Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net

It seems the mechanism of covid 19 is:
SARS-CoV-2 --> binds to and downregulates ACE2 --> high angiotensin 2/low angiotensin 1,7 --> increased ROS production --> endothelial cell dysfunction --> increased vWF production and release --> thrombosis

Plasma exchange apparently can reduce plasma vWF and can be helpful to avoid thrombosis

Some things about ivermectin being possibly helpful but mainly from preprints and speculation. Needs more research.

Some discussion about the mRNA vaccine from the NEJM article posted earlier. Seems like 100 ug is what's currently tested. Likely to be out by early 2021.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net
VITAMIN D LOOKS TO BE VERY HELPFUL HERE. PLS READ THIS REVIEW

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
About the Ads

Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net
@pgg @vector2 @BLADEMDA @DocMcCoy @chocomorsel @Hork Bajir @nimbus @FFP etc.

The following paragraphs are a major takeaway from the article. Sorry for the length

----

The rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, the out-of-proportion rate of symptomatic infection, morbidity and mortality observed in African American and obese individuals suggests the possible impact of vitamin D on host response and susceptibility to the infection as obese and Black individuals are known to have an elevated risk for vitamin D deficiency [2,180,181]. Apart from the immunomodulatory and anti-viral effects, 1,25(OH)2D acts specifically as a modulator of the renin–angiotensin pathway and down-regulates the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme-2 expression, which serves as the host cell receptor that mediates infection by SARS-CoV-2 [182]. It is therefore proposed that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection [183,184].

-----

Although the efficacy of vitamin D is still unclear as the results of ongoing clinical trials are still pending, it is advisable that one should maintain adequate vitamin D intake to achieve the desirable serum 25(OH)D level of 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) in order to minimize the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. It is well documented that worldwide on average approximately 40% of children and adults have circulating levels of 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) and approximately 60% <30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) [185]. Thus, patients presenting to the hospital with COVID-19 are likely to have vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. It is therefore reasonable to institute as a standard of care to give at least one single dose of 50,000 of vitamin D to all COVID-19 patients as soon as possible after being hospitalized. For patients who are intubated and are being fed by a G-tube, they should be treated with a liquid form of vitamin D. Drisdol is a pediatric liquid vitamin D2 formulation that contains 8000 IUs per mL that can be given daily to these patients to treat vitamin D deficiency.

----

What are your thoughts on vitamin D?
 

chocomorsel

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
5,333
4,314
somewhere always warm
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
@pgg @vector2 @BLADEMDA @DocMcCoy @chocomorsel @Hork Bajir @nimbus @FFP etc.

The following paragraphs are a major takeaway from the article. Sorry for the length

----

The rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, the out-of-proportion rate of symptomatic infection, morbidity and mortality observed in African American and obese individuals suggests the possible impact of vitamin D on host response and susceptibility to the infection as obese and Black individuals are known to have an elevated risk for vitamin D deficiency [2,180,181]. Apart from the immunomodulatory and anti-viral effects, 1,25(OH)2D acts specifically as a modulator of the renin–angiotensin pathway and down-regulates the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme-2 expression, which serves as the host cell receptor that mediates infection by SARS-CoV-2 [182]. It is therefore proposed that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection [183,184].

-----

Although the efficacy of vitamin D is still unclear as the results of ongoing clinical trials are still pending, it is advisable that one should maintain adequate vitamin D intake to achieve the desirable serum 25(OH)D level of 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) in order to minimize the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. It is well documented that worldwide on average approximately 40% of children and adults have circulating levels of 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) and approximately 60% <30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) [185]. Thus, patients presenting to the hospital with COVID-19 are likely to have vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. It is therefore reasonable to institute as a standard of care to give at least one single dose of 50,000 of vitamin D to all COVID-19 patients as soon as possible after being hospitalized. For patients who are intubated and are being fed by a G-tube, they should be treated with a liquid form of vitamin D. Drisdol is a pediatric liquid vitamin D2 formulation that contains 8000 IUs per mL that can be given daily to these patients to treat vitamin D deficiency.

----

What are your thoughts on vitamin D?
I read that somewhere a while back and decided to get on my Vitamin D. I had gotten a physical early in the year and was found to be Vitamin D deficient. Ignored the supplementation recommendation from my doc until I read a similar article, so I went and got it and started taking it daily. Haven't rechecked but I think my levels were in the teens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sep 4, 2009
843
324
San Angelo, TX
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
@pgg @vector2 @BLADEMDA @DocMcCoy @chocomorsel @Hork Bajir @nimbus @FFP etc.

