Thanks for the information and the attached document to read. Interesting stuff. Haha, I guess where there's a will, there's a way!
COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter RU848789
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the information and the attached document to read. Interesting stuff. Haha, I guess where there's a will, there's a way!
Well said. If anyone wants the gory details, they're in the first link I provided. Here's the relevant part (note that EIDD-1931 is the metabolically active form of EIDD-2801) :
EIDD-1931 can exist in two forms. In one form, it mimics cytidine, with a single bond between the carbon and N-OH group. In its other form, which mimics uridine, it has an oxime with a double bond between the carbon and N-OH group. These two forms are known as tautomers, and the switching between them causes mismatching during transcription. So when the virus grows in the presence of EIDD-1931, its RNA-dependent RNA polymerase reads the compound as uridine instead of cytidine and therefore puts an adenosine where it should insert a guanosine. This misreading creates a massive number of mutations in the viral genome and the copied viruses can’t function.
So I'm starting to hear more anecdotal conversation about this particular coronavirus mutating, over time, into a relatively benign virus similar to the other known coronaviruses. Thoughts on this?
Thanks. I strongly believe that the engineered antibody approach being worked on by a bunch of companies (with Regeneron having the best known effort with greatest likelihood of success, given their previous success with Ebola) will provide close to a cure by the end of summer. when several should be ready for approval (assuming the clinical trials show they're safe and effective).
We already know that convalescent plasma from recovered COVID patients (containing antibodies to the virus) is very safe and works somewhere between moderately and significantly (still need more data) and engineered antibodies should be more targeted and reproducible, i.e., more effective.
If that all pans out, that will be huge and could mean we can wait longer for a vaccine without having ~1% of infected patients dying and several % becoming quite ill. Antibody therapy can also work as a prophylactic, although usually for months not years in other diseases, which could limit that use to front line workers and highly vulnerable people. However, if it doesn't pan out, it's good to have more "shots on goal" that might.
Many experts speculate that that's what happened with the original SARS, where mutations led to reduced transmission rates which, in effect, led to a much decreased outbreak (not more benign, per se, however, as it was still fairly lethal, just not as contagious). It's not clear if any of the mutations in CV2 will lead to anything like this (the ASU work in the link below suggests it could), but some think it will - of course others are concerned that mutations could make it worse. But mutation rates are much slower with this virus than most other viruses, including the flu, which is why vaccine researchers are pretty confident a vaccine would remain effective for years (longer than the flu).
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar...-of-new-coronavirus#Need-for-further-research
For those who have a good background in medicine, pharmacy, biochemistry, or the like, could you comment on the protocol linked below.
The doctor most quoted seems to have outstanding credentials, and they claim a 98% success rate.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...d=20200529Z1&et_cid=DM547464&et_rid=882505674
I consider Mercola kind of a hustler, but owing to his financial success, he's been able to employ good researchers.
The doctor most quoted seems to have outstanding credentials, and they claim a 98% success rate.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...d=20200529Z1&et_cid=DM547464&et_rid=882505674
I consider Mercola kind of a hustler, but owing to his financial success, he's been able to employ good researchers.
Be skeptical whenever you see researchers claiming a success rate without talking about a control group (even if it's not a randomized control, just some comparator group, at least) or without talking about the treatment starting point - maybe they used the most mild patients. On the other hand, this is the kind of study that could've been easily done already if we hadn't been giving the vast majority of hospitalized patients HCQ since late March - we should have waited for the controlled trials for most patients, like we did for remdesivir, which would have left a much larger pool of patients to try other approaches with.
We've talked about that protocol several times before - it's very similar to what they're doing at EVMS (hospital system in Virginia).
https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_pub...cine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf
I don't know if it's gained widespread acceptance but think @RUfubar said it was being used locally? But that they were running out of Vitamin C? I may not be remembering that correctly.
