Coronavirus

[Mikado463]

I thought this was a tad bit confusing ...........

’A big, open question’: WHO clarifies statement about asymptomatic coronavirus transmission

The question hinges on whether people are asymptomatic – that is, infected but without ever exhibiting symptoms – and presymptomatic.

www.aol.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

I thought this was a tad bit confusing ...........

’A big, open question’: WHO clarifies statement about asymptomatic coronavirus transmission

The question hinges on whether people are asymptomatic – that is, infected but without ever exhibiting symptoms – and presymptomatic.

www.aol.com

The original statement by Ms Van Kerkhove struck me as being at odds with almost everything else I've read. The so-called clarification today (paraphrasing: "we don't actually know much of anything") is obfuscation, not clarification. There is actually plenty of evidence that the virus can be transmitted by people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic (for example, see second link to CDC below).

>>>“The WHO created confusion yesterday when it reported that asymptomatic patients rarely spread the disease,” an email from the Harvard Global Health Institute said Tuesday. “All of the best evidence suggests that people without symptoms can and do readily spread SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. In fact, some evidence suggests that people may be most infectious in the days before they become symptomatic — that is, in the presymptomatic phase when they feel well, have no symptoms, but may be shedding substantial amounts of virus.” . . . Van Kerkhove acknowledged Tuesday that her use of the phrase “very rare” had been a miscommunication. She said she had based that phrasing on findings from a small number of studies that followed asymptomatic cases and tracked how many of their contacts became infected. She said she did not mean to imply that “asymptomatic transmission globally” was happening rarely, because that has not been determined yet. <<<

'We don’t actually have that answer yet': WHO clarifies comments on asymptomatic spread of Covid-19

After strong pushback from public health experts, a top WHO official clarified scientists don’t know yet how often asymptomatic Covid-19 patients are spreading the disease to others.

www.statnews.com

Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 While Asymptomatic

wwwnc.cdc.gov

 

[Mr._Clark]

Fauci flat out said the WHO was wrong. What Fauci said is much more consistent with everything else I've read.

>>>A World Health Organization official recently said asymptomatic spread "appears to be rare," prompting widespread confusion because doctors and scientists have been saying the opposite for months.

But the WHO's comment "was not correct," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious diseases expert in the US.

Evidence shows that 25% to 45% of infected people likely don't have symptoms, Fauci told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Wednesday.

"And we know from epidemiological studies they can transmit to someone who is uninfected even when they're without symptoms," said Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
"So to make a statement to say that's a rare event was not correct."<<<

Fauci says the WHO's comment on asymptomatic spread is wrong. Here's the difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread | CNN

While the public might use the word "asymptomatic" to describe any infected person who doesn't have symptoms, the bigger concern may be infection from "pre-symptomatic" carriers.

www.cnn.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

As long as I'm trashing the WHO, their continued guidance that healthy people should wear masks only when 'taking care of' corona virus patients is truly dumb. When I first saw headlines to this effect, I was highly suspicious that fox news was not reporting this accurately, but I went to the WHO website and it is true (at least it was as of a few days ago).

WHO guidance: Healthy people should wear masks only when 'taking care of' coronavirus patients

The World Health Organization is recommending that healthy people, including those who don't exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, only wear masks when taking care of someone infected with the contagion, a sharp contrast from the advice of American public health officials who recommend everyone wear a mask...

www.foxnews.com

The WHO is at odds with almost all statements from main stream health organizations that I have found, including the CDC (as reported by fox news).

>>>So why weren't face masks recommended at the start of the pandemic? At that time, experts didn't yet know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.

These discoveries led the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to do an about-face on face masks. The CDC updated its guidance to recommend widespread use of simple cloth face coverings to help prevent transmission of the virus by people who have COVID-19 but don't know it.<<<

Can face masks protect against the coronavirus?

Face masks may help slow the spread of the coronavirus. Learn about the types of masks, which type you should use and how to wear it properly.

www.mayoclinic.org

Unfortunately, the statement that "experts didn't yet know" strikes me as disingenuous. I think the real reason was that governments and health organizations wanted to prevent a shortage of face masks so that health care workers (who are clearly at higher risk) would have a sufficient supply.

