"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

[Jarhyn]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-i...-to-serious-covid-cases-within-days-hospital/

So by the looks of it, a fairly cheap treatment for cytokine storm, EXO-CD24 has proved massively successful in preventing fatal outcomes in Covid 19 infection.

Given the fact that the primary mode of action is in preventing autoimmune issues, and is capable of being targeted specifically at the lungs, this may be the turning point on lethality.

It's a small sample, but a very reputable hospital that is reporting these results. It may soon be the case that EXO-CD24 is going to be considered as an effective treatment, in addition to other broad treatments against cytokine storm in general.

 

[Treedbear]

Daily COVID deaths [in the USA] topped 5000 for the first time ever. Also, the DJIA finished up 92. (PBS NewsHour)

 

[barbos]

Daily COVID deaths [in the USA] topped 5000 for the first time ever. Also, the DJIA finished up 92. (PBS NewsHour)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ does not show that.

Saw reporting in the news somewhere, apparently they still don't test you if you don't show specific C19 symptoms and there are people with C19 who have only common cold symptoms. Article did not specify whether or not they eventually develop C19 symptoms. I had Common Cold couple of months ago, makes me wonder now. I had exactly same symptoms I always have and took exactly same amount of time to fully recover (7 days). The only thing which was unusual was a slight temperature, but it was barely noticeable and for very short time. I don't have temperature with common cold.

 

[Jarhyn]

Daily COVID deaths [in the USA] topped 5000 for the first time ever. Also, the DJIA finished up 92. (PBS NewsHour)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ does not show that.

Saw reporting in the news somewhere, apparently they still don't test you if you don't show specific C19 symptoms and there are people with C19 who have only common cold symptoms. Article did not specify whether or not they eventually develop C19 symptoms. I had Common Cold couple of months ago, makes me wonder now. I had exactly same symptoms I always have and took exactly same amount of time to fully recover (7 days). The only thing which was unusual was a slight temperature, but it was barely noticeable and for very short time. I don't have temperature with common cold.

Maybe you should consider getting an antibody test, if that's a thing that you have available there?

 

[barbos]

Daily COVID deaths [in the USA] topped 5000 for the first time ever. Also, the DJIA finished up 92. (PBS NewsHour)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ does not show that.

Saw reporting in the news somewhere, apparently they still don't test you if you don't show specific C19 symptoms and there are people with C19 who have only common cold symptoms. Article did not specify whether or not they eventually develop C19 symptoms. I had Common Cold couple of months ago, makes me wonder now. I had exactly same symptoms I always have and took exactly same amount of time to fully recover (7 days). The only thing which was unusual was a slight temperature, but it was barely noticeable and for very short time. I don't have temperature with common cold.

Maybe you should consider getting an antibody test, if that's a thing that you have available there?

That would be a waste of resources on a result which would be scientifically and statistically insignificant.
Someone should make a study and actually determine full spectrum of symptoms during C19 infection.

And from what I know, mild C19 does not produce any or lasting antibodies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you should consider getting an antibody test, if that's a thing that you have available there?

That would be a waste of resources on a result which would be scientifically and statistically insignificant.
Someone should make a study and actually determine full spectrum of symptoms during C19 infection.

And from what I know, mild C19 does not produce any or lasting antibodies.

It does produce lasting antibodies, they are just generally at lower levels, and you may not have all of them, you may only have 1 or 2 at detectable levels.

As to what it tells you, it tells you your chances of being reinfected, and whether or not you need to worry about seeking vaccination at this time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, this is confusing me.

This question is extremely important for how the next few months play out. If the coronavirus vaccine prevents transmission to a large degree — what scientists call “sterilizing immunity” — then those who have received both doses can live largely normal lives. A vaccinated person could visit family, friends, travel the world, all without guilt.

However, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission — called “effective immunity” — then those who have received it can still get the virus and pass it on to others. That would mean a responsible vaccinated person would still take major precautions, wary of spreading the disease before everyone (or at least most) could be vaccinated.

Oh... no, I get the above, what I don't get is why we don't know if the vaccines are sterilizing or effective. The nature of this virus would seem to greatly require us to know this, as mutations are a serious threat still, if the bug is bouncing around because we aren't getting sick, but infecting one another.

