Covid-19 News

  • Ii thought pfizer, moderna etc required -70C ... Ie Dry Ice levels.


    With strict controls on excursions.


    I'd call Liquid Nitrogen cryogenic.

    Yes. Strictly speaking it is not cryogenic. The term has been used in the press, I guess to distinguish between that and ordinary refrigeration. Dry ice will reportedly work. Special shipping crates are being designed and manufactured that have dry ice in them, and that will keep the powder vaccine material safe for several days if they are not opened.


    This can dealt with in wealthy first world countries, but it may be a challenge in Third World countries. We must meet that challenge. We have to vaccinate the whole human population everywhere -- or at least ~70% of it, or the virus will remain in the human population, and it will keep invading the wealthy countries. This will be particularly important if the vaccine wears off after a year or two.


    As I mentioned, the clinician at CVS told me the Pfizer vaccine will be a powder, which they mix with a liquid. She said the older shingles vaccine was also a powder. She told me that right before administering the newer shingles vaccine to me, which knocked me off my feet with a 103 deg F fever and a terrible headache for 24 hours. Nothing to worry about! It clears up at 23 hours 59 minutes. It did that last time too! (This was the final dose, thank goodness.) I hope the COVID vaccine does not do that, or people will not take it.

  • BBC news said the Pfizer vaccine lasts 5 days in a normal freezer

    Wait a minute . . . it is complicated. This BBC report from Nov. 10 says it has to be kept at -70 deg C:


    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54889084


    When it arrives at the final destination, "the vaccine can be stored for up to five days in a fridge between 2C and 8C."


    The article has a photo of the insulated box used to transport the vaccine:


    "As revealed by the Wall Street Journal, Pfizer has developed a special transport box the size of a suitcase, packed with dry ice and installed with GPS trackers, which can keep up to 5,000 doses of the vaccine at the right temperature for 10 days, as long as it remains unopened. The boxes are also reusable."


    The article discusses the problems in the Third World.

  • Cryogenic is completely correct for Pfizer/BioNTech. That's why Moderna did need a bit more time to work around with a stabilization. So the first vaccine will certainly be a long time looser...Something the Pfizer GEO certainly new when he sold his stock just in peak time....

    „New York (CNN Business)Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla filed to sell millions of dollars of his company's stock Monday -- the day the pharmaceutical giant announced positive data about its coronavirus vaccine.

    The company's shares soared after Pfizer and European drug company BioNTech said early data suggests the vaccine could be more than 90% effective.
    The transaction was part of a regularly scheduled plan set up by Bourla to periodically sell some of his Pfizer shares.

    Bourla sold 132,508 Pfizer (PFE) shares at a price of $41.94, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That works out to proceeds of nearly $5.6 million.
    A Pfizer spokeswoman said in an email to CNN Business that the sale took place because Pfizer shares hit a predetermined price as part of a plan authorized by Bourla on August 19.“

  • Jed,


    Switch to decaf,

    Mercy, you are so defensive, so far down the rabbit hole of Group Think Blue,

    It was a joke, lighten up man

  • This can dealt with in wealthy first world countries, but it may be a challenge in Third World countries. We must meet that challenge. We have to vaccinate the whole human population everywhere -- or at least ~70% of it

    The mRNA vaccine is a complete new technology, we have no experience yet with. No approval so far according to wikipedia.

    Isn't that a risky business to try to vaccinate the whole world population in a hurry? I am generally not opposing vaccination, but in that case I would rather take the approach from Dr. Thomas Borody.

    One psychological problem which might arise is peer preasure to vaccinate and discrimination if you don't.

    One of the biggest experiments for mankind at the horizon, let's hope it will work.

  • Switch to decaf,

    Mercy, you are so defensive, so far down the rabbit hole of Group Think Blue,

    It was a joke, lighten up man

    Not funny. Lots of people believe that kind of crap, such as the ones who think that RFID (IFF) tags are a deep state conspiracy to keep track of us.


