Co-vid 19: What Is and Isn't Known, Discussion and Debate

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

It is extremely rare that I see a positive baby who does not have symptoms, for the simple reason that parents typically don't to put their babies (and themselves) through the hassle/irritation of testing their baby if they are not symptomatic.  This doesn't mean that asymptomatic babies are uncommon, it just means that they are not typically tested if they are not symptomatic. 

I would assume such tests (of asymptomatic kids) would be the result of a family member being sick and then the entire family being tested.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I would assume such tests (of asymptomatic kids) would be the result of a family member being sick and then the entire family being tested.

Exactly.  That's the only time they would be tested.  Most families, in my experience, choose not to be tested if they are not symptomatic.  In fact, I would say that a very large percentage choose not to test even if they are symptomatic - they assume that they are infected and see testing as a waste of time/effort to tell them what they already know.  Even when asymptomatic families do decide to test after a house-hold exposure, it is not uncommon to test everyone but the baby to prevent upset.  

Edited July 21, 2020 by pogi

[Daniel2]

Loved seeing this from my Alma Mater....  Some great stuff here:

BYU research analysis shows masks still most effective in fighting spread of COVID-19

By Sean Walker, KSL.com | Updated - Jul. 20, 2020 at 10:04 p.m. | Posted - Jul. 20, 2020 at 5:34 p.m.

---

10PM: BYU research analysis shows masks still most effective in fighting spread of COVID-19

Matt Rascon, KSL TV

PROVO — After countless hours buried in research not necessarily related to their specialty, a group of researchers from Brigham Young University feel like they have made sense for the wearing masks or cloth face coverings to halt the spread of COVID-19.

Ben Abbott, an assistant professor of environmental science at BYU, was one of four researchers at the university who pored through 130 scientific papers about the costs, benefits and disadvantages of mask-wearing in response to the global pandemic.

If the group — which also includes Mitchell Greenhalgh and Isaac St. Clair from environmental science, and Jonas Bush from genetics, genomics and biotechnology — doesn’t sound like one that might typically deliver a cost-benefit analysis of mask-wearing, it’s because it isn’t.

"My research team and I basically suspended our other efforts and worked night and day," Abbott told KSL NewsRadio on Monday afternoon, adding that the group responded to several inquiries on Facebook and in the Utah County community by digging into previously published scientific papers, devoid of political arguments.

 

The research analysis wasn't driven by the university or a department, or even a need for political discourse. Just pure scientific inquisition, Abbott said.

“Our whole purpose for making this report was to bring the pure science,” Abbott told KSL TV. “We’re able to now say with a high level of confidence: ‘masks protect people from COVID-19.’”

All masks, including something as simple as a cloth face covering, have been shown to slow the spread of viruses like COVID-19 — which spread via tiny air droplets when speaking, coughing, sneezing and even breathing — by as much as 90%, the research confirmed.

What’s more, there is no evidence that masks adversely affect the majority of the population, Abbott added, including limiting oxygen intake, increasing carbon dioxide intact or inhaling more pathogens.

"We found zero evidence in the scientific literature, after reading 130 papers, that masks were a risk for healthy individuals," the BYU professor said. "For all healthy individuals — children, adults, and elderly — it’s really safe."

Still, masks aren’t particularly effective at protecting the wearer — but those around them who may otherwise be infected, even unknowingly.

“We need to keep politics from stopping us from doing what we need to get us back to our normal life,” Abbott said. “We can conquer this if we work together.”

Some adverse effects do occur to a small percentage of the population, such as those who struggle with compromised respiratory systems like COPD and end-stage renal disease, those with severe disabilities that make removing or adjusting a mask extremely difficult, and children under 2 years in age, Abbott added.

But even for that small section of the population, those who don’t wear masks correctly may contribute to and benefit from the greater mask-wearing society — if everyone else is "masked up."

"Even if not everyone is wearing their mask correctly or anything else happens, it still can have a really positive impact," Abbott said. "Even though cases are increasing rapidly, areas that include masks have lower mortality rates.

"The problem is, of course, it only works when the majority of people are wearing masks."

Abbott added that even when infection occurs in areas with frequent mask usage, mortality rates are relatively low. There appears to be a correlation between the volume of infected air droplets consumed while spreading the virus and the severity of the symptoms: the fewer droplets, the less severe the symptoms, and less likely to lead to significant cases or even death.

