COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...

[mdMoose]

Ive seen work that puts the mortality rate for under 60 at 0.0375 and over 60 at 0.8250.

We need to stop over hyping this, protect the vulnerable and get back to life.

So you want to ignore a virus that (according to the math you’ve seen) is killing 82.5% of those aged +60. Boomer Genocide

 

[RU4Real]

Florida's current hospitalization for Covid-19 is 472 with 232 in the ICU. FWIW, the covid tracking project, which compiles all of this information and the accuracy of which I have not seen questioned, gives Florida an "A+" in the amount of data it is making publicly available.

https://covidtracking.com/data/state/florida

And yet none of the hospitalization numbers are available on the Florida dashboard that your link is identifying as "Best data source". Which begs the question of where they're getting the numbers.

Also, for everyone celebrating Florida's great accomplishment, I took the liberty of ingesting their day-to-day inpatient census numbers from your link and produced this graph, which frankly fails to suggest that they're #winning.

 

[Upstream]

Florida's current hospitalization for Covid-19 is 472 with 232 in the ICU. FWIW, the covid tracking project, which compiles all of this information and the accuracy of which I have not seen questioned, gives Florida an "A+" in the amount of data it is making publicly available.

https://covidtracking.com/data/state/florida

According to the data on that site, the number of people hospitalized in Florida has increased by 535 in the past 3 days. The only way that there can currently be 472 hospitalized is if everyone hospitalized more than 3 days ago has been discharged, and another 11% of those hospitalized in the past 3 days have also been discharged within 3 days of being admitted.

Needless to say, the hospitalization data on that site is extremely suspect.

 

[Akron Buck]

I know some people on here say hydrochloroquine doesnt work but this study says when used with zinc it may help boost the zinc activity which does help.


https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...thromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths

 

[T2Kplus10]

Florida's current hospitalization for Covid-19 is 472 with 232 in the ICU. FWIW, the covid tracking project, which compiles all of this information and the accuracy of which I have not seen questioned, gives Florida an "A+" in the amount of data it is making publicly available.

https://covidtracking.com/data/state/florida

+1
FL is doing an excellent job managing the virus.

 

[RU4Real]

+1
FL is doing an excellent job managing the virus.

I guess my latest post isn't something that you cared to read because it doesn't support your fantasy.

 

[Akron Buck]

So does anyone buy this? Does nicotine really help against the virus

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...-smokers-from-catching-coronavirus-2020-04-24

 

[RU4Real]

So does anyone buy this? Does nicotine really help against the virus

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...-smokers-from-catching-coronavirus-2020-04-24

I think we need to understand "not statistically proportionate".

 

[RU848789]

Just want to revisit this point, as I think it is a good one, in regards to states that have opened up.

Texas is seeing a jump in cases, 1600 yesterday was their highest total to date. Now as I noted above you have to consider they are likely testing more people, but you also have to consider that in a state as big as Texas, and similarly for Florida, that # is likely a level their health care system can handle, especially if, as I would suspect, it has been beefed up in preparation for reopening.

I think everyone was aware that the #'s were going to increase, and that includes deaths, but will those #'s go beyond a level a state's system can handle.

Will be interesting to see if any state can keep the virus out of their LTC's, not many states have proven proficient in this regard thus far.

Below is my most succinct attempt to summarize the current and likely future situation in the US and it's still 3 paragraphs. Hard to boil multivariate highly complex situations down to a single sentence, although here's my best attempt at that: Do we go back to almost-normal with targeted protection of vulnerable populations, accepting moderately high overall deaths or do we go with aggressive interventions to significantly reduce all deaths, while slowly achieving a new normal via more government intervention/control and changes to individual behaviors?

If the virus works the way that most novel viruses work, it will infect everyone up until herd immunity is reached (most think that's 50-80%, but there are a few "outlying" experts who think it could be as low as 20-40%) and will likely kill somewhere between 0.5-1.0% of the overall population infected, as we've seen in NY (where we have statewide antibody data, so we have a decent estimate of the infection fatality ratio for the ~15% infected - it's about 0.7-0.9%, depending on how many deaths one includes, which has been debated), which translates to 1-2MM deaths in the US eventually, unless we develop a cure or vaccine.

So interventions, like testing/tracing/isolating and mask-wearing and social distancing, not only combine to slow transmissions to prevent overwhelming hospitals, but they can greatly slow the death rate, meaning flattening the curve isn't just about the health care system, i.e., it can buy time, saving many lives until we have cure/vaccine. Transmissions can be slowed to near zero (R0<<1) in countries that practice these things very well, to a controllable rate without overwhelming hospitals, as we've seen in much of Europe and the US (R0 likely 1-2), after that first wave. Even with no interventions, rural and many suburban areas might take 18-24 months to achieve herd immunity (via a long slow, steady burn), whereas densely populated areas might achieve it in 6 months.

