COVID-19

[scott2000]

PS: I will take a covid vaccine if/when available, not sure about every year after that

I think I was reading about vaccines not being as effective in people past a certain age... ?? Maybe the article was older ....

 

[crazydoc]

I think I was reading about vaccines not being as effective in people past a certain age... ?? Maybe the article was older ....

True dat.

In conclusion, the age-related decline in immunity results not only in increased susceptibility to infection but also reduces the prophylactic efficacy of vaccinations. The two combined lead to increased risk of infections and mortality in older adults. Current research is indicating routes to improved vaccination regimes in older adults, such as adjuvants focused upon aspects of the immune response that remain intact, or simple interventions such as the time of day the vaccine is given or the use of booster vaccinations in old subjects. Further research is, however, needed to optimize vaccination protocols for older adults and provide the evidence based for altered health policy in this area.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3901832/

Fluzone High-Dose is licensed specifically for people 65 years and older. Fluzone High-Dose contains four times the antigen (the part of the vaccine that helps your body build up protection against flu viruses) of standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines. The higher dose of antigen in the vaccine is intended to give older people a better immune response, and therefore, better protection against flu.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_fluzone.htm

There is now a quadivalent high dose vaccine available that has an additional Influenza B antigen .

 

[scott2000]

Good to know....

Would be a bummer to think the only successful protection for our elders is  avoidance....

Edit...found the article I mentioned... yes pretty old... and focused on mortality it seems

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407

 

[scott2000]

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/96dd742462124fa0b38ddedb9b25e429


https://bi.ahca.myflorida.com/t/ABICC/views/Public/COVIDHospitalizationsCounty?%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3Adisplay_count=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aembed=y

 

[crazydoc]

KFC drops "Finger Lickin' Good " slogan as it 'doesn't quite fit' in age of Covid-19

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2020/aug/24/kfc-drops-finger-lickin-good-slogan-due-to-covid-10

 

[JohnRoberts]

There was a small article on page 6 of yesterdays newspaper sharing that new covid cases dropped below 50k for 8 days in row...
===
FDA emergency approved convalescent plasma use in hospital.
===
Reportedly a HK man has been infected a second time with a different strain of COVID.

JR
 

 

[living sounds]

There was a small article on page 6 of yesterdays newspaper sharing that new covid cases dropped below 50k for 8 days in row...

I think there is the - completely rational - expectation, that printing it big on page 1 will lead to people behaving more risky again and thus reversing the trend...

 

[Script]

FDA emergency approved convalescent plasma use in hospital.

Very late but good news.

Reportedly a HK man has been infected a second time with a different strain of COVID.

Unclear whether this is bad news or good news. Some say this, others say that. To early to tell. But AFAIK or read that person in HK is asymptomatic this second time around. There's an article about it in online Sciencemag.

 

[living sounds]

Very late but good news

Unclear, actually.

https://apnews.com/a7f0e8aac34a860ad502912564681b7c

 

[Script]

Unclear, actually.

https://apnews.com/a7f0e8aac34a860ad502912564681b7c

Convalescent plasma has been used in the past and is being used right now already.  But it's a lot of paperwork -- in addition to being a very scarce resource that is also difficult to handle or store etc. Whether plasma is effective or not -- well,  difficult to say without strict 'control' groups -- but it's not a new 'invention' at all and utterly small-scale anyway, and chances are it does more good than harm when administered properly. The breakthrough? I doubt it. More like one tiny piece in a massive puzzle, if at all. Anyway, officially approving it at least takes a lot of the (wasteful) paperwork out of it for now.

(As for purely political blather,  I really try to ignore that wherever possible -- until time will have taken care of that bird.)

 

[living sounds]

[...] and chances are it does more good than harm when administered properly.

"Chances are it does more good than harm" is not an adequate metric to greenlight a new treatment. This mistake has been made before, with often dire consequences. Scientists advised against this decision presicely because we don't know enough yet.

The tragic of the times lies in the problem that people don't want to listen to the experts, be it the Coronavirus or Climate Change or a host of other important issues...

 

[Script]

Yes, I'm with you on that. It's generally bad when political noise takes over. We all know that the current potus is desperate for news and there's another thread for that.  Still, I tend to believe in the expertise and common sense of individual medical doctors.

Maybe this paper is worth a rlook at. Granted, it's an old one from May 2020.
"Can plasma from COVID-19 survivors help save others?"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/can-plasma-covid-19-survivors-help-save-others
An excerpt:

Blood or plasma from recovered patients has been tried as a therapy since at least the Spanish flu of 1918; reports from that pandemic suggest it helped. It has also been used to fight measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome, and lesser-known diseases such as Argentine hemorrhagic fever. In a 1970s study of 188 patients with that disease, only 1% of plasma recipients died, versus 16.5% in a control group. “I think that it has a high likelihood [of working] based on history,” Casadevall says.