Outbreaks on farms in NJ and other parts of the country. Every worker (200) on a Tenn. farm tested positive. Close living conditions similar to the migrant worker outbreak in Singapore seems like.
https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/every-single-worker-covid-one-100000688.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/every-single-worker-covid-one-100000688.html
When will results of the first trials for the antibody cocktails start to trickle out? Last I remember there were a few trials set to begin in June.
elets talk masks because it looks like that argument of wearing them is in serious dispute...and IMO its more of a control thing, an appearance thing to keep people aware...just my opinion but given what is being said of late including Fauci
wearing masks outside is ridiculous IMO
wearing masks outside is ridiculous IMO
I've been saying it from day 1. I have yet to see anything to prove differently. Outdoors it's not even question. They are 100% useless.
Where is it in serious dispute? Control thing, huh?
If you’re in groups of people outside, probably makes sense to wear one.
Last Saturday morning I went on a nice 25 mile bicycle ride on the Mount Vernon Trail here in Alexandria, VA. Within three miles of the start of my ride another cyclist rode past me and I noticed he was wearing an N95 mask and ski googles. WTF!?
You guys really need to read more. It's well established that the vast majority of transmissions are person to person via respiratory droplets laden with viruses, mostly from sneezes and coughs, but sometimes including speech when close by (within a few feet) and touching an infected person and then one's face.
I think the 20 foot super sneeze risks are way overblown (as are risks from surfaces outside of very high risk areas like hospitals), but not the risks within 6 feet and especially within 2-4 feet, like at a crowded event or waiting on line or something. It's very unlikely anyone is going to catch the virus by walking past an infected person, but a conversation 2-4 feet away or standing and cheering at a sporting event or concert 2-4 feet away are absolutely going to lead to some viral transmissions, especially when the infected party is asymptomatic and it "looks" like there's no risk.
Such risk can be greatly reduced by both parties wearing masks. That's unequivocal. But we're not going to ever have absolute definitive data on such transmissions, because that can only come from controlled exposure experiments (including duration of the dose, not just the distance away), which are unethical to perform with a deadly virus. So we have to rely on inference and animal studies and the recent hamster study with cloth mask material clearly showed a major benefit from masks.
And these risks are independent of inside vs. outside: such transmissions occur in a couple of seconds either way and it takes about 7 minutes for the sun's UV radiation to deactivate 90% of virus particles, so that only helps with deactivating viruses on surfaces, not from person to person. It's not a coincidence that the countries that have done the best with this virus are mask-wearing countries. Period.
My god. Did you find him passed out along the way?? They are hard to breath through normally but during exercise.
Interesting preprint on an effort mostly out of the U of Washington on single-dose replicating RNA vaccines. Their research shows the vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 3 nonhuman primates. Long way to go, but another entrant…
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.121640v1.full.pdf
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.28.121640v1.full.pdf
I cover the last part first. Those countries did a lot of things better so you can't give credit to masks outdoors as a big reason. They did everything better.
I asked you a simple question the other day about which is much more important. A simple yes or no. Social distancing is much more important than masks? You didnt answer it with a yes or no.
If masks are so valuable why doesn't the President of the United States wear one? Or the Govenor of NJ require them on the beach. More importantly why were front line workers in hospitals and nursing homes getting sick when they were wearing one before it was required?
show me the science...where is it.....and the WHO who you take things with a grain of salt says its not effective
the fact that people are saying this is important.
its about control...nothing more at this point
+1
No medical rationale for wearing masks outside. Even in NJ, probably only 10% are doing so.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.03.20051649v1.full.pdf
Results: A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24-0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11-0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials, case-control studies and retrospective studies.
Conclusions: This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.
Another analysis of masks:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
Mask filtering performance:
Performance being worn:
As for social distancing:
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them
The principle is viral exposure over an extended period of time. In all these cases, people were exposed to the virus in the air for a prolonged period (hours). Even if they were 50 feet away (choir or call center), even a low dose of the virus in the air reaching them, over a sustained period, was enough to cause infection and in some cases, death.