The fundamental question before all of us is whether we "give up on society wide efforts" and just let people get the virus naturally, doing our best to protect the ~50MM over 65 and the ~50MM from 45-64 with underlying conditions (very hard to selectively protect 100MM people) or do we invest in the kind of "intervention infrastructure" (testing/tracing/isolating) and behavioral changes, such as masks/SD (which some do not or will not like) required to get to South Korea/Taiwan et al levels of nearly full containment of the virus (with the infrastructure allowing stamping out of flare-ups) until there's a cure/vaccine, while having almost everyone back at work and school (but not the old normal)? It looks like we have the NE US and West Coast taking the latter approach and much of the rest of the US likely taking the former approach. A grand societal experiment, so to speak, with high uncertainty error bars on each outcome and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at stake.

 

[Akron Buck]

Below is my most succinct attempt to summarize the current situation in the US and it's still 3 paragraphs. Hard to boil multivariate highly complex situations down to a single sentence, although here's my best attempt at that: Do we go back to almost-normal with targeted protection of vulnerable populations, accepting moderately high overall deaths or do we go with aggressive interventions to significantly reduce all deaths, while slowly achieving a new normal via more government intervention/control and changes to individual behaviors?

If the virus works the way that most novel viruses work, it will infect everyone up until herd immunity is reached (most think that's 50-80%, but there are a few "outlying" experts who think it could be as low as 20-40%) and will likely kill somewhere between 0.5-1.0% of the overall population infected, as we've seen in NY (where we have statewide antibody data, so we have a decent estimate of the infection fatality ratio for the ~15% infected - it's about 0.7-0.9%, depending on how many deaths one includes, which has been debated), which translates to 1-2MM deaths in the US eventually, unless we develop a cure or vaccine.

So interventions, like testing/tracing/isolating and mask-wearing and social distancing, not only combine to slow transmissions to prevent overwhelming hospitals, but they can greatly slow the death rate, meaning flattening the curve isn't just about the health care system, i.e., it can buy time, saving many lives until we have cure/vaccine. Transmissions can be slowed to near zero (R0<<1) in countries that practice these things very well, to a controllable rate without overwhelming hospitals, as we've seen in much of Europe and the US (R0 likely 1-2), after that first wave. Even with no interventions, rural and many suburban areas might take 18-24 months to achieve herd immunity (via a long slow, steady burn), whereas densely populated areas might achieve it in 6 months.

The fundamental question before all of us is whether we "give up on society wide efforts" and just let people get the virus naturally, doing our best to protect the ~50MM over 65 and the ~50MM from 45-64 with underlying conditions (very hard to selectively protect 100MM people) or do we invest in the kind of "intervention infrastructure" (testing/tracing/isolating) and behavioral changes, such as masks/SD (which some do not or will not like) required to get to South Korea/Taiwan et al levels of nearly full containment of the virus (with the infrastructure allowing stamping out of flare-ups) until there's a cure/vaccine, while having almost everyone back at work and school (but not the old normal)? It looks like we have the NE US and West Coast taking the latter approach and much of the rest of the US likely taking the former approach. A grand societal experiment, so to speak, with high uncertainty error bars on each outcome and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at stake.

In addition hopefully something is found that significantly impacts the mortality rate whether remdesivir, one of the other drugs being looked at, or another drug that could knock it down to more of a flu like impact.

 

[RUBOB72]

So you want to ignore a virus that (according to the math you’ve seen) is killing 82.5% of those aged +60. Boomer Genocide

That is not exactly true...82.5 % of that figure give us an actual morbidity rate by age groupings ... percentage in 60’s ... 70’s ...80’s...I’m saying much more are 75 and up... unless you are compromised...throw these numbers out and then Boomers can hide...

 

[RU-05]

Below is my most succinct attempt to summarize the current situation in the US and it's still 3 paragraphs. Hard to boil multivariate highly complex situations down to a single sentence, although here's my best attempt at that: Do we go back to almost-normal with targeted protection of vulnerable populations, accepting moderately high overall deaths or do we go with aggressive interventions to significantly reduce all deaths, while slowly achieving a new normal via more government intervention/control and changes to individual behaviors?

