ADVERTISEMENT

New COVID Research

JamieDimonsBalls

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
16,261
16,945
113
Published on Lancet



Explains some of the complexities related to the body's response to COVID

In patients with lethal COVID-19, an extensive systemic inflammatory response was present, with a continued presence of neutrophils and NETs. However, SARS-CoV-2-infected cells were only sporadically present at late stages of COVID-19. This suggests a maladaptive immune response and substantiates the evidence for immunomodulation as a target in the treatment of severe COVID-19.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and Morrison
Here's some good science:


"Brian Garibaldi, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues developed the COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator with 24 variables known to be linked with COVID-19, such as age, body mass index, underlying conditions, vital signs, and symptom severity at the time of admission.

Data were gathered from the care of 832 consecutive patients with COVID-19 between March 4 and April 24 at five Johns Hopkins hospitals in Maryland and Washington, DC.

...

The authors say the model can predict likelihood of severe disease (defined as needing high levels of oxygen support or a breathing machine) or death from 5% to 90%, sometimes flagging that a person is 18 times more likely to progress to severe disease than another patient with COVID-19.

The article gives some examples:

"An 81-year-old Black woman with diabetes and hypertension, a BMI of 35 kg/m2, fever, a respiratory rate of 32 breaths/min, a high (C-Reactive Protein) level, and a D-dimer level greater than 1 mg/L has a probability of progressing to severe disease or death of 80%, 92%, and 96% by days 2, 4, and 7, respectively, after admission."

"In contrast," the authors found, a 39-year-old Latinx man with a BMI of 23 kg/m2, no comorbid conditions, and no fever has a probability of progression of 3%, 5%, and 5% by days 2, 4, and 7."

Garibaldi told Medscape Medical News the model has different accuracies at different time points after admission.

"The first two days, it's 85% accurate and then over the first week, it's about 80%," he said."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Still more COVID Research news... get your Vitamin D people


Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have sufficient levels of vitamin D show significant reductions in severe outcomes and a lower risk of death compared with insufficient levels, new research shows.

"This study provides direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency can reduce the complications including the cytokine storm and ultimately death from COVID-19," said senior author Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts, in a press statement from his institution.


...
Is it Worth Supplementing Anyway?

Patients with vitamin D insufficiency also had significantly higher levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (P = .01) and lower lymphocyte levels (P = .03).

These data add to the evidence that vitamin D potentially mitigates the severity of the cytokine storm that can be detrimental in COVID-19, the authors speculate.

"Indeed, the anti-inflammatory role of 1,25(OH)2D could explain the protective role of vitamin D against immune hyper-reaction and cytokine storm in a subgroup of patients with severe COVID-19," they write.

Furthermore, vitamin D is known to modulated the renin-angiotensin pathway and down-regulate angiotensin converting enzyme 2, which has been implicated in COVID-19, the authors note.
 
I had volunteered online for COVID-19 vaccine trials but haven't yet qualified to participate. I am not in a high enough risk group (not over 65, not working in a high exposure job, etc.).

A few days ago I got an email on the Moderna trial enrollment saying to call them. It turns out that their high risk group enrollment was filled! They were looking specifically for underrepresented minorities to fill out study demographics, though, so again I didn't qualify. I guess I will wait until 2021! The center told me that I might quaify for an Astra Zeneca trial that will be enrolling later this month, though.
 
To what extent is COVID-19 like the flu?

Depends on your age.

Data on Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) by age of #COVID19 vs seasonal influenza shows COVID is MULTIPLE TIMES more fatal at all ages above 30:

2.9× more fatal at age 30
5.0× at 40
8.6× at 50
13.6× at 60
14.4× at 70

NOTE: graph below, y-axis is a LOG scale, so a little space = a big difference

EjRbrU1XkAMm5i1


 
Last edited:
The odd thing - which was also true of the 1917-18 flu pandemic - is that the thing that kills us turns out to be the human immune system, as it attacks the virus.

We become collateral damage.

What would Darwin say of a species that has a health protection system that kills it?

We aren’t doing it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and mcmurtry66
To what extent is COVID-19 like the flu?

