Coronavirus

[AlanSubie4Life]

Alan,

I appreciate your response and insights.

In the current environment, given rather rare severe cases in most groups, is the body better off getting three, four or more vaccinations and still getting mild symptoms versus no more vaccinations and getting mild symptoms?

Perhaps it's too simplistic, but intuitively, the second choice seems more attractive.

It's also not JUST the targeting of the vaccine...we'd probably do even better if we supplemented with a nasal vaccine (this has been known for a over a year now), even if it's not perfectly matched to what is circulating.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551597751275663361

 

[madodel]

Vaccinated Have Lower Heart, Stroke Risk From COVID —
Korean nationwide data support yet another benefit of being fully vaccinated

The reduction in post-COVID heart attacks and strokes among the fully vaccinated was observed across various subgroups. However, it did not reach statistical significance for people with a previous history of outcome events or for those with severe or critical COVID-19.​

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Finally, the start of answers. Still not enough information on the original reservoir of course. Without cooperation that is tough!

But this is a start, and is properly peer reviewed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551937826580824070

 

[JRP3]

Not surprising

New data suggests the CDC’s COVID guidance to isolate for 5 days after testing positive is wrong. You should follow Joe Biden’s example instead

Scientists have long questioned the five-day quarantine policy. Now they have more data to make their case.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Causalien]

I know this is not corona, but this thread has thebhighest concentration of medical pros.

What are your opinions on monkeypox? And Tedros annoucing a health crisis against his panep of experts?

 

[bkp_duke]

I know this is not corona, but this thread has thebhighest concentration of medical pros.

What are your opinions on monkeypox? And Tedros annoucing a health crisis against his panep of experts?

Monkeypox = the HIV of 2020s (without the lasting problems after you fight it off). The majority of those getting infected are having unprotected sex, and at last check it was more homosexual than heterosexual, but that will likely even out eventually. It's not an airborne pathogen, and while spreading, the R value is nothing like SARS-CoV-2.

It's more lethal, with an IFR of 3-6%.

Good summary here:

Mpox (monkeypox)

WHO fact sheet on monkeypox: includes key facts, definition, outbreaks, transmission, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, WHO response.

www.who.int

 

[Jeff N]

It's not an airborne pathogen….

Although, according to WHO:

Monkeypox virus is transmitted from one person to another by…. respiratory droplets….

However, it seems to spread this way much less frequently than by direct skin contact.

It's more lethal, with an IFR of 3-6%.

That seems to be the overall case in rural Africa but I think hardly anyone has died from the less pathogenic variant currently spreading in Europe and North America.

 

[bkp_duke]

Although, according to WHO:



However, it seems to spread this way much less frequently than by direct skin contact.



That seems to be the overall case in rural Africa but I think hardly anyone has died from the less pathogenic variant currently spreading in Europe and North America.

In medicine we categorize airborne and respiratory droplet very differently.

Airborne = hangs in the air for prolong periods of time (hours/days)
RD = someone coughs and there are droplets on which that virus is attached/in. It's in the air a short period of time before falling on a surface, where it can then remain contagious if you touch it and then touch mucous membranes (i.e. mouth/nose).

They are VERY different, and it takes significant mutations for a virus to go from being droplet to airborne. Pox viruses, historically, are droplet (i.e. close contact).

Found this in a paper, about as simple as I can make it:

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In medicine we categorize airborne and respiratory droplet very differently.

Yes, this is something over the last two years that I feel very strongly needs to be revisited. I’m not sure what is a good solution but clearly it caused (and continues to cause) huge problems with COVID since different classifications and technicalities drive interventions (some of which which proved to be largely ineffective) and CDC recommendations.

Close contact for COVID is still defined as being within 6 feet of someone for more than 15 minutes in a 24-hour period! It’s all very bizarre but is somehow related to these classification technicalities as I understand it.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yes, this is something over the last two years that I feel very strongly needs to be revisited. I’m not sure what is a good solution but clearly it caused (and continues to cause) huge problems with COVID since different classifications and technicalities drive interventions (some of which which proved to be largely ineffective) and CDC recommendations.

Close contact for COVID is still defined as being within 6 feet of someone for more than 15 minutes in a 24-hour period! It’s all very bizarre but is somehow related to these classification technicalities as I understand it.

I never understood the CDC's reasoning on the 6ft bit. Coronaviruses are typically airborne, or at least small RD, and have much higher R0 values than other respiratory pathogens.