If the virus works the way that most novel viruses work, it will infect everyone up until herd immunity is reached (most think that's 50-80%, but there are a few "outlying" experts who think it could be as low as 20-40%) and will likely kill somewhere between 0.5-1.0% of the overall population infected, as we've seen in NY (where we have statewide antibody data, so we have a decent estimate of the infection fatality ratio for the ~15% infected - it's about 0.7-0.9%, depending on how many deaths one includes, which has been debated), which translates to 1-2MM deaths in the US eventually, unless we develop a cure or vaccine.

So interventions, like testing/tracing/isolating and mask-wearing and social distancing, not only combine to slow transmissions to prevent overwhelming hospitals, but they can greatly slow the death rate, meaning flattening the curve isn't just about the health care system, i.e., it can buy time, saving many lives until we have cure/vaccine. Transmissions can be slowed to near zero (R0<<1) in countries that practice these things very well, to a controllable rate without overwhelming hospitals, as we've seen in much of Europe and the US (R0 likely 1-2), after that first wave. Even with no interventions, rural and many suburban areas might take 18-24 months to achieve herd immunity (via a long slow, steady burn), whereas densely populated areas might achieve it in 6 months.

The fundamental question before all of us is whether we "give up on society wide efforts" and just let people get the virus naturally, doing our best to protect the ~50MM over 65 and the ~50MM from 45-64 with underlying conditions (very hard to selectively protect 100MM people) or do we invest in the kind of "intervention infrastructure" (testing/tracing/isolating) and behavioral changes, such as masks/SD (which some do not or will not like) required to get to South Korea/Taiwan et al levels of nearly full containment of the virus (with the infrastructure allowing stamping out of flare-ups) until there's a cure/vaccine, while having almost everyone back at work and school (but not the old normal)? It looks like we have the NE US and West Coast taking the latter approach and much of the rest of the US likely taking the former approach. A grand societal experiment, so to speak, with high uncertainty error bars on each outcome and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at stake.

I'm only able to absorb a bit of this at the moment.

But in regards to NE/West coast following one approach and the rest of the country taking another. I'm not sure how accurate that is. All states are testing, all states are practicing social distancing, I think most are wearing masks, certainly businesses are cleaning the heck out of everything.

And the idea that many of these states are "open" is about as accurate as the idea the NJ and NY are "closed".

 

[Upstream]

I know some people on here say hydrochloroquine doesnt work but this study says when used with zinc it may help boost the zinc activity which does help.


https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...thromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths

The authors note that there may be other confounding factors, and suggest that a controlled trial be performed to confirm the results of this retrospective study. Interestingly, the retrospective study found that the reduction of mortality with HCQ/AZ+zinc, versus HCQ/AZ alone, was only seen in those patents who were non-ICU patients (reducing mortality rate from ~13% to ~7%).

So does anyone buy this? Does nicotine really help against the virus

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...-smokers-from-catching-coronavirus-2020-04-24

Again, anecdotal evidence suggests there may be a benefit. But more research (and ideally a controlled trial) is needed to really see if that is the case.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Below is my most succinct attempt to summarize the current situation in the US and it's still 3 paragraphs. Hard to boil multivariate highly complex situations down to a single sentence, although here's my best attempt at that: Do we go back to almost-normal with targeted protection of vulnerable populations, accepting moderately high overall deaths or do we go with aggressive interventions to significantly reduce all deaths, while slowly achieving a new normal via more government intervention/control and changes to individual behaviors?

If the virus works the way that most novel viruses work, it will infect everyone up until herd immunity is reached (most think that's 50-80%, but there are a few "outlying" experts who think it could be as low as 20-40%) and will likely kill somewhere between 0.5-1.0% of the overall population infected, as we've seen in NY (where we have statewide antibody data, so we have a decent estimate of the infection fatality ratio for the ~15% infected - it's about 0.7-0.9%, depending on how many deaths one includes, which has been debated), which translates to 1-2MM deaths in the US eventually, unless we develop a cure or vaccine.

So interventions, like testing/tracing/isolating and mask-wearing and social distancing, not only combine to slow transmissions to prevent overwhelming hospitals, but they can greatly slow the death rate, meaning flattening the curve isn't just about the health care system, i.e., it can buy time, saving many lives until we have cure/vaccine. Transmissions can be slowed to near zero (R0<<1) in countries that practice these things very well, to a controllable rate without overwhelming hospitals, as we've seen in much of Europe and the US (R0 likely 1-2), after that first wave. Even with no interventions, rural and many suburban areas might take 18-24 months to achieve herd immunity (via a long slow, steady burn), whereas densely populated areas might achieve it in 6 months.