Depends on your age.

Data on Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) by age of #COVID19 vs seasonal influenza shows COVID is MULTIPLE TIMES more fatal at all ages above 30:

2.9× more fatal at age 30
5.0× at 40
8.6× at 50
13.6× at 60
4.4× at 70

NOTE: graph below, y-axis is a LOG scale, so a little space = a big difference

EjRbrU1XkAMm5i1



Well, the death rate for infected 80 year olds might be 14%+ more than from flu, but the death rate is still only 10% for all infected 80 year olds and much less than 10% per capita.
 
Well, the death rate for infected 80 year olds might be 14%+ more than from flu, but the death rate is still only 10% for all infected 80 year olds and much less than 10% per capita.
LOL. Re-read it. There you go with that COH math again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
LOL. Re-read it. There you go with that COH math again.

Try again.

The difference between Covid and flu is irrelevant to any decision an 80 year old should make about behavior or arranging affairs. If you want to talk about that flu v. covid comparison be my guest. It means nothing to me.
 
Moderna chief says Covid-19 vaccine won't be widely available before late March
If Moderna's coronavirus vaccine is proven safe and effective, the general population could have access to it by late March or early April next year, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said on Wednesday.
 
Try again.

The difference between Covid and flu is irrelevant to any decision an 80 year old should make about behavior or arranging affairs. If you want to talk about that flu v. covid comparison be my guest. It means nothing to me.

wtf???????????????
 
Try again.

The difference between Covid and flu is irrelevant to any decision an 80 year old should make about behavior or arranging affairs. If you want to talk about that flu v. covid comparison be my guest. It means nothing to me.

I think the question is, is + and × identical math symbols?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
With these numbers no Fing way should lockdowns be part of our vocabulary.

Lockdown works only if there are the usual measures in place. Hands, face & space. Otherwise its just like the electric shock treatments of the 60s. Simpler, less painful measures aren't being implemented so you resort to these electric shock treatments.

The question is why the simple measure like hands, face & space arent being executed expediently.

100% of the countries out there which are successful in managing the pandemic make these measures mandatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: largemouth
Lockdown works only if there are the usual measures in place. Hands, face & space. Otherwise its just like the electric shock treatments of the 60s. Simpler, less painful measures aren't being implemented so you resort to these electric shock treatments.

The question is why the simple measure like hands, face & space arent being executed expediently.

100% of the countries out there which are successful in managing the pandemic make these measures mandatory.
There are lots of things we could do short of a lock down. Like collecting data on how people are getting infected. Six months into this and we're still flying blind.
 
With these numbers no Fing way should lockdowns be part of our vocabulary.

of course they should.

we're just locking down everyone, instead of just those in realistic danger.

we have a strategy of locking down the 22 yr old student or worker to protect the 60 yr old prof or worker.

that's a strategic clusterfk of epic proportion imo, and is needlessly killing the economy while at the same time not working medically due to the strategy's dependence on those not at risk indefinitely giving up their lives to protect those at risk, which obviously isn't happening. (see Einstein's definition of insanity).

all these trillions we're throwing at this would be much better spent economically and logistically enabling those at risk to lock down, instead of throwing money at everybody, and trillions more at multinational corps who wouldn't need bailed out if we weren't locking down those relatively not at risk.

and most small business and restaurants could get through this ok if we just locked down those at risk.

we learned the reality of the at risk/not at risk 2 universes by late spring, yet refused to incorporate that game changing reality into our strategy out of pure stubbornness and downright stupidity.

using the 2 universe strategy, the not at risk universe would be well on their way to herd immunity by now, and the at risk wouldn't be spreading it either due to being in lock down, thus we would be headed toward being past this literally yrs before a vaccine can be developed, tested, manufactured, and disseminated to everyone, even under a best case scenario. (let alone the other non best case scenarios).

and with far far less loss of life.
 
Last edited:
Lockdown works only if there are the usual measures in place. Hands, face & space. Otherwise its just like the electric shock treatments of the 60s. Simpler, less painful measures aren't being implemented so you resort to these electric shock treatments.