The WHO said that wearing a mask is effective when caring for a COVID 19 patient, but it is ineffective outside of this context because it would give the user a false sense of security. This is highly contrived. First, can they accurate predict the mental state of people? Second, if masks are effective when caring for someone with the virus, how can wearing one give a person a "false" sense of security? If masks are effective, the sense of security would not be "false." Furthermore, I've never seen any scientific documentation to support the notion that people will engage in sufficiently risky behavior when wearing a mask so as to create higher risk compared to not wearing a mask.

This double speak was a transparent effort to avoid speaking the truth: "Masks are effective, but please don't buy them because we need to make sure the limited supply that is presently available goes to health care workers."

This obfuscation helped create the current confusion about the effectiveness of masks, and provides cover (so to speak) for the anti-mask crowd.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Regeneron just started testing their antibody treatment in humans. It will be interesting to see how theirs does compared to the Eli Lilly antibodies.

I realize this is just a start, but I am very optimistic that antibody treatments will be at least somewhat effective.

>>>Regeneron is kicking its clinical development program off with two trials, one in hospitalized patients and another in nonhospitalized patients. In the first part of the trial, Regeneron will look at virologic and safety endpoints before adding clinical endpoints into the mix in phase 2. The phase 1 and 2 trials will inform the design and size of phase 3 studies in each population.

The exploration of the therapeutic applications of REGN-COV2 forms half of Regeneron’s COVID-19 clinical development program. Regeneron also plans to run studies in two other populations to gauge the effectiveness of REGN-COV2 in preventing infections with SARS-CoV-2.<<<

Regeneron starts testing COVID-19 antibody cocktail in humans

Regeneron has begun clinical development of its anti-SARS- | Regeneron has begun clinical development of its anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody combination REGN-COV2. The adaptive phase 1/2/3 clinical trials will assess the effects of the antibodies on hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.

www.fiercebiotech.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

On the subject of face masks, there's an interesting report that 2 hair stylists at a salon in Springfield MO who had COVID-19 worked on 140 clients without infecting any of the clients. According to the report, all stylists and clients wore face masks. Unfortunately, one person did infect a coworker.

This does not prove that face masks were the reason no else was infected, but it does show that under these conditions transmission of the virus from the stylist to the client is rare, if it were to occur at all. Personally, based on what's known about the virus, I'm willing to infer that the use of masks made a difference.

>>>Missouri health officials discovered no new coronavirus cases after two infected hairstylists served dozens of clients at a Great Clips hair salon.

The Springfield-Greene County Health Department says the incubation period has passed after the hairstylists worked on 140 people at the location in Springfield. Six coworkers also were potentially exposed.

“This is exciting news about the value of masking to prevent COVID-19,” Health Director Clay Goddard said in a news release. “We are studying more closely the details of these exposures, including what types of face coverings were worn and what other precautions were taken to lead to this encouraging result.” . . .

A hairstylist at the Great Clips at 1864 S. Glenstone Ave. served 84 clients while symptomatic. The hairstylist infected a coworker, who worked with 56 clients.<<<

https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article243395651.html

 

[Mr._Clark]

It looks like the Mayo Clinic has developed an antibody test that specifically identifies neutralizing antibodies. I'm amazed at what researchers have been able to accomplish in the short time since this virus was identified.

>>>Mayo Clinic and corporate partners on Thursday unveiled a new test that will help answer the critical question of whether people develop immunity to the coronavirus that causes this infectious disease.

The test is first in the world that will be broadly commercially available to identify neutralizing antibodies — the proteins produced after COVID-19 that will effectively fight off the coronavirus if it ever comes back. Existing tests developed amid the pandemic show whether people have produced any antibodies in response to COVID-19, but not these key proteins. . . .

A key biological feature of the COVID-19 virus is a “spike” protein on its surface that helps it bind with receptors and invade human cells. While other antibodies act as triggers to activate the immune system to fight infection, the neutralizing antibodies appear to bind to the virus on their own and block its ability to infect cells, Theel said.

