Ah, I was just mentioning you and Sweden in the other thread.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers from - your arse as usual? - but they had five deaths yesterday, and are up to an infection rate they hadn't seen since July.
Ah, I was just mentioning you and Sweden in the other thread.
What do we know with out a doubt now?
...In this study, we found that antibodies against the RBD region of the S protein were accurate indicators of recent severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. The presence of IgG antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 RBD was a highly sensitive (95%) marker of infection after 14 days from onset of illness. This is consistent with a growing body of data which demonstrate that measurement of anti-RBD antibodies can accurately classify individuals recently infected with SARS-CoV-2 (6–9). Because this study was conducted in a large cohort of individuals with known SARS-CoV-2 infection (N=343) and controls (N=1548) it provides a robust measure of the accuracy of anti-RBD antibodies.
These findings also add to emerging evidence on the persistence and decay of antibody responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM and IgA responses to RBD were short-lived and most individuals seroreverted within two and a half months after the onset of illness. However, IgG antibodies persisted at detectable levels in patients beyond 90 days after symptom onset, and seroreversion was only observed in a small percentage of individuals. The concentration of these anti-RBD IgG antibodies was also highly correlated with pseudovirus NAb titers, which also demonstrated minimal decay. The observation that IgG and neutralizing antibody responses persist is encouraging, and suggests the development of robust systemic immune memory in individuals with severe infection. This is similar to a study that reported on anti-RBD antibodies in 121 North American convalescent plasma donors up to 82 days from symptom onset (10) and a study of 1,197 Icelanders who remained seropositive by 2 pan-IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays 120 days after qPCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (9). However, these findings differ with other recent studies suggesting a more rapid waning in anti-RBD titers following mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (11, 12).
Our results, therefore, provide strong support for the application of anti-RBD antibodies as a marker of recent SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as new and detailed information related to the specificity and decay kinetics of the anti-RBD responses. The testing approach used meets the CDC’s guidelines for serologic testing (22) and has the potential to facilitate accurate diagnosis in clinical settings and the implementation of population-based studies of previous infection globally. While the association between anti-RBD-IgG and neutralizing titers and the persistence of these antibodies at late time points is encouraging, further work is needed to define the optimal antibody-mediated correlates of protective immunity.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/ ... s/12752108Virus that causes COVID-19 survives up to 28 days on surfaces, Australian scientists find
The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can live for up to 28 days on surfaces such as mobile phone screens and ATMs — much longer than previously thought — new Australian research has found.
- The virus survives on most surfaces for about six to seven days before starting to lose potency
- On some surfaces, such as glass and paper banknotes, the virus lasts for longer than a month
- People can be infected if they touch a contaminated surface then touch their face, nose or mouth
CSIRO scientists tested the SARS-CoV-2 virus to see how long it survived on surfaces such as cotton, paper, stainless steel, glass and vinyl.
Trevor Drew, director of the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, said the research team used the same amount of virus that would be found in someone who was infected.
"It's important to know how long this virus can last so we know how often we need to disinfect things and what sort of risk common surfaces pose," Professor Drew said.
He said the fact the virus lasted for so long on surfaces such as glass was important, with the results published today in Virology Journal.
Previous research revealed the virus that causes COVID-19 could be detected in aerosols for up to three hours and on plastic and stainless steel surfaces for up to three days.
But this new study found the virus hung around intact on most surfaces for about six to seven days before starting to lose its potency.
"What we found was that even after two weeks, there was still plenty of live, infectious virus there which could potentially infect someone," Professor Drew said.
And on some surfaces, such as glass and paper banknotes, the virus was still there after one month.
Debbie Eagles, deputy director of the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, said the findings were surprising.
"It seems that it lasts longer than other viruses such as influenza, which only lasts a few days, or even other coronaviruses," she said.
This study measured the survival rates of infectious SARS-CoV-2, suspended in a standard ASTM E2197 matrix, on several common surface types. All experiments were carried out in the dark, to negate any effects of UV light. Inoculated surfaces were incubated at 20 °C, 30 °C and 40 °C and sampled at various time points.
Survival rates of SARS-CoV-2 were determined at different temperatures and D-values, Z-values and half-life were calculated. We obtained half lives of between 1.7 and 2.7 days at 20 °C, reducing to a few hours when temperature was elevated to 40 °C. With initial viral loads broadly equivalent to the highest titres excreted by infectious patients, viable virus was isolated for up to 28 days at 20 °C from common surfaces such as glass, stainless steel and both paper and polymer banknotes. Conversely, infectious virus survived less than 24 h at 40 °C on some surfaces.
These findings demonstrate SARS-CoV-2 can remain infectious for significantly longer time periods than generally considered possible. These results could be used to inform improved risk mitigation procedures to prevent the fomite spread of COVID-19.