The fundamental question before all of us is whether we "give up on society wide efforts" and just let people get the virus naturally, doing our best to protect the ~50MM over 65 and the ~50MM from 45-64 with underlying conditions (very hard to selectively protect 100MM people) or do we invest in the kind of "intervention infrastructure" (testing/tracing/isolating) and behavioral changes, such as masks/SD (which some do not or will not like) required to get to South Korea/Taiwan et al levels of nearly full containment of the virus (with the infrastructure allowing stamping out of flare-ups) until there's a cure/vaccine, while having almost everyone back at work and school (but not the old normal)? It looks like we have the NE US and West Coast taking the latter approach and much of the rest of the US likely taking the former approach. A grand societal experiment, so to speak, with high uncertainty error bars on each outcome and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at stake.

This is 4 paragraphs not 3.

Interesting study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/

The flu had a much higher fatality rate than I expected prior to the vaccine (which came out in the 1930's, but widespread use wasn't until after WWII).

We should go for herd immunity. Closing society until a vaccine is developed, manufactured, and distributed is a non-starter. Test, trace, and isolate as best as possible.

 

[RU848789]

This is 4 paragraphs not 3.

Interesting study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374803/

The flu had a much higher fatality rate than I expected prior to the vaccine (which came out in the 1930's, but widespread use wasn't until after WWII).

We should go for herd immunity. Closing society until a vaccine is developed, manufactured, and distributed is a non-starter. Test, trace, and isolate as best as possible.

As @RU4Real said, you simply don't read very closely. I said in the 3 paragraphs below, so it's 3.

Haven't had time to go through that paper, but something is off somewhere, since the author says that as of 2004, influenza mortality rates are 0.56/100K total population, which translates to 1680 people per year (assuming 300MM in the US), yet the CDC website says there are now typically 35,000 flu deaths per season for the 35MM or so infected (infection fatality ratio of 0.1%), which translates to 11.6 deaths per 100K total population. Maybe the difference is that whole, "recorded on the death certificate as influenza" vs. being a death attributed to influenza, but not the final nail in the coffin.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html

I'm completely against going for herd immunity and sacrificing 1MM or more lives, unless you can figure out a way to go for it while protecting everyone over about 45 or so, where death rates start to go seriously up. If you're good with testing, tracing and isolating so we can monitor for hotspots, why wouldn't you also support wearing masks and social distancing as best as possible - if we don't do those, it's unlikely we can keep from having exponentially growing outbreaks in many locations. Doesn't mean a "closed" society, but it does mean some activities, like large events and much travel will not be possible, without instant virus tests (antigen testing preferably) to screen participants, but most work, school and other activities could proceed, albeit in modified ways.

 

[RU848789]

I'm only able to absorb a bit of this at the moment.

But in regards to NE/West coast following one approach and the rest of the country taking another. I'm not sure how accurate that is. All states are testing, all states are practicing social distancing, I think most are wearing masks, certainly businesses are cleaning the heck out of everything.

And the idea that many of these states are "open" is about as accurate as the idea the NJ and NY are "closed".

Good point, as my opening sentence shouldn't have just said "current" so I edited it, since I think it's clear after that I wasn't talking as much about the "current state" where the amount of "opening" in places like TX/GA/OK etc. is low, but where they appear to be headed with some testing, but not enough in some places and many to most people probably ignoring wearing of masks and social distancing (like those states ignored the guidance to have 14-day declines in cases) - maybe I'm wrong on that, not sure. If they move towards more of a herd immunity approach, then we'll see very different approaches between those states and the NE US/WC. I was also generalizing a bit and I'm sure there will be more of a continuum of interventions/policies across the states.

 

[RUBOB72]

By the end of June thousands of citizens are going to do what they have to do. Politics and medical science will see a bad situation especially in states where people now are realizing not only our government politicians but scientists and supposed learned doctors do not have clue. I spoke to over 20 people of all ages since yesterday.The age range was from 40’s to over 70’s out walking , exercising and at the car dealership... most have come to the conclusion it is obvious a vaccine will most likely never be found. If it is there may not be enough for several years or more. We have never had a vaccine for any Corona virus . People are like sheep as the saying goes. When you take a person’s right away you border on WWII Fascism.

 

[T2Kplus10]

As @RU4Real said, you simply don't read very closely. I said in the 3 paragraphs below, so it's 3.