“Because of this, they are thought to be really good markers of immunity,” Theel said.<<<

Mayo Clinic unveils key COVID-19 antibody test

The test doesn't yet provide proof of an "immunity passport" for people after COVID-19 infections but will help in answering that key research question.

www.startribune.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

As long as I'm trashing the WHO, their continued guidance that healthy people should wear masks only when 'taking care of' corona virus patients is truly dumb. When I first saw headlines to this effect, I was highly suspicious that fox news was not reporting this accurately, but I went to the WHO website and it is true (at least it was as of a few days ago).

WHO guidance: Healthy people should wear masks only when 'taking care of' coronavirus patients

The World Health Organization is recommending that healthy people, including those who don't exhibit COVID-19 symptoms, only wear masks when taking care of someone infected with the contagion, a sharp contrast from the advice of American public health officials who recommend everyone wear a mask...

www.foxnews.com

The WHO is at odds with almost all statements from main stream health organizations that I have found, including the CDC (as reported by fox news).

>>>So why weren't face masks recommended at the start of the pandemic? At that time, experts didn't yet know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.

These discoveries led the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to do an about-face on face masks. The CDC updated its guidance to recommend widespread use of simple cloth face coverings to help prevent transmission of the virus by people who have COVID-19 but don't know it.<<<

Can face masks protect against the coronavirus?

Face masks may help slow the spread of the coronavirus. Learn about the types of masks, which type you should use and how to wear it properly.

www.mayoclinic.org

Unfortunately, the statement that "experts didn't yet know" strikes me as disingenuous. I think the real reason was that governments and health organizations wanted to prevent a shortage of face masks so that health care workers (who are clearly at higher risk) would have a sufficient supply.

The WHO said that wearing a mask is effective when caring for a COVID 19 patient, but it is ineffective outside of this context because it would give the user a false sense of security. This is highly contrived. First, can they accurate predict the mental state of people? Second, if masks are effective when caring for someone with the virus, how can wearing one give a person a "false" sense of security? If masks are effective, the sense of security would not be "false." Furthermore, I've never seen any scientific documentation to support the notion that people will engage in sufficiently risky behavior when wearing a mask so as to create higher risk compared to not wearing a mask.

This double speak was a transparent effort to avoid speaking the truth: "Masks are effective, but please don't buy them because we need to make sure the limited supply that is presently available goes to health care workers."

This obfuscation helped create the current confusion about the effectiveness of masks, and provides cover (so to speak) for the anti-mask crowd.

It looks like the WHO has modified it's position on masks somewhat, but it seems to me that they are still playing word games when it comes to this issue:

>>>W.H.O. Finally Endorses Masks to Prevent Coronavirus Transmission
The agency had been opposed to public use of masks, even after governments worldwide had recommended them.

Long after most nations urged their citizens to wear masks, and after months of hand-wringing about the quality of the evidence available, the World Health Organization on Friday endorsed the use of face masks by the public to reduce transmission of the coronavirus.
. . .

“It is disappointing that the W.H.O. is dismissing that latest evidence that N95s are far more effective than surgical masks in protecting health care workers from Covid-19 exposure,” said David Michaels, an epidemiologist at George Washington University who headed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration during the Obama administration.

“If the problem is the shortage of N95s, the W.H.O. should acknowledge that and not pretend that medical masks are equally effective.”<<<

W.H.O. Finally Endorses Masks to Prevent Coronavirus Transmission (Published 2020)

The agency had been opposed to public use of masks, even after governments worldwide had recommended them.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

I realize this is just a lab test, but this does not look good.

>>>Mutation Allows Coronavirus to Infect More Cells, Study Finds. Scientists Urge Caution.

. . . Researchers at Scripps Research, Florida, found that the mutation, known as D614G, stabilized the virus’s spike proteins, which protrude from the viral surface and give the coronavirus its name. The number of functional and intact spikes on each viral particle was about five times higher because of this mutation, they found.

These spike proteins must attach to a cell for a virus to infect it. As a result, the viruses with D614G were far more likely to infect a cell than viruses without that mutation, according to the scientists who led the study, Hyeryun Choe and Michael Farzan. . . .

“Viruses with more functional spikes on the surface would be more infectious,” Dr. Farzan said. “And there are very clear differences between the two viruses in the experiment.” He added: “Those differences just popped out.” . . .