So, why in the heck weren't those in the study routinely tested, I don't know either weekly for the virus or monthly for antibodies? Why don't we have an answer for the above? Was it merely because they didn't have a large enough testing pool?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Okay, this is confusing me.

This question is extremely important for how the next few months play out. If the coronavirus vaccine prevents transmission to a large degree — what scientists call “sterilizing immunity” — then those who have received both doses can live largely normal lives. A vaccinated person could visit family, friends, travel the world, all without guilt.

However, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission — called “effective immunity” — then those who have received it can still get the virus and pass it on to others. That would mean a responsible vaccinated person would still take major precautions, wary of spreading the disease before everyone (or at least most) could be vaccinated.

Oh... no, I get the above, what I don't get is why we don't know if the vaccines are sterilizing or effective. The nature of this virus would seem to greatly require us to know this, as mutations are a serious threat still, if the bug is bouncing around because we aren't getting sick, but infecting one another.

So, why in the heck weren't those in the study routinely tested, I don't know either weekly for the virus or monthly for antibodies? Why don't we have an answer for the above? Was it merely because they didn't have a large enough testing pool?

The simple answer is: There hasn't been enough time. This effect is being studied, extensively, we just don't have the data yet.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Okay, this is confusing me.

This question is extremely important for how the next few months play out. If the coronavirus vaccine prevents transmission to a large degree — what scientists call “sterilizing immunity” — then those who have received both doses can live largely normal lives. A vaccinated person could visit family, friends, travel the world, all without guilt.

However, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission — called “effective immunity” — then those who have received it can still get the virus and pass it on to others. That would mean a responsible vaccinated person would still take major precautions, wary of spreading the disease before everyone (or at least most) could be vaccinated.

Oh... no, I get the above, what I don't get is why we don't know if the vaccines are sterilizing or effective. The nature of this virus would seem to greatly require us to know this, as mutations are a serious threat still, if the bug is bouncing around because we aren't getting sick, but infecting one another.

So, why in the heck weren't those in the study routinely tested, I don't know either weekly for the virus or monthly for antibodies? Why don't we have an answer for the above? Was it merely because they didn't have a large enough testing pool?

The simple answer is: There hasn't been enough time. This effect is being studied, extensively, we just don't have the data yet.

Presumably, we would also need to have a pretty good contact tracing program to understand if the vaccinated people are spreading the virus.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay, this is confusing me.

This question is extremely important for how the next few months play out. If the coronavirus vaccine prevents transmission to a large degree — what scientists call “sterilizing immunity” — then those who have received both doses can live largely normal lives. A vaccinated person could visit family, friends, travel the world, all without guilt.

However, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission — called “effective immunity” — then those who have received it can still get the virus and pass it on to others. That would mean a responsible vaccinated person would still take major precautions, wary of spreading the disease before everyone (or at least most) could be vaccinated.

Oh... no, I get the above, what I don't get is why we don't know if the vaccines are sterilizing or effective. The nature of this virus would seem to greatly require us to know this, as mutations are a serious threat still, if the bug is bouncing around because we aren't getting sick, but infecting one another.

And note that that still doesn't tell you if it's sterilizing immunity or not. Due to the danger of Covid you can't conduct tests in which you deliberately expose someone, thus all you can do is observe what happens--and without basically 100% effective contact tracing you have no way to figure out if those who are vaccinated can still spread it. The places that can actually accomplish this have so few Covid cases that they don't make reasonable areas to conduct a Phase III trial in.

So, why in the heck weren't those in the study routinely tested, I don't know either weekly for the virus or monthly for antibodies? Why don't we have an answer for the above? Was it merely because they didn't have a large enough testing pool?

Tests are in short supply, you want to use up a million tests for very little information? Remember, the tests can't tell the difference between live virus and dead virus--if the virus comes along and your body promptly kills it you still might test positive.

And the antibody tests are problematic--there's a cold virus that's similar enough to Covid to cause false positives with the antibody test.