    I'll bet you were not joking. You sound like Trump after he suggested injecting disinfectants. Oh, it was just a joke, he said, but anyone can see it was not. I'll bet you seriously thought this might be used to monitor people, and I'll bet you do not know the first thing about how something like COVID passes would work. Whereas I sure as hell do know. I have been designing systems like that since 1978. I can list a dozen reasons why that would not work, and why no one would use this to track people. For one thing, we already have a perfect system for tracking people -- cell phone data. Anyone with who subscribes to the data can follow any citizen, including the President, which the New York Times did for a month. They published a map showing where he went. You just pay the phone companies and they deliver the goods. I expect China and Russia are subscribers. There are no laws limiting what the phone companies do with the data, or who they sell it to, or what their customers do with it. The data is supposed to be anonymous but any programmer knows how to locate a specific individual in it. It is a piece of cake. Just start at the person's house!


    And there you go again with the politics! Calling this "Blue Think." What garbage. This is not political. This is Science Think. By calling it "Blue Think" (Democratic party think), YOU are politicizing science. You are the problem here. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. Claiming that science, rationality and technology are somehow political, or the province of the Democratic party, is a dangerous political trend. Unfortunately, in Trump versus Biden, you are right. Trump has been radically anti-science. Unlike any president in history. Even Washington came out strongly in favor of science. The Republican party has been as supportive of science & technology as the Democrats, and I wish they would get back to that tradition.


  • Isn't that a risky business to try to vaccinate the whole world population in a hurry?

    It would be risky if they did not first test the vaccine on tens of thousands of people, and if they did carefully monitor the results for the next several million people. Even then, there might be some risk, but by that time it should be clear whether the risk is any higher than for other, traditional vaccines. You have to have faith in statics and methods of science. Yes, they fail sometimes, but they are the only thing standing between us and Medieval levels of death and despair. In any case, not deploying the vaccine is definitely a risk. Look at the curve of COVID-19 infections and deaths and you will see. 600,000 new cases a day and 9,000 deaths, with an exponential increase:


    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/


    There will be 2.8 million deaths by March 2021 even with a vaccine.


    https://covid19.healthdata.org…ew=total-deaths&tab=trend


    Without a vaccine, there will tens to hundreds of millions of deaths within a year or two. It will be as bad as the 1918 influenza. There is no reason why it should not be. Medical science has not improved all that much. (And it was a lot better in 1918 than people today realize.) Doctors have reduced the case mortality of COVID-19 using various methods, most of which doctors might have discovered and used in 1918, or in 2000 BC, such as putting patients on their stomachs. There is a limit to how much they can do. The ICU beds in Georgia and other GOP states are full up now. Now. Today. Critically ill patients will soon be left in the hallways, and then in the parking lots, because our nitwit governor will not lift a finger to slow down the pandemic. See:


    https://covid19.healthdata.org…b=trend&resource=icu_beds


    Doctors without Borders is dispatching doctors to the U.S., for crying out loud.


    https://www.doctorswithoutbord…o/countries/united-states


    This is the worst disgrace in U.S. history, and the most preventable tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people have died for no reason. It could easily have been prevented! There are slums in India doing a better job of dealing with the pandemic than the U.S. is. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS when you turn your back on science, and rationality, and you let politics overrule common sense public health measures. Hundreds of thousands of people die because Trump and the GOP don't understand viruses, or masks, simple arithmetic, or health measures they taught me back in second grade, such as "wash your hands." Yesterday there were GOP rallies in Georgia trying to overturn the election, with hundreds of people jammed together, not wearing masks. Superspreader events in a state the White House declared a Red Zone!

  • So what your saying is the human immune system with a 99% survival rate is a hunk of junk ....

  • So what your saying is the human immune system with a 99% survival rate is a hunk of junk ....

    A 99% survival rate for COVID-19 would result in ~39 million deaths worldwide, assuming half the population is infected. About half the population was infected in 1918, and roughly 50 million died according to most estimates. I do not think 99% would be the survival rate in nature with only the immune system as defense. I think it would be more like 95%, based on the initial death rates. It is 99% with medical help. It will not be better than that without a vaccine. There is only so much doctors can do.