In countries where at least 80% of the population was wearing a mask, such as most Asian countries, the rate of spread was found to decrease dramatically. Those countries had COVID-19 infection rates as low as half that of similar countries where mask-wearing was not as culturally complicit.

Scientists at Oxford University who began human trials on a potential vaccine for the virus back in April have recently shown promising results, too, producing a dual immune response in test cases between age 15 and 55 that lasted at least two months after they received the immunization.

That’s only part of the response of the worldwide scientific community’s Herculean effort to fast-track a vaccine as soon as possible. And before a vaccine is introduced to the masses — White House officials believe that may not be available until at least Christmas, or early next year — the best response still likely includes a mask.

Of course, masks and face coverings also don’t work by themselves; they should be used in addition to other precautions to prevent spread, such as social distancing when appropriate and frequent sanitization of hands and high-touch surface areas.

But the evidence is clear, Abbott said: if you want society to return to normal — or a "new normal," as state and national political leaders have said — then wear a mask.

"It looks like masks could be our safest and fastest bridge back to normal," Abbott said. "Countries and regions that have implemented masking have reduced the spread of COVID drastically."

[Calm]

Oops, forgot to get links today for the posts last night...well, later and will add this one:

Quote

A protein treatment has been hailed as a "breakthrough." Biotech firm Synairgen announced results Monday from a trial of 101 participants showing that coronavirus patients who received a protein called interferon beta, inhaled directly into the lungs through a nebulizer, had a 79 percent lower risk of developing severe disease compared with those treated with placebo. Patients were more than twice as likely to recover as those on placebo. Richard Marsden, CEO of Synairgen, said, “This could signal a major breakthrough in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients“

 

[Tacenda]

Do any of you get some kind of ailment and immediately think you might have covid? I developed laryngitis and now wonder if I need to get tested. No other symptoms, just losing my voice. I've been playing pickle ball and before each set calling out the scores. Hopefully that's it.

[smac97]

KSL:

Quote

COVID-19 county stories: Daggett and Wayne stay coronavirus-free; early data favors masks
By Carter Williams, KSL.com | Posted - Jul. 21, 2020 at 7:16 p.m.

 It seems as if it’s impossible to avoid COVID-19 these days, but Daggett and Wayne counties entered this week as Utah's remaining holdouts to this point in the pandemic.

Sounds like paradise, right?

There’s really no method to how it’s happened, but population probably helps. Daggett County, located in northeastern Utah along the state’s Wyoming and Colorado borders, is Utah’s least-populated county; Wayne County, home to Capitol Reef and Canyonlands national parks in southern Utah, is the fourth-least populated county.

KSL.com reached out to Liberty Best, TriCounty Health Department spokesperson, as to how Daggett County has avoided COVID-19 to this point. It’s not just population but how that population is spread out, she wrote in an email.

“Daggett County not only has a small population but also is a little more rural than the rest of the TriCounty area, which may be a factor,” Best wrote.

That’s not to say the coronavirus has escaped the TriCounty Health Department’s jurisdiction entirely. Through Tuesday data, the department has 109 total cases since the pandemic began. It’s the second-fewest number of cases among any Utah county, but the area has also doubled its number of cases since July began.

And this (same link) (emphases added) :

Quote

It’s been nearly a full month since Salt Lake and Summit counties ordered face coverings to be worn in public places, and the early numbers have yielded promising results.

We looked at three key dates for this article using Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake County Health Department and Summit County Health Department data.

It’s worth noting some integers are a bit off because the county may report a new case faster than the state. We also took into account that Dr. Angela Dunn, the state’s epidemiologist, said that it takes about two weeks after a mandate before any results can be calculated.

The key dates we looked at were June 27 (the day of the mandate), July 10 (the 14th day after the mask order went into order) and the date of this story's publication, which happens to be Tuesday. It should also be noted that there are delays in reporting, so technically this would be data through Monday.

So what does the data tell us?

We first looked at the running average of new Salt Lake and Summit county cases compared to state data subtracting those two counties. Heading into July, Salt Lake and Summit counties accounted for about half of Utah's new cases. In fact, their combined number of cases began to exceed that of the other 27 counties combined for a few days at the beginning of the month.

