COVID-19 notes:
a global perspective:
SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality risk
Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
How the pandemic might play out in 2021 and beyond
This coronavirus is here for the long haul — here’s what scientists
predict for the next months and years.
Around the world, epidemiologists are constructing short- and long-term
projections as a way to prepare for, and potentially mitigate, the spread and
impact of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Although their forecasts
and timelines vary, modellers agree on two things: COVID-19 is here to stay,
and the future depends on a lot of unknowns, including whether people develop
lasting immunity to the virus, whether seasonality affects its spread, and —
perhaps most importantly — the choices made by governments and individuals.
Reopening Schools is a Death Sentence: Covid is way riskier for kids than you probably think
from a recent study focusing on childrens’ Covid outcomes… 62% needed to
go the hospital. 8% needed ICU treatment. 4% ended up on mechanical
ventilation. The mortality rate was about 1%.
… doctors examined the cardiac outcomes of people who’d recovered from
Covid. Their findings? Out of 100 people, 78 had “structural changes to their
hearts,”
Association Between Statewide School Closure and
COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality in the US
Long term respiratory complications of covid-19
Cerebral Micro-Structural Changes in COVID-19 Patients – An MRI-based 3-month Follow-up Study
In this follow-up stage, neurological symptoms were
presented in 55% of COVID-19 patients.
Yes, the
Coronavirus Is in the Air
Transmission through aerosols matters — and probably a lot more than
we’ve been able to prove yet.
Finally. The World Health
Organization has now formally recognized that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes
Covid-19, is airborne and that it can be carried by tiny
aerosols. As we cough and sneeze,
talk or just breathe, we naturally
release droplets (small
particles of fluid) and aerosols (smaller particles of fluid) into the air. Yet
until earlier this month, the W.H.O. — like the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention or Public Health England — had warned
mostly about the
transmission of the new coronavirus through direct contact and droplets
released at close range.
The organization had
cautioned against aerosols only in rare circumstances, such as after intubation
and other medical
procedures involving infected
patients in hospitals. After several months
of pressure from scientists, on July 9, the W.H.O. changed its position — going from denial
to grudging
partial acceptance
…
the recent findings are an important reminder to also
be vigilant about opening windows and improving airflow indoors. And they are
further evidence that the quality of masks and their fit matter, too. The
W.H.O. defines as a “droplet” a particle larger than 5 microns and has said that droplets don’t travel farther than one meter. In
fact, there is no neat and no meaningful cutoff point — at 5 microns or any
other size — between droplets and aerosols: All are tiny specks of liquid,
their size ranging along a spectrum that goes from very small to really
microscopic. (I am working with medical historians to track down the scientific
basis for the W.H.O.’s definition, and we have not found a sensible explanation
yet.) Yes, droplets tend to fly through the air like mini cannonballs and
they fall to the ground rather quickly, while aerosols can float around for
many hours. But basic physics also says that a 5-micron droplet takes about a
half-hour to drop to the floor from the mouth of an adult of average height —
and during that time, the droplet can travel many meters on an air current. Droplets
expelled in coughs or sneezes also travel much farther than one meter.
Failing the Coronavirus-Testing Test
At the moment, the United States has no semblance of
public-health testing” for the coronavirus, says Michael Mina, an assistant
professor of epidemiology at both Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T. H.
Chan School of Public Health. What does Mina—an expert in viral testing
protocols—mean by that? Current tests for active infection with SARS-CoV-2 are
highly sensitive—but most are given to suspected COVID-19 patients long after
the infected person has stopped transmitting the virus to others. That means
the results are virtually useless for public-health efforts to contain the
raging pandemic. These PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests, which amplify
viral RNA to detectable levels, are used by physicians, often in hospital
settings, to help guide clinical care for individual patients. In general,
members of the public have not had access to such tests outside clinical
settings, but even if they did, would find them too expensive for frequent use.
Furthermore, such tests detect tiny fragments of viral
RNA even after the patient has recovered. Mina says that means “the vast
majority of PCR positive tests we currently collect in this country are
actually finding people long after they have ceased to be infectious.” In that
sense, a positive result can be misleading, because the results can’t be relied
on to guide the epidemiological efforts of public-health officials, which are
focused on preventing transmission and controlling outbreaks: “The astounding
realization is that all we’re doing with all of this testing is clogging up the
testing infrastructure,” with results arriving a week or more after tests are
administered, “and essentially finding people for whom we can’t even act
because they are done transmitting.”