Virologists shown the study said that the Scripps research was a strong demonstration that this specific mutation does indeed cause a significant change in how the virus behaves, biologically. . . .

“This mutation may explain the predominance of viruses carrying it,” Dr. Choe said.

But other scientists cautioned that it would take significantly more research to determine if differences in the virus were a factor in shaping the course of the outbreak. Other factors clearly played a role in the spread, including the timing of lockdowns, travel patterns and luck, scientists argue.

And luck alone may still be the best explanation for why viruses with the mutation have become so widespread, they said.

Kristian Andersen, a geneticist at Scripps Research, La Jolla, said that analyses of D614G and other variants in Washington and California had so far found no difference in how quickly or widely one variant spread over another.

“That’s the main reason that I’m so hesitant at the moment,” Dr. Andersen said. “Because if one really was able to spread significantly better than the other, then we would expect to see a difference here, and we don’t.”<<<

Mutation Allows Coronavirus to Infect More Cells, Study Finds. Scientists Urge Caution. (Published 2020)

Geneticists said more evidence is needed to determine if a common genetic variation of the virus spreads more easily between people.

www.nytimes.com

 

[KEW]

This is not looking good! (but it is probably still a little too early to draw conclusions).
I was listening to some local (Georgia) analyst on NPR doing an interview. He said (last week) that this week would provide the death rate data to determine whether reopening the economy was a mistake. Consequently I have been watching the chart closely. The really low values are for the weekends where not so many are recorded, and I would guess the extra high entry was where more of the weekend deaths were tallied! The actual chart (link below image) is interactive and you can get specific values for each day by hovering the mouse over the appropriate bar of the chart!
My understanding is that deaths is the best indicator because if you look at cases, that depends too much on the testing protocol which has changed substantially over the last weeks (originally only people who were almost certain to have it were tested and the tested population has steadily grown as the test became more available). Naturally, the number of Covid-19 deaths (assuming they are appropriately being identified) is not subject to this type of variation so it is the most effective measure available (although the time lag from the initial exposure to death is pretty long - my understanding is about a week from exposure to symptoms and I haven't heard what the average time from symptom to death is - if someone knows, please clue me in!).

ARCHIVE: The COVID-19 in Georgia Dashboard

This page is no longer updated. An archived count of reported coronavirus cases in Georgia through May 2023 with a county-by-county Georgia map. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

www.ajc.com

You can certainly tell there were a significant rise in deaths this past week. Being a numbers guy, I decided to tally the numbers per week and indicate the percent change.

1
13 +1200%
50 +285%
134 +168%
227 +69%
243 +7%
226 -7%
266 +18%
234 -12%
189 -22%
222 +18%
176 -21%
188 +7%
244 +30%

The past 8 weeks have seen the numbers bouncing up and down with an overall slightly downward trend. Last weeks 7% rise was consistent with that. The 30% increase this week shows is more dramatic, very much deserving concern, but nothing really extreme. The real question is "where will things go from here?" It sucks tracking a trend when the data includes a 4-5 week lag!

 

[KEW]

One other observation. I know several people (mostly younger) who seem pretty sure that they have already had the virus and were asymptomatic (or mild symptoms). The two of them who got tested for antibodies had not had it.
But I am wondering if this is a social media thing where people are talking about there being lots of people who might have had it without knowing. While it is possible, assuming that it was before "shelter at home" (which it is for the people I have spoken with), it is hard to see how a person could have it and not know anyone who was sick from it as the virus vectored to you or anyone that you might have exposed as it vectored away from you

 

[VMPS-TIII]

You can expect a five month term to reach the death toll high before it tapers to a 50% or lower rate from the high. This is what I recorded in Italy and New York. Even then it doesn't go away. It just gets to a point where those that don't take precautions have been infected along with their intimate contacts.

The states that sheltered in place and opened May 15th will see a surge into Sept/Oct from the data I am reviewing.

 

[Verdinut]

There's a lot of fake info being published and some people even don't believe in the malicious effects of the virus. There is some info to the effect that it has mutated and if that is really the situation, it means that we might have a big problem with getting rid of it before a long time. Let's hope that the mutation aspect is not well founded.