The question is why the simple measure like hands, face & space arent being executed expediently.

100% of the countries out there which are successful in managing the pandemic make these measures mandatory.

Why? I’ll give you 3 reasons.

Because for over 130,000,000 loudmouth Americans with computers, Covid was a political tool long before it was a medical issue. It was more important to blame or defend a Pres or a governor or a mayor than to reach consensus on a health issue. Once those lines were drawn, all else became secondary.

And our lab nerds changed their minds as often as they now change masks, and never read or understood The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Once Fauci said a non-sick person didn’t need to wear a mask, that battle was lost. You can’t unring that bell.

And because media people are both partisan and stupid. Truly stupid. Can’t ask relevant questions or analyze data stupid. And don’t want to.

So most of us have been on our own to understand this thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
of course they should.

we're just locking down everyone, instead of just those in realistic danger.

we have a strategy of locking down the 22 yr old student or worker to protect the 60 yr old prof or worker.

that's a strategic clusterfk of epic proportion imo, and is needlessly killing the economy while at the same time not working medically due to the strategy's dependence on those not at risk indefinitely giving up their lives to protect those at risk, which obviously isn't happening. (see Einstein's definition of insanity).

all these trillions we're throwing at this would be much better spent economically and logistically enabling those at risk to lock down, instead of throwing money at everybody, and trillions more at multinational corps who wouldn't need bailed out if we weren't locking down those relatively not at risk.

and most small business and restaurants could get through this ok if we just locked down those at risk.

we learned the reality of the at risk/not at risk 2 universes by late spring, yet refused to incorporate that game changing reality into our strategy out of pure stubbornness and downright stupidity.

using the 2 universe strategy, the not at risk universe would be well on their way to herd immunity by now, and the at risk wouldn't be spreading it either due to being in lock down, thus we would be headed toward being past this literally yrs before a vaccine can be developed, tested, manufactured, and disseminated to everyone, even under a best case scenario. (let alone the other non best case scenarios).

Is herd immunity your goal? If so, how do you know SARS-COV-2 is subject to herd immunity? Coronaviruses are a major cause of the common cold and we do not gain immunity to them.

"It isn't a uniformly robust antibody response, which may be a reason why, when you look at the history of the common coronaviruses that cause the common cold, the reports in the literature are that the durability of immunity that's protective ranges from three to six months, to almost always less than a year," Fauci said in an interview with JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner.
 
Is herd immunity your goal? If so, how do you know SARS-COV-2 is subject to herd immunity? Coronaviruses are a major cause of the common cold and we do not gain immunity to them.

"It isn't a uniformly robust antibody response, which may be a reason why, when you look at the history of the common coronaviruses that cause the common cold, the reports in the literature are that the durability of immunity that's protective ranges from three to six months, to almost always less than a year," Fauci said in an interview with JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner.


That's the serious problem....combined with the fact that quite a few of the volunteers from the different vaccine trials have had pretty serious reactions from the vaccines. In that they get sick with COVID like symptoms for a day or two.

So we setting ourselves up to have to get a vaccine where we are going to have to intentionally get mildly ill a couple of times per year? I can't imagine you are going to get widespread signup for something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
That's the serious problem....combined with the fact that quite a few of the volunteers from the different vaccine trials have had pretty serious reactions from the vaccines. In that they get sick with COVID like symptoms for a day or two.

So we setting ourselves up to have to get a vaccine where we are going to have to intentionally get mildly ill a couple of times per year? I can't imagine you are going to get widespread signup for something like that.

We pin a lot of hopes on a magic bullet. I hope there is one, but we have to plan like there is not.
 
Is herd immunity your goal? If so, how do you know SARS-COV-2 is subject to herd immunity? Coronaviruses are a major cause of the common cold and we do not gain immunity to them.