A critical take by the same (German?) writer on the latest 'miracle breakthrough' announcement by potus can be found here (Aug 24 or so):
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/fda-s-green-light-treating-covid-19-plasma-critics-see-thin-evidence-and-politics

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is not the right thread for discussing political noise, but drug industry lobbying (and influence) is also afoot. Sadly when life or death information gets corrupted for political influence or money (pretty much the same thing).

===

Yes convalescent plasma was used 100 years ago, surely not as safely as now. Not a magic bullet but logical that it could help.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Abbot has announced a $5, 15min, self test for Covid... Still requires sticking a nasal swab up you nose... and only 50 million a month starting in October, so not enough for every body, but a good start.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

Abbot has announced a $5, 15min, self test for Covid... Still requires sticking a nasal swab up you nose... and only 50 million a month starting in October, so not enough for every body, but a good start.

JR

Only for use in symptomatic people, not a "self test" - only for use through medical personnel, and not for population screening. And I hope we're never testing 50 million symptomatic people a month.

If it's positive you probably have covid. If it's negative, that doesn't mean you don't have it - it needs to be corroborated by a more sensitive test. Abbott wants to use this as a screening for entering places using a phone app (meetings, etc), but it doesn't document that a person is necessarily negative. But it will weed out the positives so they can be refused entry and referred for further testing, quarantine and treatment. Also, only given emergency FDA authorization, so not a proven rigorous test.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936434

https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-08-26-Abbotts-Fast-5-15-Minute-Easy-to-Use-COVID-19-Antigen-Test-Receives-FDA-Emergency-Use-Authorization-Mobile-App-Displays-Test-Results-to-Help-Our-Return-to-Daily-Life-Ramping-Production-to-50-Million-Tests-a-Month

 

[JohnRoberts]

Only for use in symptomatic people, not a "self test" - only for use through medical personnel, and not for population screening. And I hope we're never testing 50 million symptomatic people a month.

For high risk populations and dangerous behaviors (like travel, or public assembly), a quick simple test could relieve a lot of stress. I find it remarkable that government nursing home inspectors were not tested in advance. 

If it's positive you probably have covid. If it's negative, that doesn't mean you don't have it - it needs to be corroborated by a more sensitive test. Abbott wants to use this as a screening for entering places using a phone app (meetings, etc), but it doesn't document that a person is necessarily negative. But it will weed out the positives so they can be refused entry and referred for further testing, quarantine and treatment. Also, only given emergency FDA authorization, so not a proven rigorous test.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936434

https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-08-26-Abbotts-Fast-5-15-Minute-Easy-to-Use-COVID-19-Antigen-Test-Receives-FDA-Emergency-Use-Authorization-Mobile-App-Displays-Test-Results-to-Help-Our-Return-to-Daily-Life-Ramping-Production-to-50-Million-Tests-a-Month

I saw a claim of 97% accuracy but who knows (not me).

The current turn around time for testing is not very helpful. They also changed the testing criteria making it harder to compare apples to apples from daily data.

Right now we are in the middle of an all hands on deck throwing multiple strategies up against the wall to see what sticks.

===

I saw another news report now claiming that at least one of the new vaccines works well in old people. But their idea of old was only 56 YO.  :

This reminds me a little of how there would be medical studies alternately claiming coffee was good for us, or bad... 

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have speculated before about the similarity between covid and common cold (both coronaviruses).

Sounds like a possible benefit from common cold infections.

JR

 

[fazer]

From the CDC attributes 6% of the deaths to Covid 19 only.  93% were from other underlying causes. 

Comorbidities

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups. For data on comorbidities,

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

So many people had other pertinent medical problems.    How do you analyze this.  It’s from the CDC. 

 

[scott2000]

There are a bunch of studies about the population of older  people living longer and how it's growing at a pretty fast rate..... It's fascinating how much they track this stuff......

Maybe a bit more than a few are living longer on medicines but, this doesn't mean you're any better at surviving a nasty bug.   

..yet

 

[crazydoc]

From the CDC attributes 6% of the deaths to Covid 19 only.  93% were from other underlying causes. 
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

So many people had other pertinent medical problems.    How do you analyze this.  It’s from the CDC.

"COVID-19 is listed as the underlying cause on the death certificate in 94% of deaths."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/tech_notes.htm