I guess they felt they had to do something, in terms of a recommendation, but it wasn't really based on science. I guess perhaps the science (stay 20 ft away from everyone else . . . ha ha ha) would have scared the crap out of everyone.

 

[Jeff N]

In medicine we categorize airborne and respiratory droplet very differently.

Yep, we’ve been through that distinction with Covid for 2+ years. That’s why I said “although” rather than “false”.

 

[JRP3]

I never understood the CDC's reasoning on the 6ft bit. Coronaviruses are typically airborne, or at least small RD, and have much higher R0 values than other respiratory pathogens.

I guess they felt they had to do something, in terms of a recommendation, but it wasn't really based on science. I guess perhaps the science (stay 20 ft away from everyone else . . . ha ha ha) would have scared the crap out of everyone.

I think somewhere in this thread was discussion of how outdated medical "knowledge" of particle sizes that qualified as airborne was used to initially incorrectly classify Covid as not being airborne. Something like 5 micron or larger particles were thought to be too heavy but further research proved that to be false.

 

[DrGriz]

I think somewhere in this thread was discussion of how outdated medical "knowledge" of particle sizes that qualified as airborne was used to initially incorrectly classify Covid as not being airborne. Something like 5 micron or larger particles were thought to be too heavy but further research proved that to be false.

This is exactly right. And, actually, the 5 micron threshold was medical dogma for a long time after the few aerosol experts in the world knew better.

Like a lot of things in medicine, "expert opinion" is hard to break.

 

[bkp_duke]

This is exactly right. And, actually, the 5 micron threshold was medical dogma for a long time after the few aerosol experts in the world knew better.

Like a lot of things in medicine, "expert opinion" is hard to break.

Preaching to the choir, but I feel I have to say it anyway:
Problem I have with this is that SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus. We've known for decades that they are all airborne. Rock hard data on that. The sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was not so dissimilar to the current 6 circulating coronaviruses that there should have been any suspicion otherwise.

Yes . . . as we are taught in medical school "expert opinion" is the least reliable of medical data (to the non-Docs here - literally, we are taught this). Always go with the empirical data, which the WHO and CDC didn't do and based their recommendations on less solid "expert opinion".

 

[DrGriz]

How many decades did we recommend aspirin for prevention without evidence? Makes my head spin.

 

[Slipstream]

Recent thoughts on Paxlovid rebound include antiviral resistance and potential new variants resulting. Dosage may be a factor.

COVID-19 Rebound after Taking Paxlovid Likely Due to Insufficient Drug Exposure

COVID-19 Rebound after Taking Paxlovid Likely Due to Insufficient Drug Exposure

health.ucsd.edu

I wonder if the dosage level will be increased to address this.

 

[SDRick]

First post in over a week, I guess that's a good sign?

 

[JRP3]

Few people seem to be taking any precautions and 7 day moving average is showing a slight down trend for the US.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

First post in over a week, I guess that's a good sign?

Definitely a good sign. As fully expected, all the doom and gloom about BA.5 was snubbed by pre-existing immunity. On the other hand, this seems like it will go on for a long time. Mortality is staying low, not just because of immunity, but also because of treatment. But deaths really do need to be much lower so hopefully disease prevalence can be pushed down.

I am hopeful that we’ll get the follow lucky outcomes in the next year:
1) Lower overall disease circulation.
2) No major new variants. We have been lucky to not have any new variants since end of last year and hopefully that continues.
3) Hope that pre-existing immunity has been overestimated and now that we actually have a lot more, that will result in less disease.
4) Next version of mRNA vaccine is very effective against all the current variants and that there is an effective vaccination campaign.
5) New vaccines become available which produce better mucosal immunity and efficacy.

 

[yobigd20]

Few people seem to be taking any precautions and 7 day moving average is showing a slight down trend for the US.

View attachment 837855

This data doesnt mean much anything anymore and is completely inaccurate due to the widespread usage of at home tests and people no longer reporting positive cases. "Experts" estimate the real world numbers are 7-14x higher than the reported cases now. Personally, in the last 6 months i know at least of about 15 individuals in my immediate family and friends who got it and ZERO of them reported it. The implementation of the at home tests was one of the biggest mistakes of this pandemic. They should have designed it in a way were the output of the test had to be scanned or input into a web site to get the result.