The following paragraphs are a major takeaway from the article. Sorry for the length

----

The rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, the out-of-proportion rate of symptomatic infection, morbidity and mortality observed in African American and obese individuals suggests the possible impact of vitamin D on host response and susceptibility to the infection as obese and Black individuals are known to have an elevated risk for vitamin D deficiency [2,180,181]. Apart from the immunomodulatory and anti-viral effects, 1,25(OH)2D acts specifically as a modulator of the renin–angiotensin pathway and down-regulates the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme-2 expression, which serves as the host cell receptor that mediates infection by SARS-CoV-2 [182]. It is therefore proposed that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection [183,184].

-----

Although the efficacy of vitamin D is still unclear as the results of ongoing clinical trials are still pending, it is advisable that one should maintain adequate vitamin D intake to achieve the desirable serum 25(OH)D level of 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) in order to minimize the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. It is well documented that worldwide on average approximately 40% of children and adults have circulating levels of 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) and approximately 60% <30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) [185]. Thus, patients presenting to the hospital with COVID-19 are likely to have vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. It is therefore reasonable to institute as a standard of care to give at least one single dose of 50,000 of vitamin D to all COVID-19 patients as soon as possible after being hospitalized. For patients who are intubated and are being fed by a G-tube, they should be treated with a liquid form of vitamin D. Drisdol is a pediatric liquid vitamin D2 formulation that contains 8000 IUs per mL that can be given daily to these patients to treat vitamin D deficiency.

----

What are your thoughts on vitamin D?

I was diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency when I was training up north. I’ve been on a vit D supplement ever since. I think it’s extremely low risk, safe, and cheap. Skeptical of a lot of the claims but since COVID started I put my family on it. I don’t know what the prevalence of vit D deficiency is off the top of my head but it’s way high and easy to fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Apr 6, 2019
120
188
Status (Visible)
  1. Non-Student
VITAMIN D LOOKS TO BE VERY HELPFUL HERE. PLS READ THIS REVIEW


To my knowledge there has been no major study or review/analysis demonstrating benefit for Vitamin D supplementation. Am I missing something?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1911124 - No benefit in supplementation in the critically ill

Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83 000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials - No benefit in reduction of CVD risk, CVA or all cause mortality

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30265-1/fulltext - Hell, no benefit in MSK injury reduction (fx etc.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net

Thoughts on wearing face shields?
 
About the Ads

Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net
To my knowledge there has been no major study or review/analysis demonstrating benefit for Vitamin D supplementation. Am I missing something?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1911124 - No benefit in supplementation in the critically ill

Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 83 000 Individuals in 21 Randomized Clinical Trials - No benefit in reduction of CVD risk, CVA or all cause mortality

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(18)30265-1/fulltext - Hell, no benefit in MSK injury reduction (fx etc.)

I don't think vitamin D has an effect on everything, but the review mentions about mixed results on its use for critically ill patients.

Critically ill said:
A number of RCTs have been conducted in order to investigate the impact of vitamin D on clinical and biochemical outcomes in sepsis and critically ill patients, yielding heterogeneous results. In a pilot clinical trial, giving a single enteral dose of 400,000 IUs of vitamin D3 to sepsis patients compared with placebo was shown to increase serum cathelicidin [164,165]. Whereas, the same effect was not observed when giving intravenous 2 µg of 1,25(OH)2D3 to patients with severe sepsis or septic shock [166]. A RCT gave enterally 540,000 IUs of vitamin D3 followed by monthly maintenance doses of 90,000 IU for 5 months to vitamin D-deficient, defined by serum 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L), or placebo to 475 critically ill patients and observed a significant decrease in hospital mortality in a subgroup of 200 patients with severe vitamin D deficiency (serum 25(OH)D <12 ng/mL/30 nmol/L, hazard ratio 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35–0.90) [167]. In a post-hoc analysis after excluding patients who died or were discharged within 7 days after study inclusion, vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decrease in 28-day mortality in the remaining 410 patients (odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI: 0.35–0.97) [168]. Another pilot study that gave a single dose of enteral 500,000 IUs or 250,000 IUs of vitamin D3 or placebo to 31 vitamin D-deficient mechanically ventilated ICU patients observed a decrease in hospital length of stay in the vitamin D groups compared to the placebo group [169]. Nevertheless, in a larger clinical trial that gave a single dose of enteral 540,000 IUs of vitamin D3 or placebo to 1360 critically ill patients, the impact of vitamin D3 administration on mortality and other clinical outcomes was not observed [170].