Dr Fauci is quite worried. The situation is already getting worse in at least 17 states and if people don't take the situation as serious, then there will be an important increase in the number of people becoming infected and businesses will have to be closed again for a certain time with the added economics and mental health problems.

 

[Mr._Clark]

One other observation. I know several people (mostly younger) who seem pretty sure that they have already had the virus and were asymptomatic (or mild symptoms). The two of them who got tested for antibodies had not had it.
But I am wondering if this is a social media thing where people are talking about there being lots of people who might have had it without knowing. While it is possible, assuming that it was before "shelter at home" (which it is for the people I have spoken with), it is hard to see how a person could have it and not know anyone who was sick from it as the virus vectored to you or anyone that you might have exposed as it vectored away from you

I'm not sure if you saw the recent CDC report on the outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. In the mainstream media this was widely reported as showing that 40% of infected people did not have antibodies. Here's an example:

>>>Even in a group of entirely healthy young people, only 60% of those infected with coronavirus developed antibodies<<<

Only 60% of the Navy crew members who got coronavirus on the USS Theodore Roosevelt tested positive for antibodies, the CDC found — raising questions about immunity

Nearly one-quarter of the USS Theodore Roosevelt's crew — 1,273 of roughly 4,800 sailors — were infected with the coronavirus.

www.businessinsider.com

Thus, it's entirely possible to have been infected yet still test negative for antibodies. However, even though the 40%/60% number appears to be accurate with regards to the results of the study, it seems to me that this result is just a snapshot at one point in time and it does not mean that 40% of those infected never developed antibodies, or that 40% never will develop antibodies. The CDC study noted this limitation of the study:

>>>Finally, the cross-sectional nature of these data might underestimate the eventual antibody response and neutralizing antibody activity among persons tested early in the course of their infections.<<<

SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample ...

This report describes a coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak among young adult U.S. service members aboard an aircraft carrier.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Mr._Clark]

Another aspect of the results from the USS Theodore Roosevelt study is curious to me. Of the 60% that tested positive for reactive antibodies, 59% also had neutralizing antibodies. Ignoring for a moment the possiblity that antibodies were present before or after the test, this seems to suggest that only about 36% of the infected people who recovered had neutralizing antibodies.

My impression had been that neutralizing antibodies were key to recovering from COVID 19, and I would have guessed that a much higher percentage of those who recovered had neutralizing antibodies. However, if I'm reading it correctly, the Navy study seems to suggest that other immune responses can also be effective in clearing the virus (at least in relatively young people).

One caveat of course is that the study was based on a sample of 382 people so it is not an extremely large sample.

 

[highfigh]

The wishy-washy WHO assessments of COVID could be summed up by remembering what was said by Gunny Highway in the TV version of 'Heartbreak Ridge', when asked for his opinion of a situation- "I think it's a big cluster flop".

IMO, testing should have been wide-spread IMMEDIATELY upon learning that this was headed toward becoming a pandemic. The fact that an antivirus wasn't available shouldn't have mattered- if people tested positive, they should have been isolated and this wouldn't have spread as far, so fast.

 

[Mr._Clark]

The wishy-washy WHO assessments of COVID could be summed up by remembering what was said by Gunny Highway in the TV version of 'Heartbreak Ridge', when asked for his opinion of a situation- "I think it's a big cluster flop".

IMO, testing should have been wide-spread IMMEDIATELY upon learning that this was headed toward becoming a pandemic. The fact that an antivirus wasn't available shouldn't have mattered- if people tested positive, they should have been isolated and this wouldn't have spread as far, so fast.

I agree completely about testing. I wonder if we will ever know the full story concerning the testing delays in the U.S.

Early on, the delay was largely blamed on "red tape," but now the story seems to be contamination at C.D.C. labs. It could have been a combination of both (i.e. the C.D.C. contamination delayed their test, and red tape blocked alternatives).

The appearance is that the C.D.C. tried to keep the contamination issue quiet.