Haven't had time to go through that paper, but something is off somewhere, since the author says that as of 2004, influenza mortality rates are 0.56/100K total population, which translates to 1680 people per year (assuming 300MM in the US), yet the CDC website says there are now typically 35,000 flu deaths per season for the 35MM or so infected (infection fatality ratio of 0.1%), which translates to 11.6 deaths per 100K total population. Maybe the difference is that whole, "recorded on the death certificate as influenza" vs. being a death attributed to influenza, but not the final nail in the coffin.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html

I'm completely against going for herd immunity and sacrificing 1MM or more lives, unless you can figure out a way to go for it while protecting everyone over about 45 or so, where death rates start to go seriously up. If you're good with testing, tracing and isolating so we can monitor for hotspots, why wouldn't you also support wearing masks and social distancing as best as possible - if we don't do those, it's unlikely we can keep from having exponentially growing outbreaks in many locations. Doesn't mean a "closed" society, but it does mean some activities, like large events and much travel will not be possible, without instant virus tests (antigen testing preferably) to screen participants, but most work, school and other activities could proceed, albeit in modified ways.

Nope, you started chatting about the topic in the 1st paragraph, so it is 4. The folks over 45 that are at risk can stay at home and do what is comfortable for them. Just because some resume life, others don't have to follow suit. Also, not all people over 45 are at risk. Obesity and diabetes are the huge drivers of risk.

 

[bac2therac]

Way, way too premature to conclude anything yet in Florida. De Santis has little understanding of the risks of the virus and reopening without data to support it and without requiring masks, especially in indoor spaces, but outdoor spaces, too, where social distancing isn't possible (city streets, certainly mass transit, any gatherings, etc.).

Anecdotal evidence of lack of mask wearing and social distancing in FL (my sister and father live there and have been appalled by both over the past week or so) likely means an increase in cases soon (remember it's a 5-day incubation period before symptoms) and deaths in a few weeks, although that will likely be significantly slower, still, than it would be if all large public/private gatherings were being held and they're still not. Let's see where we are in about 2-3 weeks.

people said this 8 weeks about Florida

 

[RU848789]

Some promising stuff out of the Jenner Institute at Oxford.

“In the worldwide race for a vaccine to stop the coronavirus, the laboratory sprinting fastest is at Oxford University.

Most other teams have had to start with small clinical trials of a few hundred participants to demonstrate safety. But scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute had a head start on a vaccine, having proved in previous trials that similar inoculations — including one last year against an earlier coronavirus — were harmless to humans.

That has enabled them to leap ahead and schedule tests of their new coronavirus vaccine involving more than 6,000 people by the end of next month, hoping to show not only that it is safe, but also that it works.

The Oxford scientists now say that with an emergency approval from regulators, the first few million doses of their vaccine could be available by September — at least several months ahead of any of the other announced efforts — if it proves to be effective.

Now, they have received promising news suggesting that it might.

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Montana last month inoculated six rhesus macaque monkeys with single doses of the Oxford vaccine. The animals were then exposed to heavy quantities of the virus that is causing the pandemic — exposure that had consistently sickened other monkeys in the lab. But more than 28 days later all six were healthy, said Vincent Munster, the researcher who conducted the test.

“The rhesus macaque is pretty much the closest thing we have to humans,” Dr. Munster said, noting that scientists were still analyzing the result. He said he expected to share it with other scientists next week and then submit it to a peer-reviewed journal.”


#s: Do you think the US pharmaceuticals only jump in with this drug if they can only get worldwide exclusivity?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/...action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Was just about to post this, thanks. I think any pharma company with significant manufacturing capability is going to jump in to help with little regard to cost or profit. This is much bigger than $$ (and of course, saving humanity looks good and creates good will). Merck makes very little $$ on the Ebola vaccine and makes nothing off its donations of ivermectin (antifungal) to cure River Blindness in Africa and other large pharma companies have done similar things.

I'd also love to see the Brits win the race over the Chinese on this (if the US doesn't), although I'll take any vaccine success at this point. One interesting side angle is that testing the vaccine will likely be much easier in the UK with an ongoing outbreak vs. China, who has controlled theirs. The more I hear the more likely I think my prediction of a commercial vaccine before the end of the year will be realized. Crossing fingers...