Things changed after July 4. While both Salt Lake and Summit county, and the rest of the state, experienced COVID-19 increases, the Salt Lake/Summit increases were less sharp and declined after July 12, while the number of cases in the rest of the state continued upward. On July 12, Salt Lake/Summit posted a running average of 314.7 cases while the rest of the state reached 352.9 new cases. A little more than a week later, on Monday, Salt Lake/Summit fell to a running average of 260 new cases, compared to 351.7 from the rest of the state.

And here (same link) :

Quote

Where is COVID-19 rising now?

 

So, if Salt Lake and Summit counties are seeing slowdowns in cases, then what is propelling the state’s generally high numbers in daily counts? In a Coronavirus Mailbag published on June 25, we answered that six of Utah’s 13 health departments accounted for roughly 94% of Utah’s cases from Memorial Day to June 25.

It seems fitting to look at the rise in cases from June 25 to now. Even though its case numbers have slowed down in rate, Salt Lake County still has the most overall cases in that time period — but its growth rate ranks fifth-lowest among the 13 local health departments in the state since June 25.

With our defined timespan, no health department in the state has experienced growth rates below 25%. The Wasatch County Health Department leads the way with a 25% increase. Weber-Morgan Health Department has experienced the largest spike, percentage-wise, with the two-county department reporting a 161% increase in COVID-19 cases in a little less than a month.

Here’s a look at percentage increase with all of Utah's 13 health departments ranked in order from lowest to highest case growth rate, from June 25 through Tuesday:

• Wasatch County Health Department: 25% increase to 495 total cases (99 new cases)
• Summit County Health Department: 34% increase to 643 total cases (164 new cases)
• Bear River Health Department (Box Elder, Cache and Rich counties): 38% increase to 1,945 total cases (535 new cases)
• San Juan County Public Health: 38% increase to 545 total cases (149 new cases)
• Salt Lake County Health Department: 67% increase to 16,871 total (6,741 new cases)
• Utah County Health Department: 77% increase to 6,516 new cases (2,843 new cases)
• Southeast Utah Health Department (Carbon, Emery and Grand counties): 91% increase to 63 total cases (30 new cases)
• Southwest Utah Public Health Department (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington counties): 93% to 2,526 total cases (1,219 new cases)
• Tooele County Health Department: 103% increase to 443 total cases (225 new cases)
• Davis County Health Department: 132% increase to 2,415 total cases (1,374 new cases)
• Central Utah Public Utah (Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier and Wayne counties): 138% increase to 309 total cases (179 new cases)
• TriCounty Health Department (Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah counties): 156% to 115 total cases (70 new cases)
• Weber-Morgan Health Department (Morgan and Weber counties): 161% increase to 2,112 total cases (1,304 new cases)

Utah, Davis, Weber and Morgan counties all have larger populations, and also large percentage-wise increases.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

A bit of politics, but I hope Calm will excuse me posting this, as the story is, I think, self-evidently important:

Quote

BREAKING: Trump Admin Secures Up To 600M Coronavirus Vaccine Doses With Pfizer, Free To Americans
By  Ryan Saavedra
Jul 22, 2020

The Trump administration placed an initial $1.95 billion order for 100 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine with Pfizer and can acquire an additional 500 million doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech announced in a joint statement that they secured “an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense to meet the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed program goal to begin delivering 300 million doses of a vaccine for COVID-19 in 2021.”The BNT162 program is based on BioNTech’s proprietary mRNA technology and supported by Pfizer’s global vaccine development and manufacturing capabilities. The BNT162 vaccine candidates are undergoing clinical studies and aren’t currently approved for distribution anywhere in the world.

“Under the agreement, the U.S. government will receive 100 million doses of BNT162, the COVID-19 vaccine candidate jointly developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, after Pfizer successfully manufactures and obtains approval or emergency use authorization from U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),” the statement said. “Americans will receive the vaccine for free consistent with U.S. government’s commitment for free access for COVID-19 vaccines.”

HHS Secretary Alex Azar said, “Expanding Operation Warp Speed’s diverse portfolio by adding a vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech increases the odds that we will have a safe, effective vaccine as soon as the end of this year. Depending on success in clinical trials, today’s agreement will enable the delivery of approximately 100 million doses of this vaccine to the American people.”