The Atlantic on March 13:

>>>The 4 Key Reasons the U.S. Is So Behind on Coronavirus Testing

Bureaucracy, equipment shortages, an unwillingness to share, and failed leadership doomed the American response to COVID-19.<<<

The 4 Key Reasons the U.S. Is So Behind on Coronavirus Testing

Bureaucracy, equipment shortages, an unwillingness to share, and failed leadership doomed the American response to COVID-19.

www.theatlantic.com

It seems crazy to me that early on the C.D.C. didn't have a test, and the C.D.C. and F.D.A. ordered people to stop testing. From the NY Times on March 10:

>>>On the other side of the country in Seattle, Dr. Chu and her flu study colleagues, unwilling to wait any longer, decided to begin running samples. A technician in the laboratory of Dr. Lea Starita who was testing samples soon got a hit. . . .

On March 2, the Seattle Flu Study’s institutional review board at the University of Washington determined that it would be unethical for the researchers not to test and report the results in a public health emergency, Dr. Starita said. . . . They decided the right thing to do was to inform local health officials. . . .

Later that day, the investigators and Seattle health officials gathered with representatives of the C.D.C. and the F.D.A. to discuss what happened. The message from the federal government was blunt. “What they said on that phone call very clearly was cease and desist to Helen Chu,” Dr. Lindquist remembered. “Stop testing.” . . .

On a phone call the day after the C.D.C. and F.D.A. had told Dr. Chu to stop, officials relented, but only partially, the researchers recalled. They would allow the study’s laboratories to test cases and report the results only in future samples. . . .

But on Monday night, state regulators, enforcing Medicare rules, stepped in and again told them to stop until they could finish getting certified as a clinical laboratory, a process that could take many weeks.<<<

‘It’s Just Everywhere Already’: How Delays in Testing Set Back the U.S. Coronavirus Response (Published 2020)

A series of missed chances by the federal government to ensure more widespread testing came during the early days of the outbreak, when containment would have been easier.

www.nytimes.com

The NY Times on April 18:

>>>C.D.C. Labs Were Contaminated, Delaying Coronavirus Testing, Officials Say
Fallout from the agency’s failed rollout of national coronavirus kits two months ago continues to haunt U.S. efforts to combat the spread of the highly infectious virus.

Sloppy laboratory practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention caused contamination that rendered the nation’s first coronavirus tests ineffective, federal officials confirmed on Saturday.

Two of the three C.D.C. laboratories in Atlanta that created the coronavirus test kits violated their own manufacturing standards, resulting in the agency sending tests that did not work to nearly all of the 100 state and local public health labs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. . . .

To this day, the C.D.C.’s singular failure symbolizes how unprepared the federal government was in the early days to combat a fast-spreading outbreak of a new virus and it also highlights the glaring inability at the onset to establish a systematic testing policy that would have revealed the still unknown rates of infection in many regions of the country. <<<

C.D.C. Labs Were Contaminated, Delaying Coronavirus Testing, Officials Say (Published 2020)

Fallout from the agency’s failed rollout of national coronavirus kits two months ago continues to haunt U.S. efforts to combat the spread of the highly infectious virus.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Swerd]

Another aspect of the results from the USS Theodore Roosevelt study is curious to me. Of the 60% that tested positive for reactive antibodies, 59% also had neutralizing antibodies. Ignoring for a moment the possibility that antibodies were present before or after the test, this seems to suggest that only about 36% of the infected people who recovered had neutralizing antibodies.

You are ignoring the other type immune response – the killer T cell response. There are viral diseases where killer T cell responses have been shown to be the major response. I believe that was for influenza.

My impression had been that neutralizing antibodies were key to recovering from COVID 19, and I would have guessed that a much higher percentage of those who recovered had neutralizing antibodies. However, if I'm reading it correctly, the Navy study seems to suggest that other immune responses can also be effective in clearing the virus (at least in relatively young people).

Where have you read that neutralizing antibodies were key to recovering from COVID-19? I don't think anyone knows that for certain.

There have been various viral diseases where it has been suggested that one type of immune response (neutralizing antibody) or another (such as killer T cell) are key to providing immunity. This has been debated widely in immunology and medicine, and I don't know if a definitive answer is known. For example, in polio the injected Salk vaccine developed a potent neutralizing antibody response, and it worked to immunize people against polio. (I don't know if the Salk vaccine developed much of a T cell response. Much of that work was done in the 1950s when much less was known about T cells.)