It can be concluded based on the current evidence that critically ill patients have a very high risk for vitamin D deficiency and therefore should be screened and treated for this condition. In fact, some studies have demonstrated a potential benefit on hospital outcomes in this group of patients. However, inpatient supplementation of vitamin D is still not universally accepted given the inconsistent results from clinical trials.

I agree RCTs on vitamin D for covid 19 are important
 

nimbus

Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 14, 2006
6,862
9,245
Status (Visible)

Thoughts on wearing face shields?


I thought if only someone could develop a quiet inexpensive PAPR, we could all wear one and go on with our lives.
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The vaccines all look very effective and we should have 1 or 2 by the end of this year. I plan on getting the vaccine as soon as it is available but others are much more skeptical and when I take an informal poll only 50% of the healthcare providers are enthusiastic about being one of the early recipients.
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
By the end of July, Moderna plans to begin a 30,000-patient phase 3 study with mRNA-1273 that was previously scheduled to begin on July 9. The pivotal study was delayed because the company was late to submit final protocol changes to the FDA. The delay puts mRNA-1273 behind AZD1222 from AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN), another coronavirus vaccine candidate that began a 5,000-patient phase 3 trial in Brazil at the end of June.

 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN) is conducting a phase 2/3 trial now. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted the Pfizer (NYSE:pFE) and BioNTech (NASDAQ:BNTX) team Fast Track designation for two vaccine candidates. Pfizer and BioNTech, like Moderna, are developing a vaccine using messenger RNA. They aim to begin a phase 2b/phase 3 trial in 30,000 participants later this month. Moderna, AstraZeneca, and the Pfizer and BioNTech team are among a handful of drugmakers closest to the finish line right now.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:INO) and Novavax (NASDAQ:NVAX) are close behind. Inovio plans to begin a phase 2/3 study this summer, and Novavax expects to release phase 1/2 interim data at the end of this month and then begin the phase 2 part of the study shortly thereafter.
 
About the Ads

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
By late winter of this year we will have at least 2 vaccines and I predict an annual updated version will be available each year to people just like the flu vaccine. The vaccine only needs to reduce the mortality rate to that of the seasonal flu each year for all of us to resume our normal activities.
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
T cell Response is Important not just Antibodies:


AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford are set to share “positive news” on their COVID-19 vaccine soon, according to a leading U.K. journalist. The update, which could come as soon as tomorrow, may shed light on how the front-runner vaccine fared in early clinical trials.


AZD1222, an recombinant adenovirus vaccine candidate that originated in Oxford, moved into phase 2/3 in May on the strength of data from a 1,000-subject phase 1 trial. However, the researchers are yet to share clinical data from the phase 1, leaving observers to argue over the results of a study conducted in monkeys to determine whether the vaccine is likely to work.

Now, Robert Peston, a prominent journalist at British broadcaster ITV, has said there will soon be positive news from trials of AZD1222. The Lancet is due to publish clinical data on the vaccine.


Peston said “the vaccine is generating the kind of antibody and T-cell response that the researchers would hope to see.” That is all we have to go on at this stage, but the focus on T-cell response—in the Peston quote and other sources linked to the program—suggests the researchers may perceive that as a strength of the data or a bright spot amid underwhelming antibody results.

Antibodies are relatively simple to measure and serve as a surrogate for T-cell response. However, a growing body of evidence shows antibody-negative individuals can have a T-cell response. The relative importance of antibody and T-cell responses is unclear, as is the level needed to achieve immunity, but it appears both elements play some role.

A former Harvard Medical School professor savaged preclinical AZD1222 results, in part due to data on the levels of neutralizing antibodies. With their first clinical data drop looming, people involved with AZD1222 are talking up the importance of T cells.

“An important point to keep in mind is that there are two dimensions to the immune response: antibodies and T-cells. Everybody is focused on antibodies but there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the T-cells response is important in the defence against coronavirus,” a source told Peston. The comment echoes those made by people linked to AZD1222, including AstraZeneca Executive Vice President Mene Pangalos, in a feature published in Bloomberg.