…
What the country needs instead are rapid tests, widely
deployed, so that infectious individuals can be readily self-identified and
isolated, breaking the chain of transmission. To do
that, Mina says, everyone must be tested, every couple of days, with $1,
paper-based, at-home tests that are as easy to distribute and use as a
pregnancy test: wake up in the morning, add saliva or nasal mucous to a tube of
chemicals, wait 15 minutes, then dip a paper strip in the tube, and read the
results. Such tests are feasible—a tiny company called E25Bio, and
another called Sherlock Biosciences can deliver such tests—but they have not
made it to the marketplace because their sensitivity is being compared to that
of PCR tests. Mina says that is beside the point. “Imagine you are a fire
department,” he says, “and you want to make sure that you catch all the fires
that are burning so you can put them out. You don’t want a test that’s going to
detect every time somebody lights a match in their house—that would be crazy:
you’d be driving everywhere and having absolutely no effect. You want a test
that can detect every time somebody is walking the streets with a
flame-thrower.” FOR PUBLIC-HEALTH PURPOSES, speed and frequency of testing
are vastly more important than sensitivity: the best test would actually be
less sensitive than a PCR test.
Big Pharma Giants GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Receive $2.1 Billion to Develop COVID Vaccine
The Trump administration’s “Manhattan project” for a COVID-19 vaccine has
topped its biggest award given only two weeks ago to Novavax, Inc with its
latest grant of $2.1 billion to pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline, and
partner Sanofi Pasteur to “speed up clinical development and manufacturing” of
its recombinant vaccine candidate for the novel coronavirus.
This latest infusion of tax-payer money into Big Pharma’s hands by the
Trump administration comes on the heels of the rumored failure of an early
vaccine candidate. Moderna’s SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine has received nearly a
billion in federal funds, but recent reports of the company’s CMO, Tal Zaks,
selling almost all of his shares as the vaccine is set to begin late-stage
trials have sparked speculation that the “pre-fusion stabilized Spike protein”
vaccine is dead in the water. Neither Novavax or Moderna, however, have ever
had a single product go to market despite years in the business. GSK and
Sanofi, in contrast, have plenty. Sanofi produces an FDA-approved flu shot and
GSK, producer of some of the most recognizable pharmaceutical brand names like
Binaca and Paxil, also produced a flu vaccine for the H1N1 “bird flu” called
Pandermix.
Nevertheless, the fact that these large pharmaceutical firms have had
some market success doesn’t necessarily mean anything in terms of the safety of
their vaccines. GSK’s Pandermix turned out to induce narcolepsy and after
studies confirmed the association between the drug and the chronic sleeping
disorder, it has not been used since.
Paying Twice for a Vaccine: Moderna is Taking Taxpayers For a Ride
Moderna said today that taxpayer money funds 100% of its work to bring a
COVID-19 vaccine to licensure, yet it announced new, higher intended prices for
the prospective vaccine
An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care
“misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by
lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about
hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”
Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about
this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have
been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any
Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the
newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science -- or the
politics -- of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus
game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by
three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of
hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is
inherently unsafe. This claim is nonsense.
Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 -- and the
Washington Post is hardly alone -- the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug
study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found
a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was
a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given
to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe
pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on
a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted
on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.
Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite,
making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused
serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that
COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and
sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.
To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president
could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug.
Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington
Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using
chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped
because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another
problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients
lethal cumulative doses of the drug.
On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing
commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion
hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both
hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s
Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge
that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat
malaria & lupus.”
Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again
on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial
drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in
coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a
large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The
Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.
However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was
long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical
trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to
take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to
fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent
senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the
drug.
So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what
we know: …
… Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some
knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine
to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection.
… On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an
extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with
connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe
drug with no serious side effects
… countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then
later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine
use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID
mortality and hospital admissions.
… Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the
resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in
the country from May 27 until June 11,
when it was quickly reinstated. The consequences of suddenly stopping
hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio
Index (nr CFR) for Switzerland.
…
Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and
remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new
antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to
be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major
widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We
now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality
and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.
Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a
tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for
respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three
tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five
days.
There are now 53 studies that show positive results of
hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global
studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of
patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be
expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the
same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil
paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.
Millions of people are taking or have taken
hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic
under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have
been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51%
and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given
hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July
29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a
66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No
serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of
heartbeat abnormalities.
This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is
the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own
misinformation?