But the oral Sabin vaccine also successfully immunized people against polio and it's 'immune memory' lasted much longer than for the Salk vaccine. The Sabin vaccine developed a potent T cell response, as well as a neutralizing antibody response. It's difficult to say that immunity is due one mechanism or the other with any certainty.

With influenza, it's pretty certain that immunity comes via killer T cells. But most strains of influenza can infect host cells and produce infectious virus particles without killing the host cells. Neutralizing antibodies that work against virus particles circulating in the blood stream would not work very well unless the infected host cells were also eliminated.

Do we know exactly how SARS-CoV-2 works in all the various host cells it infects? Not yet. All this varies widely with the virus and its natural viral life cycle. I don't think we know enough to generalize about this.

And finally, I remind you not to believe press releases from drug companies as the final word. I'm referring to post #2565 where you discuss Regeneron's and Eli Lily's antibody treatments that are in development. Both companies want to sell mixtures of monoclonal antibodies as treatment before there is an adequate vaccine available. I believe these types of approaches are scientifically questionable, at best, because they assume that neutralizing antibodies are THE answer. If they turn out to be effective, they will be very expensive. And they will be much slower to reach FDA approval than a vaccine because they involve frequent injections or IV infusions of large amounts of protein.

 

[VMPS-TIII]

IMO, testing should have been wide-spread IMMEDIATELY upon learning that this was headed toward becoming a pandemic. The fact that an antivirus wasn't available shouldn't have mattered- if people tested positive, they should have been isolated and this wouldn't have spread as far, so fast.

"Everyone that wants a test will get one." What a bag of Lies!

The fact that States will not shut down again and will not test and mandate quarantine and masks means it's going to be Hell on earth until 70% of the US population is infected and 1,000,000 US lives are lost. At that point, it will disappear and no one will receive jail time for the incompetence.

The worst case scenario will be if a new vaccine is rushed and ends up killing more than Covid-19.

 

[Mr._Clark]

You are ignoring the other type immune response – the killer T cell response. There are viral diseases where killer T cell responses have been shown to be the major response. I believe that was for influenza.
Where have you read that neutralizing antibodies were key to recovering from COVID-19? I don't think anyone knows that for certain.

There have been various viral diseases where it has been suggested that one type of immune response (neutralizing antibody) or another (such as killer T cell) are key to providing immunity. This has been debated widely in immunology and medicine, and I don't know if a definitive answer is known. For example, in polio the injected Salk vaccine developed a potent neutralizing antibody response, and it worked to immunize people against polio. (I don't know if the Salk vaccine developed much of a T cell response. Much of that work was done in the 1950s when much less was known about T cells.)

But the oral Sabin vaccine also successfully immunized people against polio and it's 'immune memory' lasted much longer than for the Salk vaccine. The Sabin vaccine developed a potent T cell response, as well as a neutralizing antibody response. It's difficult to say that immunity is due one mechanism or the other with any certainty.

With influenza, it's pretty certain that immunity comes via killer T cells. But most strains of influenza can infect host cells and produce infectious virus particles without killing the host cells. Neutralizing antibodies that work against virus particles circulating in the blood stream would not work very well unless the infected host cells were also eliminated.

Do we know exactly how SARS-CoV-2 works in all the various host cells it infects? Not yet. All this varies widely with the virus and its natural viral life cycle. I don't think we know enough to generalize about this.

And finally, I remind you not to believe press releases from drug companies as the final word. I'm referring to post #2565 where you discuss Regeneron's and Eli Lily's antibody treatments that are in development. Both companies want to sell mixtures of monoclonal antibodies as treatment before there is an adequate vaccine available. I believe these types of approaches are scientifically questionable, at best, because they assume that neutralizing antibodies are THE answer. If they turn out to be effective, they will be very expensive. And they will be much slower to reach FDA approval than a vaccine because they involve frequent injections or IV infusions of large amounts of protein.

That was just my impression but it was contradicted by this study.

Where in post #2565 did I say that I believe press releases from drug companies are the final word? Am I not allowed to be optimistic that antibodies will be at least somewhat effective? I'm glad that testing has started so we can find out. You can be unhappy that tests are being conducted if you prefer.