Data published by Moderna this week show the preferred dose of its COVID-19 vaccine elicited CD4 T-cell responses. Investigators also detected low level CD8 T-cell responses after the second shot at its preferred dose. BioNTech and Pfizer focused on antibodies in their COVID-19 vaccine data drop.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Unfortunately doesn’t look like the vaccine will be the miracle therapy.
Maybe we will need bi-yearly or quarterly Covid vaccine therapy .



We are still learning so much about Covid 19. Perhaps, we as healthcare providers do need a shot every 6 months? Or, will the herd immunity from vaccination simply reduce the infectivity rate to less than 10%? What role does individual immunity play for how long the vaccine lasts? Maybe, most people get a response for 1 year while others start to lose immunity at 4 months? The Biotech firms are going to win this round against Covid 19 but will the that be the case against the next pandemic?
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician

This is a real treatment for Covid 19. Regeneron should have the antibodies available by October.

It expects a range of 70,000 to 300,000 potential treatment doses or 420,000 to 1,300,000 prevention doses to be available from these lots, with initial doses to be ready as early as the end of summer.
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals has started Phase III clinical trials of its double antibody cocktail, REGN-COV2, for the treatment and prevention of Covid-19.

The company is initially conducting, in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a Phase III trial to assess REGN-COV2 for prevention of infection in people with close exposure to a Covid-19 patient.


Regeneron has not let up on its effort to develop an antibody cocktail against COVID-19 in spite of the U.S. government’s push for a vaccine to come to market this year. Regeneron Chief Scientific Officer George Yancopoulos has said that he believes an antibody treatment could be developed more quickly than a vaccine and could still be useful in the long run to protect certain patient groups.

In fact, Regeneron is simultaneously testing REGN-COV2 in a trial designed to determine if it can prevent infection in people who are exposed to COVID-19 patients, such as healthcare workers.

Regeneron has plenty of competition in the COVID antibody race. Eli Lilly launched a phase 1 trial of its AbCellera-partnered LY-CoV555 earlier than expected. AstraZeneca is planning to start clinical trials of a two-antibody combo it developed with the help of Vanderbilt University researchers. And GlaxoSmithKline is working with Vir Biotechnology to quickly advance two antibodies into a phase 2 trial.
 
Oct 18, 2019
267
117
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The first vaccine was issued 3/16/2020. Not much different from V1 vaccine. It’s more about liability in this country . Plus we don’t know full efficacy of the vaccine, ie. duration of protection with a novel mutating virus. Just sad this country sacrifices medical innovation over generalized affordable care. We should have lead the world with is pandemic ...
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The first vaccine was issued 3/16/2020. Not much different from V1 vaccine. It’s more about liability in this country . Plus we don’t know full efficacy of the vaccine, ie. duration of protection with a novel mutating virus. Just sad this country sacrifices medical innovation over generalized affordable care. We should have lead the world with is pandemic ...

The Vaccines will be at least as effective as the current Flu vaccine. I suspect both the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines to be highly effective in the 80% plus range against Covid 19 with duration of efficacy exceeding 6 months easily. This will put the pandemic behind us and we will have an annual "updated" Covid 19 vaccine each year.
 
Oct 18, 2019
267
117
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The Vaccines will be at least as effective as the current Flu vaccine. I suspect both the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines to be highly effective in the 80% plus range against Covid 19 with duration of efficacy exceeding 6 months easily. This will put the pandemic behind us and we will have an annual "updated" Covid 19 vaccine each year.
Let hope your sentiments are true... now there are fake news or outside influences causing vaccine fears :

 

Newtwo

5+ Year Member
Jun 10, 2015
1,035
895
The Vaccines will be at least as effective as the current Flu vaccine. I suspect both the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines to be highly effective in the 80% plus range against Covid 19 with duration of efficacy exceeding 6 months easily. This will put the pandemic behind us and we will have an annual "updated" Covid 19 vaccine each year.
How do you know this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
About the Ads

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
How do you know this?

We will have phase 3 data in a few months prior to full scale production. FYI, the public remains skeptical of vaccines and I suspect even healthcare workers will be cautious about the side-effects. I am one who believes that AstraZeneca has a safe and efficacious vaccine against Covid 19.