"As soon as the end of this year."  Let's hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do any of you get some kind of ailment and immediately think you might have covid? I developed laryngitis and now wonder if I need to get tested. No other symptoms, just losing my voice. I've been playing pickle ball and before each set calling out the scores. Hopefully that's it.

I don't how anyone wouldn't wonder if they had Covid when a new symptom showed up, since it seems like there isn't a symptom that hasn't been linked to it.  It's one of the reasons it's so annoying.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A bit of politics, but I hope Calm will excuse me posting this, as the story is, I think, self-evidently important:

"As soon as the end of this year."  Let's hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

That is tentatively good news (if we get lucky with a safe and effective vaccine through Pfizer) but potentially very bad news.  I just wonder why they are making such a HUGE deal with companies before testing is even complete.  There are tons of very large and reputable companies working on a Coronavirus vaccine with huge manufacturing capabilities, like Sanofi and GSK who are investing BIG millions in development.  I can imagine that they are absolutely distraught about this deal.  Some of these other companies may very well be working on a more safe and effective vaccine, and this deal will essentially destroy their chance of a US market.  Who can compete against up to 600 million (when the entire US population is about half that) free vaccines paid for by the government? 

If the government wants to pay for the vaccine (which I think they should only do where the person doesn't have insurance, or where insurance wont cover it) great, but the better option would have been for the government to allow the individual to decide which vaccine is best for them.  This is the better option for the public, and the more fair option for these other companies.  This just seems so premature (testing is not even complete yet).   Let the free-market system do what it does so well - compete on safety, efficacy, and customer service.   This deal essentially cripples the ability for the market to allow best vaccine and customer service to compete.

Edited July 22, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

A bit of politics, but I hope Calm will excuse me posting this, as the story is, I think, self-evidently important:

"As soon as the end of this year."  Let's hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree, this is appropriate. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do any of you get some kind of ailment and immediately think you might have covid? I developed laryngitis and now wonder if I need to get tested. No other symptoms, just losing my voice. I've been playing pickle ball and before each set calling out the scores. Hopefully that's it.

I was wondering one night after a doctor’s appt a few days before when my chest started hurting when breathing. Then I went downstairs and saw the fire haze in the sky out the window, so that solved that time. 

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

the better option would have been for the government to allow the individual to decide which vaccine is best for them.

How would someone who knows nothing about vaccines (like myself) be able to make a choice as to which one was best?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

How would someone who knows nothing about vaccines (like myself) be able to make a choice as to which one was best?

Doctors and clinics generally do the research and provide the products that they feel are best for their patients.   In fact, the system is pretty good about weeding out bad vaccines without much help from the lay public.  Many vaccines have essentially disappeared from the market as more effective vaccines come out.  For example, Shingrix, the new vaccine for shingles has largely made the old shingles vaccines disappear from the market.  No clinic is going to offer a vaccine that is 60%-70% effective when they can offer one that is over 90% effective with less potentially severe side-effects.  You see the problem, I am sure.  What if the government has already invested in the 60% effective vaccine when a 90% effective vaccine is in the works by another company?  

Clinics typically want to provide the safest and most effective and most affordable vaccines for their customers.  For the lay person that is interested (many are) it's not hard to find efficacy and safety information for vaccines.  Most companies are not shy about advertising that information when it favors their product.  It's pretty easy to understand information such as 97% efficacy vs 65% efficacy.  Or,  this vaccine has high incidence of severe reactions while this one has very low incidence, etc.  The decision of which vaccine the public should use has largely been made before testing is even complete.  That is nuts.  

Edited July 22, 2020 by pogi

[strappinglad]

Unfortunately, large numbers of people have to be given the vaccine before there are any stats  about effectiveness or adverse reactions showing up. So these folks will be the guinea pigs and if there are bad results, that will taint the opinions about vaccines in general. 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Unfortunately, large numbers of people have to be given the vaccine before there are any stats  about effectiveness or adverse reactions showing up. So these folks will be the guinea pigs and if there are bad results, that will taint the opinions about vaccines in general. 

I don't foresee that as a problem personally. I don't think people will likely question the safety and efficacy of other vetted vaccines' based on how these ones perform in clinical trials.  