    The survival rate varies from one disease to another, and it depends on conditions such as general health, age and so on. The black death in Europe killed anywhere from 40% to 100% of local populations.

  • You have to have faith in statics and methods of science. Yes, they fail sometimes, but they are the only thing standing between us and Medieval levels of death and despair. In any case, not deploying the vaccine is definitely a risk. Look at the curve of COVID-19 infections and deaths and you will see. 600,000 new cases a day and 9,000 deaths, with an exponential increase:

    I would only vaccinate people at risk albeit this could end up very badly for them. But if you walk on a ridge you can only choose left or right if you loose the balance...

    Vaccine interactions can be nasty and sometimes show up only during a next pandemic. Of course most problems like GBS or the famous narcoleptic's come form the always untested flue vaccine. But no two man are equal. You are your own experiment, live is your risk. For most people the mortality is below 0.1% but we here see that it is very high over 100x! for older people that have preconditions and no cross immunity.

    I would never recommend a general, nation wide vaccination during the first 2 years of a new vaccine. This simply is gambling with your future. And do not forget: well informed people will get their Ivermectin. Just buy a tube Soolantra creme (may be needs a prescription because it is to cheap...) or ask for it (our brand: Eraquell) at the next horse stable. This also saves you at least 300$ for 8 doses!


    Just the newest Swiss data: No excess mortality for age below 65 before end of October this year.

    https://www.srf.ch/news/schwei…-jaehrigen-wegen-covid-19

    In German!

  • A 99% survival rate for COVID-19 would result in ~39 million deaths worldwide, assuming half the population is infected. About half the population was infected in 1918, and roughly 50 million died according to most estimates. I do not think 99% would be the survival rate in nature with only the immune system as defense. I think it would be more like 95%, based on the initial death rates. It is 99% with medical help. It will be better than that, without a vaccine.


    The survival rate varies from one disease to another, and it depends on conditions such as general health, age and so on. The black death in Europe killed anywhere from 40% to 100% of local populations.

    I have yet to see a video of the bat cave on fire, so not to let this happen again,, have you?

  • I would only vaccinate people at risk albeit this could end up very badly for them.

    Everyone is at risk. There are 181,000 new cases in the U.S. today, and 1,400 deaths. If this trend continues, within weeks there will be 300,000 cases and 3,000 deaths a day. If the virus is not controlled, there will be millions every day; the hospitals will totally overwhelmed, people will be dying in their houses, and 5% of the sick will die. This is reality. This is how epidemics must end when no steps are taken to prevent them. The GOP states and the Federal government are doing nothing. They are actually doing less than medieval governments did during the black plague. If we do not get a vaccine here in Georgia and other places where ignorance rules and people deliberately hold superspreader events, 3% to 5% of the population will die, including ~10% of people my age.


    Your worry that the vaccine "could end badly" is nothing but superstitious ignorance. Vaccines are not dangerous. You think they are because you are as ignorant and benighted as a medieval peasant burning some poor woman to death because you think she is a witch who caused the plague. You, and the people like you, are a threat to civilization. It is your fault that hundreds of thousands have died. Because you refuse to learn any science, look at the facts, or listen to reason.

  • The CDC has already begun to respond to the election results. They are starting to issue actual scientific information instead of bullshit propaganda. The fever begins to break; the babbling and delusions ebb; sanity returns. Soon we will be back to the 19th century, and once again public health officials will be safe to say they believe in the germ theory. See:


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1…oronavirus-cdc-trump.html


    As the Pandemic Surges, C.D.C. Issues Increasingly Assertive Advice


    Agency scientists often contradict the Trump administration now, but critics urge a more public stance.


    As the pandemic engulfs the nation, recent recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been as notable for what they do not say as for what they do. In a turnabout, the agency now is hewing more closely to scientific evidence, often contradicting the positions of the Trump administration. . . .