I think by winter 2020 the vaccine will be in full production mode:

 
Last edited:

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
How do you know this?



Early-stage human trial data on a vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University will be published on July 20, The Lancet medical journal said. The Oxford vaccine candidate is already in large-scale Phase III human trials in Brazil to assess whether it can protect against COVID-19, but its developers have yet to report Phase I results.
"We expect this paper, which is undergoing final editing and preparation, to be published on Monday, July 20, for immediate release," Reuters quoted a spokeswoman for the journal as saying.
 

AMEHigh

10+ Year Member
Jul 25, 2008
2,204
2,683
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Early-stage human trial data on a vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University will be published on July 20, The Lancet medical journal said. The Oxford vaccine candidate is already in large-scale Phase III human trials in Brazil to assess whether it can protect against COVID-19, but its developers have yet to report Phase I results.
"We expect this paper, which is undergoing final editing and preparation, to be published on Monday, July 20, for immediate release," Reuters quoted a spokeswoman for the journal as saying.

I read the article linked.
Where is it saying that it'll be 80% effective and last for greater than 6 months?
I'd definitely like more source info about this as I haven't actually been following vaccine info that much.
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The results published in The Lancet confirmed a single dose of AZD1222 resulted in a four-fold increase in antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein in 95% of participants one month after injection. In all participants, a T-cell response was induced, peaking by day 14, and maintained two months after injection.

Neutralising activity against SARS-CoV-2 (as assessed by the MNA80 assay) was seen in 91% of participants one month after vaccination and in 100% of participants who received a second dose. The levels of neutralising antibodies seen in participants receiving either one or two doses were in a similar range to those seen in convalescent COVID-19 patients. Strong correlations were observed across neutralisation assays.

The early safety responses confirmed that transient local and systemic reactions were common in the AZD1222 group and were comparable to previous trials and other adenoviral vector vaccines.1-4 They included temporary injection site pain and tenderness, mild-to-moderate headache, fatigue, chills, feverishness, malaise and muscle ache. No serious adverse events were reported with AZD1222, and reactions were lessened with the use of prophylactic paracetamol, a pain killer, and occurred less frequently after a second dose.

Professor Andrew Pollard, Chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial at Oxford University and co-author of the trial, said: “The interim Phase I/II data for our coronavirus vaccine shows that the vaccine did not lead to any unexpected reactions and had a similar safety profile to previous vaccines of this type. The immune responses observed following vaccination are in line with what we expect will be associated with protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, although we must continue with our rigorous clinical trial programme to confirm this. We saw the strongest immune response in participants who received two doses of the vaccine, indicating that this might be a good strategy for vaccination.”
 

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The study's authors will continue to follow the test subjects for 1 year. All side-effects and antibody levels will be documented during this time frame. Phase 3 is underway with a much larger number of patients. This vaccine looks like a "winner" in terms of safety and efficacy for people. We need a vaccine NOW so even if the immunity starts to wane the vaccine will provide time for other manufacturers to come out with their versions.
 

Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net
Early-stage human trial data on a vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University will be published on July 20, The Lancet medical journal said. The Oxford vaccine candidate is already in large-scale Phase III human trials in Brazil to assess whether it can protect against COVID-19, but its developers have yet to report Phase I results.
"We expect this paper, which is undergoing final editing and preparation, to be published on Monday, July 20, for immediate release," Reuters quoted a spokeswoman for the journal as saying.
I read the article linked.
Where is it saying that it'll be 80% effective and last for greater than 6 months?
I'd definitely like more source info about this as I haven't actually been following vaccine info that much.

Does this mean covid 19 will be defeated this year and eradicated in 2021? I just want to oppose the notion of a permanent covid 19 because the post-covid world is complete garbage
 

abolt18

Cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool
7+ Year Member
Apr 24, 2012
3,325
2,363
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Does this mean covid 19 will be defeated this year and eradicated in 2021? I just want to oppose the notion of a permanent covid 19 because the post-covid world is complete garbage
Fo real.

I've been trying to buy a mountain bike for months but EVERYTHING is sold out EVERYWHERE. Increased demand along with decreased production makes for a sad day.
 

Lawpy

27 boxes
5+ Year Member
SDN Ambassador
Jun 17, 2014
52,457
139,652
Replacement Chat
forums.studentdoctor.net

Some discussion about cycle threshold (Ct) values.