Edited July 22, 2020 by pogi

[rodheadlee]

On 7/22/2020 at 1:38 PM, pogi said:

Doctors and clinics generally do the research and provide the products that they feel are best for their patients.   In fact, the system is pretty good about weeding out bad vaccines without much help from the lay public.  Many vaccines have essentially disappeared from the market as more effective vaccines come out.  For example, Shingrix, the new vaccine for shingles has largely made the old shingles vaccines disappear from the market.  No clinic is going to offer a vaccine that is 60%-70% effective when they can offer one that is over 90% effective with less potentially severe side-effects.  You see the problem, I am sure.  What if the government has already invested in the 60% effective vaccine when a 90% effective vaccine is in the works by another company?  

Clinics typically want to provide the safest and most effective and most affordable vaccines for their customers.  For the lay person that is interested (many are) it's not hard to find efficacy and safety information for vaccines.  Most companies are not shy about advertising that information when it favors their product.  It's pretty easy to understand information such as 97% efficacy vs 65% efficacy.  Or,  this vaccine has high incidence of severe reactions while this one has very low incidence, etc.  The decision of which vaccine the public should use has largely been made before testing is even complete.  That is nuts.  

I don't know about that. I'd rather pay for a more effective vaccine than a free one that is less effective. The other point is the market is far larger than the population of the US.

 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't know about that. I'd rather pay for a more effective vaccine than a free one that is less effective. The other point is the market is far larger than the population of the US.

 

I would rather pay (my insurance company, rather) for a more effective vaccine too.  Which begs the question, why didn't the government just let us decide which vaccine to use and let our insurance pay for it, like they do with all other vaccines, and save tax payers over 2 BILLION dollars for vaccines that they may not even get used?   Do you have any idea how many other companies are working on a Covid vaccine world-wide?  I have never seen a more saturated market for a vaccine.  You also have to consider that vaccines first go through expensive approval processes for use in other countries which have different regulatory standards than we have here.  It can be VERY pricey for a vaccine to get into a different countries market.  I could see why you might like this deal if you were into socialistic medicine though. I personally think it is a terrible deal though.  Terrible for taxpayers. Terrible for the marketplace.  Terrible for medicine.  This is stretching into political realms so I'm bowing out.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't know about that. I'd rather pay for a more effective vaccine than a free one that is less effective. The other point is the market is far larger than the population of the US.

 

Yes, but companies won’t go through the process of getting US approval if it isn’t profitable.  When I lived in Canada, Am  bien was not available because the company didn’t see a large enough market at the time to go through the costly approval.  There are medicines available in other countries that are not here.  
 

So hopefully vaccines will still be out there, but quite possibly won’t be available in the US. And smaller companies that depend more on the US because they don’t have as much marketing access in other countries may decide it isn’t worth it. 

[Calm]

This article has more info on context for vaccines imo:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/508619-2-billion-vaccine-deal-with-pfizer-raises-pricing-concerns

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

This article has more info on context for vaccines imo:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/508619-2-billion-vaccine-deal-with-pfizer-raises-pricing-concerns

The key words are the US government has an option to buy 500 million more doses. So in reality the G is only securing 100 million doses.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The key words are the US government has an option to buy 500 million more doses. So in reality the G is only securing 100 million doses.

At 20$ a piece, correct?  (100 million at 2 billion is 20) Which is twice as much as the predicted cost of the one vaccine listed and 7 times as much as the other. 
 

I wonder if the 3$ and 10$ cost is cost after government funding (what the company had to put into it after funding ran out so to speak) or absolute cost. Or something else (maybe just cost to produce ignoring research development).

Edited July 25, 2020 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

At 20$ a piece, correct?  (100 million at 2 billion is 20) Which is twice as much as the predicted cost of the one vaccine listed and 7 times as much as the other. 
 

I wonder if the 3$ and 10$ cost is cost after government funding (what the company had to put into it after funding ran out so to speak) or absolute cost. Or something else (maybe just cost to produce ignoring research development).

Pfizer did make it a point that they used no G funding for developing their vaccine.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Pfizer did make it a point that they used no G funding for developing their vaccine.

Yep.  So my question is if the cost of the other vaccines reflect government funding or not. 

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep.  So my question is if the cost of the other vaccines reflect government funding or not. 

I wouldn't know.

[Calm]

Just now, rodheadlee said:

I wouldn't know.

  That was not intended for you, but the universe...or someone who happened to stumble across it somehow. I didn’t actually expect it being answered.