The Lancet published the case study:A 25-year-old was infected twice with the coronavirus earlier this year, scientists in Nevada have confirmed. It is the first confirmed case of so-called reinfection with the virus in the U.S. and the fifth confirmed reinfection case worldwide.
Genetic discordance of the two SARS-CoV-2 specimens was greater than could be accounted for by short-term in vivo evolution. These findings suggest that the patient was infected by SARS-CoV-2 on two separate occasions by a genetically distinct virus. Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases. All individuals, whether previously diagnosed with COVID-19 or not, should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2. The implications of reinfections could be relevant for vaccine development and application.
Not unless they've already set up facilities for large-scale production.
Access to a Vaccine, Once Approved
When is the earliest the vaccine will be available to the public?
If regulatory approval or authorization is obtained, the companies expect to manufacture globally up to 100 million doses by the end of 2020 and potentially 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.
When you're so in love with your leader you just repeat his lies verbatim.
None of this is simple or easy.Johnson & Johnson has paused all clinical trials of its experimental COVID-19 vaccine after a study participant became sick with an "unexplained illness."
In a statement on Monday, the company said it had "temporarily paused further dosing in all our COVID-19 vaccine candidate clinical trials," including a Phase 3 trial that began late last month, while it investigated the illness.
"Adverse events — illnesses, accidents, etc. — even those that are serious, are an expected part of any clinical study, especially large studies," the company said.
The Johnson & Johnson Phase 3 trial of its Janssen COVID-19 vaccine candidate involves an anticipated 60,000 adults in multiple countries, testing the safety and efficacy of a single dose versus a placebo. A two-dose regimen is being tested in a separate trial.
Administrators at Brigham Young University's campus in southeastern Idaho say they are "deeply troubled" by reports that students may have intentionally tried to contract COVID-19, lured by blood donation centers that are paying a premium for plasma with COVID-19 antibodies.
"Students who are determined to have intentionally exposed themselves or others to the virus will be immediately suspended from the university and may be permanently dismissed," the university said in a statement issued Monday.
Not yet peer reviewed:One of the world’s biggest trials of COVID-19 therapies released its long-awaited interim results yesterday—and they’re a letdown. None of the four treatments in the Solidarity trial, which enrolled more than 11,000 patients in 400 hospitals around the globe, increased survival—not even the much-touted antiviral drug remdesivir. Scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) released the data as a preprint on medRxiv last night ahead of its planned publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Repurposed antiviral drugs for COVID-19; interim WHO SOLIDARITY trial results
These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay. The mortality findings contain most of the randomized evidence on Remdesivir and Interferon, and are consistent with meta-analyses of mortality in all major trials.
I am dubious that sufficient study and review has been done. While I understand that nursing home residents are an at-risk group, I'd prefer that safety and efficacy be more studied and established before administering a fast-track treatment to such a group. I am not alone:Federal health officials on Friday unveiled a plan to get yet-to-be-approved coronavirus vaccines to nursing home residents free of charge, enlisting two national pharmacy chains to help.
Such a vaccine is not yet available, and that led to skepticism from some long-term care experts. The distribution program is contingent on the Food and Drug Administration authorizing a vaccine, which does not appear to be imminent.
Under the voluntary program, trained staff from CVS and Walgreens would deliver the vaccines to each nursing home and administer shots. Assisted-living facilities and residential group homes can also participate. Nursing home staffers can be vaccinated, too, if they have not already received their shots. Needles, syringes and other necessary equipment will be included.
FWIW: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/surveillance/ ... e-programsDr. Christian Bergman, medical director of a nursing home in Richmond, Virginia, said he is pleased the government has a plan for rapid deployment of vaccines, but he needs to see clinical data before any of his patients get shots.
“I await public release of all data concerning safety and efficacy,” Bergman said. “Without this data, I will not be able to ethically endorse this vaccine and promote it within my nursing home.”
I saw that and it means that, so far, we have dexamethasone as the sole drug proven to help.Pyrrho wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:36 pm https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10 ... treatments
Pyrrho wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:36 pm https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10 ... treatments
One of the world’s biggest trials of COVID-19 therapies released its long-awaited interim results yesterday—and they’re a letdown. None of the four treatments in the Solidarity trial, which enrolled more than 11,000 patients in 400 hospitals around the globe, increased survival—not even the much-touted antiviral drug remdesivir. Scientists at the World Health Organization (WHO) released the data as a preprint on medRxiv last night ahead of its planned publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
There's been some criticism of the Recovery trial.The prospects of two of the four treatments—the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and the HIV drug combination ritonavir/lopinavir—had faded after another large study, the United Kingdom’s Recovery trial, showed they did not increase survival in June. After analyzing that study and its own data up until then, WHO decided to drop both from the study.