavirus orgy planned to end ‘longest dry spell in all of history’

[muth]

I was on interferon for hep c. Physically I was somewhat okay but what it did to my mind was a whole other story. Aside from the brief suicidal moment the rest of it was like living in a Twilight Zone episode that I’ll never forget. I would have the most disturbing and strange images in “my mind’s eye” (not hallucinations) that wouldn’t go away. I gave it a name, Spikey, because when it first started I saw little black holes in my arm that quickly grew out into long black spikes. Then one day I was looking at my cat and his fur was gone, just skin, and the little black spikes started growing out of his entire body. I had to look away. They said I would be normal again when it was all over. Am I? Long term effects screw with your autoimmune system, for instance. A few years back I developed Grave’s Disease. No hereditary link to my family. I’m in remission now. Hmm, covid or interferon?