 

[Jokodo]

And note that that still doesn't tell you if it's sterilizing immunity or not. Due to the danger of Covid you can't conduct tests in which you deliberately expose someone, thus all you can do is observe what happens--and without basically 100% effective contact tracing you have no way to figure out if those who are vaccinated can still spread it. The places that can actually accomplish this have so few Covid cases that they don't make reasonable areas to conduct a Phase III trial in.

So, why in the heck weren't those in the study routinely tested, I don't know either weekly for the virus or monthly for antibodies? Why don't we have an answer for the above? Was it merely because they didn't have a large enough testing pool?

Tests are in short supply, you want to use up a million tests for very little information? Remember, the tests can't tell the difference between live virus and dead virus--if the virus comes along and your body promptly kills it you still might test positive.

And the antibody tests are problematic--there's a cold virus that's similar enough to Covid to cause false positives with the antibody test.

I'm pretty sure there is no cold virus that's at all similar to Covid - though there are several that are pretty similar to SARS-CoV-2.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that that still doesn't tell you if it's sterilizing immunity or not. Due to the danger of Covid you can't conduct tests in which you deliberately expose someone, thus all you can do is observe what happens--and without basically 100% effective contact tracing you have no way to figure out if those who are vaccinated can still spread it. The places that can actually accomplish this have so few Covid cases that they don't make reasonable areas to conduct a Phase III trial in.

So, why in the heck weren't those in the study routinely tested, I don't know either weekly for the virus or monthly for antibodies? Why don't we have an answer for the above? Was it merely because they didn't have a large enough testing pool?

Tests are in short supply, you want to use up a million tests for very little information? Remember, the tests can't tell the difference between live virus and dead virus--if the virus comes along and your body promptly kills it you still might test positive.

And the antibody tests are problematic--there's a cold virus that's similar enough to Covid to cause false positives with the antibody test.

I'm pretty sure there is no cold virus that's at all similar to Covid - though there are several that are pretty similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Close enough to cause a false positive doesn't mean the disease is similar.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm pretty sure there is no cold virus that's at all similar to Covid - though there are several that are pretty similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Close enough to cause a false positive doesn't mean the disease is similar.

You're missing my point (or my not pick, if you will). You were talking about the virus, Covid is the disease, so... category error.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm pretty sure there is no cold virus that's at all similar to Covid - though there are several that are pretty similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Close enough to cause a false positive doesn't mean the disease is similar.

You're missing my point (or my not pick, if you will). You were talking about the virus, Covid is the disease, so... category error.

I'm not a virologist. We commonly refer to the virus with the name of the disease.

 

[blastula]

Paul Offit was on TWiV and talked about the covid vaccines. He's an infectious disease doc who's also a member of the FDA Advisory Committee that reviews vaccines. You might also know him because he's been involved with CSI (the skeptic group) and speaks publicly about vaccine safety.

TWiV 720: With vaccines, Offit is on it

It's a 2 hour episode, but he's only in the first half and only talks about covid from about 18 min to 59 min (in the audio version). He gives good information, I'll go over some of it.

For those concerned about vaccine safety or that they were rushed, the trial sizes of about 30k-40k is typical for vaccine trials and the safety follow-up time was also typical for prior vaccines. The reason vaccines typically take longer for FDA licensure is for determining efficacy not safety. The covid vaccines were approved under emergency use authorization because of the pandemic, they haven't been licensed by the FDA. But any serious side effects are always picked up within 6 weeks of a dose, and they had 2 months of follow-up after the second dose of the mrna ones. The uncertainty here is not over safety but on how long it’s effective -- for efficacy of a vaccine months or years out, need to study it for that long. But he’s confident these vaccines will be effective for much longer than the time they were tested.

He's encouraged seeing cases decreasing now in the middle of February since it’s a winter respiratory virus. Believes it’s because of the numbers that have immunity, estimates that about 35% of US has protection from disease, combining actual recovered cases and the number of vaccinated.

What could change this is if a variant comes out that is truly resistant to the vaccine and natural immunity, meaning could infect and cause severe disease. None of the variants (UK, RSA, Brazil) out now have been found to have such resistance to the vaccines.