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...social-distancing.191275/page-82#post-4523426

Update on Oxford's Jenner Institute and their weakened chimp adenovirus-based vaccine (with the CV spike protein added to it to elicit the desired antibody immune response), the paper finally came out describing their very successful vaccination trial was conducted with 6 rhesus macaques (and 3 control animals). All 6 were challenged via exposure to high levels of the coronavirus and all of them were essentially immune to the virus, producing antibodies and had no signs of respiratory infection at necropsy. Also, as of now most of the 1100 healthy volunteers have received the vaccine in the UK. Best case is phase III trial results by fall, which is ambitious. They've also partnered with AZ and others for manufacturing the vaccine at risk, in case of approval.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1.full.pdf

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...-other-efforts-to-beat-coronavirus-2020-05-14

 

[satnom]

Update on Oxford's Jenner Institute and their weakened chimp adenovirus-based vaccine (with the CV spike protein added to it to elicit the desired antibody immune response), the paper finally came out describing their very successful vaccination trial was conducted with 6 rhesus macaques (and 3 control animals). All 6 were challenged via exposure to high levels of the coronavirus and all of them were essentially immune to the virus, producing antibodies and had no signs of respiratory infection at necropsy. Also, as of now most of the 1100 healthy volunteers have received the vaccine in the UK. Best case is phase III trial results by fall, which is ambitious. They've also partnered with AZ and others for manufacturing the vaccine at risk, in case of approval.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1.full.pdf

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...-other-efforts-to-beat-coronavirus-2020-05-14

Thanks #s. This looks VERY promising. Do you agree?

GO RU

 

[Spare130]

Update on Oxford's Jenner Institute and their weakened chimp adenovirus-based vaccine (with the CV spike protein added to it to elicit the desired antibody immune response), the paper finally came out describing their very successful vaccination trial was conducted with 6 rhesus macaques (and 3 control animals). All 6 were challenged via exposure to high levels of the coronavirus and all of them were essentially immune to the virus, producing antibodies and had no signs of respiratory infection at necropsy. Also, as of now most of the 1100 healthy volunteers have received the vaccine in the UK. Best case is phase III trial results by fall, which is ambitious. They've also partnered with AZ and others for manufacturing the vaccine at risk, in case of approval.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1.full.pdf

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/e...-other-efforts-to-beat-coronavirus-2020-05-14

#s what's your latest opinion on when we could realistically have a vaccine approved? One day we hear that its' very possible that we have one by the end of the year, then we hear maybe 2 years or more. Also, would I be crazy for not getting one right away? I mean after all this would be absolute lightning speed if they have one at the end of the year. I'd be a little concerned since it usually takes maybe 3 or more years for a safe one.

 

[goru7]

If some of these documentaries are true, the evolution of this virus moving from animal to human would take about 50 years but can be replicated in a matter of days in a lab. The fact that three strains of a virus that has a 50 year evolution rate is way too odd if you ask me. The purported complete shutdown of the Wuhan lab and surrounding area in October is way strange as well..



Keep an eye on Florida's numbers. If the rate continues to climb, they could be in trouble and will be a lesson in why to not open up too early.



I am encouraged by Leronlimab for its dual action indications and appears to be a very safe drug based on it's past clinical trials. We do not have it on formulary but are using the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, Tocilizumab. Another benefit of Leronlimab, it's administered subcutaneously (small needle) which could be done at home. Tocilizumab and Remdesivir are administered intravenously (in the vein) which requires someone to start an IV.

Thank you for your reply. My understanding is if you want it for your patients , a simple email to the CEO, will get it to you in 24 hours. Also, Leronlimab is having success early on in mild/ moderate cases as well as severe cases . You make a great point that Leronlimab is a simple injection that can be given at home before you arrive at a hospital . That single dose might end up being $2000 but a hell of a lot cheaper than 10-14 day hospital admission . My understanding is it can be converted to IV form as well.

 

[RU848789]

Excellent, informative article from Derek Lowe ("In The Pipeline") on the promise and challenges of both monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as a treatment/cure/preventative, and vaccines as a preventative. The bottom line is he is very confident both should work (since we already know most humans are successfully fighting the virus off via their own immune systems/neutralizing antibodies and we know how to make them), but there are tons of questions for each on timelines, costs, side effects due to rushing, etc. If you're interested in learning about either of these approaches in any depth, Lowe always provides lots of links to really good background info on his blog topics.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeli...l-antibodies-and-vaccines-a-qa#comment-319169

 

[RU848789]

#s what's your latest opinion on when we could realistically have a vaccine approved? One day we hear that its' very possible that we have one by the end of the year, then we hear maybe 2 years or more. Also, would I be crazy for not getting one right away? I mean after all this would be absolute lightning speed if they have one at the end of the year. I'd be a little concerned since it usually takes maybe 3 or more years for a safe one.

If you look at my most recent post from Derek Lowe's blog, it has a wealth of info on the various vaccines under development. He thinks early next year at best, but on this one, I think he's too pessimistic (I have some knowledge in this area he doesn't). I truly believe we can have one by the end of the year, at least for those most at risk and on the front lines (millions), but it could take many more months to have a vaccine for everyone, as scaling up vaccine manufacturing is not simple by a long stretch. I'm also very curious to see if any countries take the "human challenge" approach (infecting healthy vaccinated volunteers) to cut several months off timelines - it's a controversial approach.