Social distancing rules are really to protect you with brief exposures or outdoor exposures. In these situations there is not enough time to achieve the infectious viral load when you are standing 6 feet apart or where wind and the infinite outdoor space for viral dilution reduces viral load. The effects of sunlight, heat, and humidity on viral survival, all serve to minimize the risk to everyone when outside.
Last edited:
You post data on particles blocked. You clearly don't understand.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.03.20051649v1.full.pdf
Results: A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24-0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11-0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials, case-control studies and retrospective studies.
Conclusions: This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.
Another analysis of masks:
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/
Mask filtering performance:
Performance being worn:
As for social distancing:
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them
The principle is viral exposure over an extended period of time. In all these cases, people were exposed to the virus in the air for a prolonged period (hours). Even if they were 50 feet away (choir or call center), even a low dose of the virus in the air reaching them, over a sustained period, was enough to cause infection and in some cases, death.
Social distancing rules are really to protect you with brief exposures or outdoor exposures. In these situations there is not enough time to achieve the infectious viral load when you are standing 6 feet apart or where wind and the infinite outdoor space for viral dilution reduces viral load. The effects of sunlight, heat, and humidity on viral survival, all serve to minimize the risk to everyone when outside.
Lol. No, he passed me going the opposite direction and I didn’t get back to our original closest point of approach until about an hour and twenty minutes later. So either he made his way further north on the trail or the paramedics worked fast to tend to him and get him to a hospital!
https://www.biotopics.co.uk/A15/Virus_particles.html
If I had to chose who was smarter you or a bag of hammers....
The study you posted of percentage of particles was for all pollution particles not just virus particles. Yes coronavirus can attach to pollution particles but doesn't last long airborne and if you haven't noticed the amount of pollution has dropped by huge amounts as travel by all sorts gas based vehicles has dropped dramatically. So you win the hammer award. Congrats
Quote from the mask test:
One important detail: the particle counter they used measured particles as small as 0.007 microns. That’s over 10 times smaller than the coronavirus particle diameter. We’re talking about truly tiny particles here!
You quote "articles" from "Smartairfilters" an ad to buy a masks. Look at the top right hand corner it says BUY NOW. Great scientific info for anyone gullible
I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge too. If you buy before midnight I'll throw in the Manhattan Bridge for free but you have to pay shipping and handling separately
after the riots tonight, i am predicting that Coronavirus season 1 has been cancelled..its over, we will see everything open again
Yes, most of those countries did a lot of things better, but not Japan, really - they're #1 intervention was wearing masks. You asked a question that has no single answer. In a perfect world, we'd have everyone practicing social distancing, obviating the need for masks, but reality is there are many situations where people can't keep 6 feet or more apart (mass transit, restaurants/bars, events, very crowded city streets, etc.), so in those situations, masks are effective, as I've shown multiple times with links - do you expect me to post the links every time?
The POTUS doesn't wear a mask because he's an idiot, who won't follow the guidance of his own experts and on the beach it shouldn't be hard to keep 6 feet away from others, whereas that's much harder on the boardwalk. And in case you forget, plenty of public-facing workers (outside of hospitals) didn't have the right PPE, especially early on when transmission was greatest - but all you need to do is look at the antibody data from NYC health care workers, who had significantly lower levels of infection than the general public (12% vs. 20%), largely because they wore masks and washed hands religiously, because they certainly couldn't keep 6 feet from their patients. I had that link open, so I'll include it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisett...9-compared-to-public-cuomo-says/#4239c6a96619
Do you seriously expect me to go back and find every link I've posted on this? Read my earlier posts in the thread or use google and learn something instead of making poorly informed posts. I have no idea what the WHO is thinking on this one - they're the only ones not recommending masks for healthy people, especially asymptomatic/infected ones who spread the virus so easily.
But, but, but, but.....did that doctor check with the CLs in this thread first?
:)
- Status
Similar threads