On sterilizing immunity, he says that's rare for any vaccine, can think of only one like that, but does believe that those vaccinated for covid should shed less and so transmit less. If define herd immunity as completely eliminating virus, the vaccines won’t achieve it, but if define it as getting to point of living with a certain degree of hospitalizations and death, then yes.

He's also impressed that the flu this year is basically gone, typically about 150-200 children die each year, but this year so far one has died from it. Says social distancing works, maybe should keep doing it in some respects after all this.

 

[repoman]

These kids will have piss poor all around immunity going forward,

 

[repoman]

 

[southernhybrid]

There's a new scary mutation!

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/health/virus-oregon-variant.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=622515074&impression_id=41bfecb0-7de2-11eb-a0e6-af3802be099b&index=0&pgtype=Article&region=footer&req_id=118621057&surface=most-popular-story&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces

Scientists in Oregon have spotted a homegrown version of a fast-spreading variant of the coronavirus that first surfaced in Britain — but now combined with a mutation that may make the variant less susceptible to vaccines.

The researchers have so far found just a single case of this formidable combination, but genetic analysis suggested that the variant had been acquired in the community and did not arise in the patient.

“We didn’t import this from elsewhere in the world — it occurred spontaneously,” said Brian O’Roak, a geneticist at Oregon Health and Science University who led the work. He and his colleagues participate in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s effort to track variants, and they have deposited their results in databases shared by scientists.

The new version that surfaced in Portland has the same backbone, but also a mutation — E484K, or “Eek” — seen in variants of the virus circulating in South Africa, Brazil and New York City.

Lab studies and clinical trials in South Africa indicate that the Eek mutation renders the current vaccines less effective by blunting the body’s immune response. (The vaccines still work, but the findings are worrying enough that Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have begun testing new versions of their vaccines designed to defeat the variant found in South Africa.)

 

[George S]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/health/virus-oregon-variant.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=622515074&impression_id=41bfecb0-7de2-11eb-a0e6-af3802be099b&index=0&pgtype=Article®ion=footer&req_id=118621057&surface=most-popular-story&variant=0_bandit-all-surfaces

Scientists in Oregon have spotted a homegrown version of a fast-spreading variant of the coronavirus that first surfaced in Britain — but now combined with a mutation that may make the variant less susceptible to vaccines.

The researchers have so far found just a single case of this formidable combination, but genetic analysis suggested that the variant had been acquired in the community and did not arise in the patient.

“We didn’t import this from elsewhere in the world — it occurred spontaneously,” said Brian O’Roak, a geneticist at Oregon Health and Science University who led the work. He and his colleagues participate in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s effort to track variants, and they have deposited their results in databases shared by scientists.

The new version that surfaced in Portland has the same backbone, but also a mutation — E484K, or “Eek” — seen in variants of the virus circulating in South Africa, Brazil and New York City.

Lab studies and clinical trials in South Africa indicate that the Eek mutation renders the current vaccines less effective by blunting the body’s immune response. (The vaccines still work, but the findings are worrying enough that Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have begun testing new versions of their vaccines designed to defeat the variant found in South Africa.)

There is the California mutation. There is the NY mutation. And now Seattle.

Lockdowns and masking were designed to slow the spread to (1) avoid hospital overloading, (2) defer infections giving time for good treatment protocols to emerge, (3) time for a vaccine to be found.
An unintended consequence was to provide billions of chances for mutation. The damn thing has, through blind chance, found a way to modify their spike protein so the immune system doesn't recognize it making the mRNA vaccine shooting for the target that is no longer there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is the California mutation. There is the NY mutation. And now Seattle.

Lockdowns and masking were designed to slow the spread to (1) avoid hospital overloading, (2) defer infections giving time for good treatment protocols to emerge, (3) time for a vaccine to be found.
An unintended consequence was to provide billions of chances for mutation. The damn thing has, through blind chance, found a way to modify their spike protein so the immune system doesn't recognize it making the mRNA vaccine shooting for the target that is no longer there.

No--slowing it down doesn't increase the number of mutations. That's based on the number of people infected, not the time period over which they are infected.