The video talks about rtPCR and paper tests to identify covid 19. rtPCR has high sensitivity but it's expensive (>$100) and takes several days for results to come back. Paper tests have a bit lower sensitivity but are cheaper (like $1-2) and results can be back in 10 min.

The question then becomes how much does sensitivity matter. The video talks about Ct values being inversely related to viral loads and set Ct = 40 as the minimal threshold, so anything below means viral threshold is negligible. RtPCR has sensitivity at Ct = 35 and above. Paper tests have sensitivity at Ct = 30.

This brings up a major point. High viral loads at Ct at 20s, 10s, 5s etc are really bad and lead to nasty clotting and inflammatory problems. If paper tests can rapidly test for these, why not mass produce and mass utilize them? And is Ct below 30 really a major problem here?

The video suggests paper tests can be used to identify which kids are covid positive and so can prevent them from going to school until they recover.

The video then ends with emphasizing on testing who's infective vs not infective rather than who has a viral load vs not viral load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
T cells are a kind of immune cell, whose main purpose is to identify and kill invading pathogens or infected cells. It does this using proteins on its surface, which can bind to proteins on the surface of these imposters. Each T cell is highly specific – there are trillions of possible versions of these surface proteins, which can each recognise a different target. Because T cells can hang around in the blood for years after an infection, they also contribute to the immune system’s “long-term memory” and allow it to mount a faster and more effective response when it’s exposed to an old foe.

Several studies have shown that people infected with Covid-19 tend to have T cells that can target the virus, regardless of whether they have experienced symptoms. So far, so normal. But scientists have also recently discovered that some people can test negative for antibodies against Covid-19 and positive for T cells that can identify the virus. This has led to suspicions that some level of immunity against the disease might be twice as common as was previously thought.

Most bizarrely of all, when researchers tested blood samples taken years before the pandemic started, they found T cells which were specifically tailored to detect proteins on the surface of Covid-19. This suggests that some people already had a pre-existing degree of resistance against the virus before it ever infected a human. And it appears to be surprisingly prevalent: 40-60% of unexposed individuals had these cells.


 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

vector2

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
10+ Year Member
Dec 26, 2006
5,147
9,688
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
do you have an age cut off for participation in covid intubation teams in your organisation?

Around 13 or 14 but keep in mind that child labor laws are pretty lax here.









But in all seriousness, no. We have guys in their 60s intubating covid pts
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

BLADEMDA

10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
19,647
5,815
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The press release for Monday’s publication of results from the Oxford vaccine trials described an increased frequency of “minor side effects” among participants. A look at the actual paper, though, reveals this to be a marketing spin that has since been parroted in media reports. (The phrases “minor side effects” or “only minor side effects” appeared in writeups from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, among other outlets.) Yes, mild reactions were far more common than worse ones. But moderate or severe harms—defined as being bad enough to interfere with daily life or needing medical care—were common too. Around one-third of people vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine without acetaminophen experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and/or feverishness. Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches. That’s a lot, in a young and healthy group of people—and the acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems. The paper’s authors designated the vaccine as “acceptable” and “tolerated,” but we don’t yet know how acceptable this will be to most people. If journalists don’t start asking tougher questions, this will become the perfect setup for anti-vaccine messaging: Here’s what they forgot to tell you about the risks …


 

coffeebythelake

Supreme Commander Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Apr 9, 2006
2,652
2,025
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The press release for Monday’s publication of results from the Oxford vaccine trials described an increased frequency of “minor side effects” among participants. A look at the actual paper, though, reveals this to be a marketing spin that has since been parroted in media reports. (The phrases “minor side effects” or “only minor side effects” appeared in writeups from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters, among other outlets.) Yes, mild reactions were far more common than worse ones. But moderate or severe harms—defined as being bad enough to interfere with daily life or needing medical care—were common too. Around one-third of people vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine without acetaminophen experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and/or feverishness. Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches. That’s a lot, in a young and healthy group of people—and the acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems. The paper’s authors designated the vaccine as “acceptable” and “tolerated,” but we don’t yet know how acceptable this will be to most people. If journalists don’t start asking tougher questions, this will become the perfect setup for anti-vaccine messaging: Here’s what they forgot to tell you about the risks …



That really depends ok how you define minor and severe. In my mind severe means potentially permanent, debilitating or life threatening
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
About the Ads