Henry Ford [Health System] defends hydroxychloroquine study, 'saddened' by drug's politicization
Authors of Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Study Defend Their Work After Being Attacked by Dr. Fauci
Big League Politics reported on how Dr. Fauci disregarded the Henry Ford
Health System study, which appeared in a scholarly journal, because it wasn’t
approved by the federal Big Pharma cartel. .. “That study is a flawed study,
and I think anyone who examines it carefully is that it is not a randomized
placebo-controlled trial,” Fauci added. … Fauci does not seem to be as
concerned about vaccines. He is calling for COVID-19 vaccines to be synthesized
as quickly as possible and is downplaying the potential risks. .. “We feel
cautiously optimistic that we will have a vaccine by the end of this year and
as we go into 2021,” Fauci said. Fauci is earning his money shilling for his
Big Pharma masters, but these Detroit-based medical professionals show that not
every doctor is willing to sell their soul for a corporate paycheck.
Regular Related Fare:
3 Reasons
Treasury Rates Can Still Hit 0% (Part 1: Deflation, Not
Inflation, Is The Bigger Risk)
· Deflation remains the more
credible risk, not inflation. The output gap suggests core inflation could sink
below 0.5% in the coming years.
· FX hedged Treasury yields
remain higher than yields at home. This will increase foreign appetite for US
rates.
· From a longer-term secular
standpoint, economic growth will fall into a new regime, sub 2% which will
weigh on bond yields.
· Further stimulus from the
fiscal side will delay the full extent of the deflationary output gap but will
not change the end result in the final analysis.
· As part of your balanced
portfolio, long-term Treasury bonds are still a valuable holding as the path to
0% remains a probable scenario.
3 Reasons Treasury Rates Can Still Hit 0% (Part III: Long-Term Growth Prospects)
Regular Fare:
A Generational Opportunity In Commodities?
(not just) for the ESG crowd:
Canada's last fully intact Arctic ice shelf collapses
Rising temperatures will cause more deaths than all infectious diseases – study
Letter from economists: to rebuild our world, we must end the carbon economy
EPA to Rescind Methane Regulations for Oil and Gas
Other Fare:
Wireless Charging Is a Disaster Waiting to Happen
We crunched the numbers on just how inefficient wireless charging is —
and the results are pretty shocking
COVID Tweets of the Week:
Dr. Vera Etches – Medical Officer of Health, Ottawa
Marc Bevand & David Pritchard – visually show pattern in Florida and Ottawa of cases starting with young people then spreading to older ages
Thread summary:
* Kids do get sick
* Kids do transmit the virus
* School is still possible ... but only with strict precautions & if
community infection rates are low
* NO MATTER WHAT, #MaskUp and insist on testing
[Other] Tweets of the Week:
The Siberian Times: Bear cubs filmed body surfing and splashing in waves of the Sea of Okhotsk
EXTRA (not necessarily politically correct) FARE:
Tweet of the Week:
Remdesivir, made by
@GileadSciences, has now set the price ➡️ $2,300 to $3,100 per patient.
So how much does it cost to
produce each vial? ➡️ Just $1.
US taxpayers also had paid
for the drug’s NIH trial.
Borderline criminal drug
pricing.
Political and Geopolitical and Sociopolitical Fare:
US Intelligence: If Trump Wins Russia Did It, If Biden Wins It Was China And Iran
the dumbest thing about
believing foreign nations are interfering in American democracy is believing
America has any democracy to interfere with. The integrity of US elections
ranks dead last among all western democracies, public opinion is constantly
manipulated by the media-owning plutocratic class which has a vested interest
in maintaining the status quo which keeps them rich and powerful, and it’s a
two-headed one party system where both corporate-owned parties advance the same
establishment agendas. Imagine believing that foreign leaders are looking at
the dumpster fire that is the United States and thinking “I know how we can
hurt them! We’ll sow division by saying mean things about their presidential
candidates on social media!”
Why Clinton Lost, and More Importantly, Why Biden Might Lose as Well
America Is About To Feel Like A 3rd World Nation
Understanding the gravity of the Russia Hoax
(More) Fun Fare:
Dow Skyrockets After Coronavirus Begins Trading On New York Stock Exchange
You swine! German nudist chases wild boar that stole laptop
Quote of the Week:
Caitlin Johnstone: “Some people find it offensive that I say Trump is no worse than his predecessors. I find it offensive that they ignore the barbarism of Trump’s predecessors.”
And, on the 75th anniversary of Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9):
More here: U.S. leaders
knew we didn’t have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it
anyway
And here from John Pilger
No comments:
Post a Comment