    Still, C.D.C. officials have not publicly announced these findings nor held news conferences to explain them, instead posting the bulletins quietly online. Word of them has often appeared first on Twitter and noted by outside experts. . . .


    “A weight’s been lifted off the C.D.C. that allows them to do their job again,” said Scott Becker, chief executive of the Association of Public Health Laboratories who has worked closely with C.D.C. scientists for decades. . . .

  • Professor Harvey Risch Interview – Part 2

    https://covexit.com/professor-harvey-risch-interview-part-2/

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • An open letter from the appalled colleagues of Dr Harvey Risch:



    We write with grave concern that too many are being distracted by the ardent advocacy of our Yale colleague, Dr. Harvey Risch, to promote the assertion that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when given with antibiotics is effective in treating COVID-19, in particular as an early therapeutic intervention for the disease.

    As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions. But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments.

    Over the last few weeks, all of us have spent considerable time explaining the evidence behind HCQ research, as it applies to early and late stage COVID-19 patients to the scientific community and general public, and now are compelled to detail the evidence in this open letter.

    We are seriously alarmed for the safety of patients and the coherence and effectiveness of our national COVID-19 emergency response when misinformation about HCQ is spread and when rigorous scientific evidence and consensus produced by the community of expert researchers in infectious diseases, federal agencies and national and global health organizations are not heeded. Let us be clear: we are unanimous in our desire to see the development of therapies to treat COVID-19 and to prevent the transmission or acquisition of SARS-CoV-2. If HCQ was shown to be effective, even among subgroups of patients with COVID-19 in ongoing high quality trials, we would join our colleagues in promoting access to it for all who need it. However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19.

    HCQ is used for the treatment of rheumatological diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. However, this does not ensure that the drug will be safe in patients with COVID-19 or in widespread use to treat early illness. In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus. Furthermore, HCQ, alone or together with the antibiotic, azithromycin, has not been shown to be effective in improving the clinical status of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, clinical trials have found that treatment with HCQ may be associated with increased risk of adverse reactions. Taken together, the scientific evidence does not support the widespread use of this drug, alone or in combination with an antibiotic, as advocated by Dr. Risch and others, unless rigorous evidence from clinical trials demonstrates otherwise.

    Finally, we point to the recent memorandum from the US Food and Drug Administration revoking the Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ that has assembled the data on the drug as of June 2020 (Food and Drug Administration Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate). The Infectious Diseases Society of America now advises against the drug alone or in combination with azithromycin in the setting of COVID-19 except in the context of ongoing clinical studies. If these trials do show a clinical benefit for HCQ, we would revise our views on its use in the management of COVID-19.

    The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine. We understand the desperation of many to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 emerge that will stop the pandemic in its tracks or slow its relentless spread in the US. But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease. There are multiple approaches to expedite the evaluation and approval of drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases in the US that have existed for decades now, but they all still rely on data from rigorous, well-conducted clinical trials to guide us. In addition, this ongoing promotion of HCQ has global implications as well, as many countries in the global South only have access to HCQ and use of HCQ is still common in this setting despite the lack of evidence and potential risks.

    It is critical that we follow the science and where the evidence leads us on a quest to treat and prevent COVID-19. In this climate, it’s important to rely on the data above all else when making clinical or regulatory decisions. Making these kinds of choices guided by personal endorsements outside of the context of the existing scientific evidence is medicine by testimonial and risks people’s lives. Randomized controlled trials are how we keep from fooling ourselves, test our assumptions about new drugs and new uses for old ones. For instance, flecainide was initially proposed as a drug to treat those at risk of severe arrhythmias after sudden myocardial infarction. However, the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial showed for the first time that mortality was actually three times higher among persons receiving the drug for this purpose. Even though the drug was known to be effective in those experiencing severe arrhythmia, it ended up increasing mortality in those simply at risk. And no one noticed because sudden death after myocardial infarction was not a rare event and this tripling of the risk was not detected until a randomized, controlled trial was done. The FDA has rescinded the EUA for HCQ for a reason: the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the drug is without merit in clinical care for COVID-19 and presents real dangers to patients by its continued use.