"It isn't a uniformly robust antibody response, which may be a reason why, when you look at the history of the common coronaviruses that cause the common cold, the reports in the literature are that the durability of immunity that's protective ranges from three to six months, to almost always less than a year," Fauci said in an interview with JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner.

not sure what planet you've been on, but herd immunity, either through spread or vaccine, is the only way around this, just as it was 100 yrs ago.

that said, the hope is the body will be better equipped to fight it with subsequent infections.
 
not sure what planet you've been on, but herd immunity, either through spread or vaccine, is the only way around this, just as it was 100 yrs ago.

I have no idea what research you have done, but many diseases do not have herd immunity. Many diseases. We do not KNOW it is possible with SARS-Cov-2.

And if you Google it, anywhere from 50-90% are needed for herd immunity. How many people die at 80%. Below is from https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html

For example, if 80% of a population is immune to a virus, four out of every five people who encounter someone with the disease won’t get sick (and won’t spread the disease any further). In this way, the spread of infectious diseases is kept under control. Depending how contagious an infection is, usually 50% to 90% of a population needs immunity to achieve herd immunity.
...
Other viruses (like the flu) mutate over time, so antibodies from a previous infection provide protection for only a short period of time. For the flu, this is less than a year. If SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is like other coronaviruses that currently infect humans, we can expect that people who get infected will be immune for months to years, but probably not their entire lives.
 
I think the question is, is + and × identical math symbols?

Good Catch. That makes my point even more important. 14x flu death rate means zilch. The only relevant statistic is 10% death rate (for 80 year olds) after infection. A rate, by the way, that includes all early cases when we didn't have the therapeutics and didn't know as much about treatment. Anybody who thinks that flu comparison means anything important wouldn't know what is important.
 
Good Catch. That makes my point even more important. 14x flu death rate means zilch. The only relevant statistic is 10% death rate (for 80 year olds) after infection. A rate, by the way, that includes all early cases when we didn't have the therapeutics and didn't know as much about treatment. Anybody who thinks that flu comparison means anything important wouldn't know what is important.

So there is no value in comparing two respiratory viruses to each other? The fact one appears more easily spread and with both a higher hospitalization and death rate means absolutely nothing?

Is it ok to compare safety features in cars, the efficacy of treatments, the crash rates of 737 Max vs other planes? How far does this extend?
 
So there is no value in comparing two respiratory viruses to each other? The fact one appears more easily spread and with both a higher hospitalization and death rate means absolutely nothing?

Is it ok to compare safety features in cars, the efficacy of treatments, the crash rates of 737 Max vs other planes? How far does this extend?

If we were to shop for a virus the way we shop for cars, comparing viruses would make sense.

I think the intent of the creator of that graph was shock value. 14x sounds onerous. That might be useful for those who are worriers, but it is little value in making behavioral choices.
 
If we were to shop for a virus the way we shop for cars, comparing viruses would make sense.

I think the intent if the creator of that graph was shock value. 14x sounds onerous. That might be useful for those who are worriers, but it is little value in making behavioral choices.

See, I would think it makes sense in deciding if a mask is worth it. Or if one should go to a bar and sit for 8 hours. Do you go to bars during flu season? Do you go now? The comparison is perfectly valid in making decisions like that.
 
See, I would think it makes sense in deciding if a mask is worth it. Or if one should go to a bar and sit for 8 hours. Do you go to bars during flu season? Do you go now? The comparison is perfectly valid in making decisions like that.

Sat inside two restaurants so far and honestly felt more comfortable on an airplane
 
Comparing seasonal flus vs. COVID-19 makes absolutely perfect sense, when you have prominent public figures continually asserting, falsely, that they are basically the same thing.

It is an attempt at truth telling. I do understand, however, how truth telling would be viewed dimly by ardent supporters of the POTUS.
 
There is some evidence that facing the same direction reduces risk, so planes would be safer. I can't find the article I originally saw it, but it is mentioned in this article on theaters. https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-n...-we-think-says-uc-davis-health-expert/2020/06

Couple of additional benefits:
  • HVAC upgrades for circulation that Delta made are far superior to those of most restaurants
  • Flight attendants enforced mask wearing when not eating or drinking (none of the wait staff did this at restaurants)
 
If we were to shop for a virus the way we shop for cars, comparing viruses would make sense.