I also believe we'll have monoclonal antibody cocktails ready for the market (dozens of companies are racing to be first on this - my $$ is still on Regeneron) by the end of summer and I really think they'll work as a cure (or near cure) and a preventative (for at least months), which could bridge us to vaccines for at least millions - again this will take many months to scale up for tens of millions if it starts being used as a quasi-vaccine for prevention (especially if there are vaccine problems).

I would be first in line to get a vaccine (of course, after finding out from my friends who would know about how safe it is, lol - Merck is the world's 2nd largest vaccine company by revenues...), as I'm tired of living in complete isolation, but will continue doing so until there's a cure or vaccine.

https://kslnewsradio.com/1925211/covid-vaccine-trials/

 

[RU848789]

Thanks #s. This looks VERY promising. Do you agree?

GO RU

Absolutely looks very good, although the usual cautions are in order about animal trials not always translating to human trials, but I really do think this virus (so far) is mutating so slowly as to make interception by vaccination very doable and to have the immunity last years. So far - let's hope we don't see any major changes in the virus.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Not sure if this was posted but warning from FDA Abbott's rapid test missing a lot of positives. Sounds like you can't be far away from the machine or wait too long to run the test.

From the articles:

The FDA alert comes a day after researchers at New York University published a study claiming the ID NOW test missed a third of samples collected with nasopharyngeal swabs that tested positive with a test from rival Cepheid.

Abbott Labs refuted the NYU study’s claims that its rapid coronavirus diagnostic test could be missing nearly half of positive cases.

“While we understand no test is perfect, test outcomes depend on a number of factors including patient selection, specimen type, collection, handling, storage, transport and conformity to the way the test was designed to be run,” Abbott said in a statement on Thursday. “ID NOW is intended to be used near the patient with a direct swab test method.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/14/fda...ic-test-is-delivering-inaccurate-results.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/abb...-cases-raising-questions-nyu-study-finds.html

 

[bac2therac]

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

 

[bethlehemfan]

Absolutely looks very good, although the usual cautions are in order about animal trials not always translating to human trials, but I really do think this virus (so far) is mutating so slowly as to make interception by vaccination very doable and to have the immunity last years. So far - let's hope we don't see any major changes in the virus.

#s. Do viruses typically become less problematic as they mutate?

 

[ArminRU]

Absolutely looks very good, although the usual cautions are in order about animal trials not always translating to human trials, but I really do think this virus (so far) is mutating so slowly as to make interception by vaccination very doable and to have the immunity last years. So far - let's hope we don't see any major changes in the virus.

The thing that makes me worried about this one is that America did not enter the global vaccine committee so we might be on the outside looking in when it comes to this vaccine.

 

[wisr01]

#s. Do viruses typically become less problematic as they mutate?

https://www.medicinenet.com/when_covid-19_mutates_what_are_the_risks-news.htm

 

[rutgersguy1]

#s. Do viruses typically become less problematic as they mutate?

The link above by @wisr01 is a good explanation. I also posted this a little while back about COVID possibly mutating and weakening similar to what happened with SARS.
Like any other organism it wants to live and replicate/procreate so for a virus killing off the host doesn't work towards that goal of continued replication. So possibly for some viruses you get a sort of "viral evolution" through mutations where it weakens so the host survives longer and therefore the virus can continue on replicating.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...ting-weaker.html?ito=native_share_article-top

 

[rutgersguy1]

PPE vending machines at the Las Vegas airport....sign of the times.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/mccarran-airport-las-vegas-ppe-vending-machines/index.html

 

[ArminRU]

Another antibody treatment article. A lot of hope with this one, just needs to be tested. Trials to begin in July and they are looking for approval by end of year. Would be good to prevent and as a treatment.

https://www.biospace.com/article/so...-covid-19-that-appears-100-percent-effective/

 

[e5fdny]

PPE vending machines at the Las Vegas airport....sign of the times.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/mccarran-airport-las-vegas-ppe-vending-machines/index.html

Genius.

And good hustle to the person who came up with the idea. Bet it’s a huge “airport-level” mark up too...more profit. Seriously, great idea.

 

[RU2055]

Questions for the MDs/experts:

When we say - you might catch a cold - for example when you don't wear a hat on a rainy day, etc. All it means is that the immunity gets depressed under certain conditions and then the cold virus, which is in our system already, pounces and makes us sick.

Could cov2 do the same? Remain dormant in our system until the immune systems is depressed and then pounces?

We've been comparing this to the Flu. But maybe the more accurate comparison is to the cold virus.

Might explain why testing is all over the place and so is incubation period. My uncle just tested positive AGAIN. He tested positive 1 and a half month ago. Also know people who developed mild symptoms, self quarantined, tested negative, returned to their family after three weeks, family got sick and tested positive.

It's all over the place.

 

[dvb91]

Below is my most succinct attempt to summarize the current and likely future situation in the US and it's still 3 paragraphs. Hard to boil multivariate highly complex situations down to a single sentence, although here's my best attempt at that: Do we go back to almost-normal with targeted protection of vulnerable populations, accepting moderately high overall deaths or do we go with aggressive interventions to significantly reduce all deaths, while slowly achieving a new normal via more government intervention/control and changes to individual behaviors?

If the virus works the way that most novel viruses work, it will infect everyone up until herd immunity is reached (most think that's 50-80%, but there are a few "outlying" experts who think it could be as low as 20-40%) and will likely kill somewhere between 0.5-1.0% of the overall population infected, as we've seen in NY (where we have statewide antibody data, so we have a decent estimate of the infection fatality ratio for the ~15% infected - it's about 0.7-0.9%, depending on how many deaths one includes, which has been debated), which translates to 1-2MM deaths in the US eventually, unless we develop a cure or vaccine.

So interventions, like testing/tracing/isolating and mask-wearing and social distancing, not only combine to slow transmissions to prevent overwhelming hospitals, but they can greatly slow the death rate, meaning flattening the curve isn't just about the health care system, i.e., it can buy time, saving many lives until we have cure/vaccine. Transmissions can be slowed to near zero (R0<<1) in countries that practice these things very well, to a controllable rate without overwhelming hospitals, as we've seen in much of Europe and the US (R0 likely 1-2), after that first wave. Even with no interventions, rural and many suburban areas might take 18-24 months to achieve herd immunity (via a long slow, steady burn), whereas densely populated areas might achieve it in 6 months.

The fundamental question before all of us is whether we "give up on society wide efforts" and just let people get the virus naturally, doing our best to protect the ~50MM over 65 and the ~50MM from 45-64 with underlying conditions (very hard to selectively protect 100MM people) or do we invest in the kind of "intervention infrastructure" (testing/tracing/isolating) and behavioral changes, such as masks/SD (which some do not or will not like) required to get to South Korea/Taiwan et al levels of nearly full containment of the virus (with the infrastructure allowing stamping out of flare-ups) until there's a cure/vaccine, while having almost everyone back at work and school (but not the old normal)? It looks like we have the NE US and West Coast taking the latter approach and much of the rest of the US likely taking the former approach. A grand societal experiment, so to speak, with high uncertainty error bars on each outcome and potentially hundreds of thousands of lives at stake.

#'s you harp on testing/tracing/isolating, but is anyone even actually tracing in the US? Just wondering who is doing it and what kind of manpower & brain power is being tasked for this. Is someone like the CDC contacting people who have been in contact with exposed people or are we relying on word of mouth?

 

[goru7]

Excellent, informative article from Derek Lowe ("In The Pipeline") on the promise and challenges of both monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as a treatment/cure/preventative, and vaccines as a preventative. The bottom line is he is very confident both should work (since we already know most humans are successfully fighting the virus off via their own immune systems/neutralizing antibodies and we know how to make them), but there are tons of questions for each on timelines, costs, side effects due to rushing, etc. If you're interested in learning about either of these approaches in any depth, Lowe always provides lots of links to really good background info on his blog topics.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeli...l-antibodies-and-vaccines-a-qa#comment-319169

Key difference between Leronlimab and Remdesiver and others is the limited side effects of Leronlimab. There has been over 800 people in prior Phase 3 and 2 trials for approval as an AIDS treatment that have had no appreciable or significant side effects . Just this morning , Dr. Bruce Paterson, working with Leronlimab believes it can help the children with the Kawasaki like disease and is in contact with the Ny doctors to discuss its use. Any day now , it will be approved for compassionate use, instead of EIND use, so it can be immediately administered instead of individual application approval by the FDA. Then any doctor in the country can receive it in 24 hours and use it to get people better in 3-7 days as evidenced by all the blood work.

 

[LC-88]

Article on Sweden's approach to Covid
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/in-the-race-for-immunity-sweden-leads-the-pack/

At end of article Sweden claims that there are no known cases of reinfection in Sweden.