    In 1987, University of California at Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg gained notoriety by expounding on his belief that AIDS was not caused by the human immunodeficiency virus, but by antiretroviral agents like azidothymidine (AZT) and recreational drugs. However, the data on antiretroviral therapy was clear: these drugs extended life and health and turned around the course of the AIDS epidemic worldwide. But Professor Duesberg persisted in his quest. Professor Duesberg’s thesis dissuaded many from taking antiretroviral therapy, and after the President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki endorsed these views, it led to delays in the roll-out of these life-saving drugs costing hundreds of thousands of lives in that country. While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.


    Signed,

    Jason Abaluck, PhD

    Associate Professor of Economics

    Yale School of Management

    Amy Bei, PhD

    Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Theodore Cohen, MD, DPH

    Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Co-director, Public Health Modeling Concentration

    Yale School of Public Health

    Gary V. Desir, MD

    Paul B. Beeson Professor of Medicine

    Vice Provost, Faculty Development and Diversity

    Chair, Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine

    Chief, Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital

    Gail D’Onofrio MD

    Professor & Chair, Emergency Medicine

    Yale School of Medicine

    Yale School of Public Health

    Howard P. Forman, MD, MBA

    Professor of Radiology & Public Health (Health Policy)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Medicine

    Professor in the Practice of Management

    Yale School of Management

    Alison Galvani, PhD

    Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Gregg Gonsalves, PhD

    Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Associate Professor (Adjunct) and Research Scholar

    Yale Law School

    Nathan D. Grubaugh, PhD

    Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Roberta Hines, MD

    Nicholas M. Greene Professor & Chair of Anesthesiology

    Yale School of Medicine

    Valerie Horsley, PhD

    Associate Professor of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology

    Yale University

    Akiko Iwasaki, PhD

    Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Immunobiology and Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology

    Yale School of Medicine

    Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology

    Yale University

    Amy Kapczynski, JD

    Professor of Law

    Yale Law School

    Trace Kershaw, PhD

    Department Chair and Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Public Health (Social and Behavioral Sciences)

    Yale School of Public Health

    Albert I. Ko, MD

    Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine and Chair of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases

    Yale School of Public Health

    Stephen R. Latham, JD, PhD

    Director, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics

    Yale University

    Brett Lindenbach, PhD

    Associate Professor, Microbial Pathogenesis

    Yale School of Medicine

    Fiona Scott Morton, PhD

    Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics

    Yale School of Management

    Ruslan Medzhitov, PhD

    Sterling Professor of Immunobiology

    Yale School of Medicine

    Saad B. Omer, MBBS MPH PhD FIDSA

    Professor of Medicine (Infectious Diseases),Yale School of Medicine

    Adjunct Professor, Yale School of Nursing

    Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health

    A. David Paltiel, PhD

    Professor of Health Policy & Management

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Management

    Sunil Parikh, MD, MPH

    Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Medicine

    Karen Santucci, MD

    Professor & Chief, Pediatric Emergency Medicine

    Yale School of Medicine

    Marcella Nunez Smith, MD, MHS

    Associate Professor, General Internal Medicine, Public Health, and Management

    Yale School of Medicine

    Yale School of Public Health

    Yale School of Management

    Director, Equity Research and Innovation Center

    Daniel Weinberger, PhD

    Associate Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)

    Yale School of Public Health



    https://medium.com/@gregggonsa…-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0

  • Breakthrough finding' reveals why certain Covid-19 patients die


    https://news.google.com/articl…=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen


    Antibodies are usually the heroes of the immune system, defending the body against viruses and other threats. But sometimes, in a phenomenon known as autoimmune disease, the immune system appears confused and creates autoantibodies. This occurs in diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, when antibodies attack the joints, and Type 1 diabetes, in which the immune system attacks insulin-producing cells in the pancreas.