I think the intent of the creator of that graph was shock value. 14x sounds onerous. That might be useful for those who are worriers, but it is little value in making behavioral choices.

Here's a different take...

Prior to 2020, would a middle aged person change their lifestyle and ways because of influenza? I would not have and I can tell you that most of my colleagues in their 20s-50s would have felt the same way. Many are being far more cautious because of COVID.

I've only had the few a handful of times since I crossed double digits in age and there is zero chance I would have opted not to eat in restaurants, fly, etc. And I'm not afraid or concerned about dying or really any long-term effects, though there is a heightened risk vs. influenza, but many people that had and recovered from COVID have indicated that it is a much tougher virus to get over and is more physically impactful and draining than a typical flu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Comparing seasonal flus vs. COVID-19 makes absolutely perfect sense, when you have prominent public figures continually asserting, falsely, that they are basically the same thing.

It is an attempt at truth telling. I do understand, however, how truth telling would be viewed dimly by ardent supporters of the POTUS.

I knew we would see this response, and I was pretty sure you would post it. Many people said it was like the flu. I agree that saying it isn’t like the flu is worthwhile. But I think we are well past that now.
 
See, I would think it makes sense in deciding if a mask is worth it. Or if one should go to a bar and sit for 8 hours. Do you go to bars during flu season? Do you go now? The comparison is perfectly valid in making decisions like that.

I dunno. I don’t wear a mask during flu season but I do now. I do know based mostly upon what I have concluded. I think many wear it now because of politics. A democratic official said as much when she was caught on a hot mike with that admission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HillzHoozier
I dunno. I don’t wear a mask during flu season but I do now. I do know based mostly upon what I have concluded. I think many wear it now because of politics. A democratic official said as much when she was caught on a hot mike with that admission.

So it is all political with you (noting you brought R and D into this and not me). People should wear masks, Asian countries which are 1) more crowded and 2) have a history of mask wearing are doing better than us.

What made you conclude to wear a mask? At no point it was the fact that Corona both spreads faster than flu and is more of a risk than the flu? If SARS-Cov-2 were just as dangerous as the common cold like other Coronaviruses, would you wear a mask?

Risks are categorized all the time. We have an entire profession devoted to measuring risk for insurance.
 
So it is all political with you (noting you brought R and D into this and not me). People should wear masks, Asian countries which are 1) more crowded and 2) have a history of mask wearing are doing better than us.

What made you conclude to wear a mask? At no point it was the fact that Corona both spreads faster than flu and is more of a risk than the flu? If SARS-Cov-2 were just as dangerous as the common cold like other Coronaviruses, would you wear a mask?

Risks are categorized all the time. We have an entire profession devoted to measuring risk for insurance.

Not that I disagree with mask wearing, but that is only part of the larger picture according to this Duke study.


But experience matters here, as well. Living through the emergence and control of pathogens like SARS and MERS has strengthened cultural norms around protections such as face masks and social distancing, Tang says. Face masks are nearly universal in public spaces in Japan even though the country never issued a mandate to wear them, he adds.

“What we have found is that people in most of our study countries and regions in Asia were better able to take advice and guidelines on face masks, social distancing and self-isolation than their counterparts in Europe and the
U.S.,” Tang says. “We’ve certainly seen that illustrated in the past few months.”
 
So it is all political with you (noting you brought R and D into this and not me). People should wear masks,

No. It isn’t political for me at all. Mask wearing is political for some, including both POTUS candidates.

And of course people should wear masks. The question is when and where. Lots of nuance in that question.
 
...of course people should wear masks. The question is when and where. Lots of nuance in that question.

not really. We have a wealth of documented super-spreader events to learn from

when and where
People should wear masks in all situations where social distancing (>6 ft) might not be reliably maintained. It is especially essential to wear a mask when such social distancing violations might exceed 15 minutes, in indoor settings, and in groups of 10 or more.

"How" is somewhat nuanced

How
People need to wear the mask properly (over both nose & mouth), have proper fitting and sanitized masks, and know that different types of masks differ in their protective potential, so people should choose masks to wear with that in mind.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT