COVID-19 - Facts and Information Only Topic

[Stank_Nasty]

I've stayed away from most covid talks because i feel like it just gets too judgey from either side. But i'm gonna go ahead and post a link to an article about a study done in my own county of Erie, PA. Why this hasnt gotten more hype i dont know. i think maybe because it doesnt support the medias fear based narrative. It could also be that the formulas used arent peer reviewed and its relatively uncharted territory so maybe people just arent confident in the results of the data.

 

Anyways.... This is a sewage study done in one of 400 different cities. The bio company apparently created a formula to estimate active covid cases through testing the sewage before it gets cleansed. I'll preface these staggering numbers by saying that at the date of this article 3 weeks ago there was less than 1000 CONFIRMED cases in Erie county, PA since march and 7 or 8 deaths at the time of this article. With that being said, this article estimates over 30,000 active cases from just mid june to early july. this isnt even accounting for anything before june. 

 

If you plug the deaths into those estimates is drops the fatality rate to a staggeringly low %. Like less than .0003.... heck even if their numbers are 75% off it still drops the death rate an extremely low number of .001

 

I'm not saying this study is any sort of "end all be all", but it blows my mind it hasnt gotten more coverage. if these numbers are even remotely close it would seem to change the views on things quite a bit. I'm just tossing it out there. Do with it what you will.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/erie-county-s-covid-19-sewage-numbers-drop-again/ar-BB16v2dJ

 

[EDIT: I find the potential of monitoring sewage as an "early warning system" for covid-19 spikes to be intriguing.

You can find a link to one of the first studies pubished on the technique posted here on May 5:

The Achilles heel of trying to translate this back to "number of patients actually infected" is that our data on the viral genome titer in infected people is limited.  When it comes to viral genome titer in poop, it's even more limited.  The chances are very good that titer varies  A LOT depending on a bunch of factors, including how sick the infected person is.  So using viral genome titer from sewage to back-calculate number of infections seemed very squishy to me back in May, and it hasn't gotten much less squishy (see what I did there?) in the last 2 months.]

 

[Richard Noggin]

9 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I've stayed away from most covid talks because i feel like it just gets too judgey from either side. But i'm gonna go ahead and post a link to an article about a study done in my own county of Erie, PA. Why this hasnt gotten more hype i dont know. i think maybe because it doesnt support the medias fear based narrative. It could also be that the formulas used arent peer reviewed and its relatively uncharted territory so maybe people just arent confident in the results of the data.

 

Anyways.... This is a sewage study done in one of 400 different cities. The bio company apparently created a formula to estimate active covid cases through testing the sewage before it gets cleansed. I'll preface these staggering numbers by saying that at the date of this article 3 weeks ago there was less than 1000 CONFIRMED cases in Erie county, PA since march and 7 or 8 deaths at the time of this article. With that being said, this article estimates over 30,000 active cases from just mid june to early july. this isnt even accounting for anything before june. 

 

If you plug the deaths into those estimates is drops the fatality rate to a staggeringly low %. Like less than .0003.... heck even if their numbers are 75% off it still drops the death rate an extremely low number of .001

 

I'm not saying this study is any sort of "end all be all", but it blows my mind it hasnt gotten more coverage. if these numbers are even remotely close it would seem to change the views on things quite a bit. I'm just tossing it out there. Do with it what you will.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/erie-county-s-covid-19-sewage-numbers-drop-again/ar-BB16v2dJ

Can you help me understand where your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are coming from? After looking over the link provided, I'm not seeing any of the specific numbers or conclusions you're sharing in those two paragraphs. 

 

After you help me see the origins of your data (and thank you for doing so), could you do me one more favor? Can you help us all better understand or contextualize how useful/accurate sewage studies are in tracking Covid cases (and more specifically Covid death rates, which you cite in your post but I don't see cited anywhere in the article linked)? Thank you. 

 

I can be a bit careless in the wee hours of the morning, so I appreciate the help in verifying the stats you've cited in your post.

[Buddo]

12 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I've stayed away from most covid talks because i feel like it just gets too judgey from either side. But i'm gonna go ahead and post a link to an article about a study done in my own county of Erie, PA. Why this hasnt gotten more hype i dont know. i think maybe because it doesnt support the medias fear based narrative. It could also be that the formulas used arent peer reviewed and its relatively uncharted territory so maybe people just arent confident in the results of the data.

 

Anyways.... This is a sewage study done in one of 400 different cities. The bio company apparently created a formula to estimate active covid cases through testing the sewage before it gets cleansed. I'll preface these staggering numbers by saying that at the date of this article 3 weeks ago there was less than 1000 CONFIRMED cases in Erie county, PA since march and 7 or 8 deaths at the time of this article. With that being said, this article estimates over 30,000 active cases from just mid june to early july. this isnt even accounting for anything before june. 

 

If you plug the deaths into those estimates is drops the fatality rate to a staggeringly low %. Like less than .0003.... heck even if their numbers are 75% off it still drops the death rate an extremely low number of .001

 

I'm not saying this study is any sort of "end all be all", but it blows my mind it hasnt gotten more coverage. if these numbers are even remotely close it would seem to change the views on things quite a bit. I'm just tossing it out there. Do with it what you will.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/erie-county-s-covid-19-sewage-numbers-drop-again/ar-BB16v2dJ

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52544247

 

It can be a useful tool in finding 'spikes' and also perhaps giving some advance warning, but to think it can accurately say how many cases there are, is something of a stretch, imho.

Maybe over time, with far more extensive testing in communities, they can get a closer sense of how many cases there are, (in relation to the waste) but until they can actually correlate that sort of thing, I'd be very wary of taking the estimates as gospel.

 

Undoubtedly they can tell you if overall if it's on the rise or fall for a given area, but I don't think they can be particularly more accurate than that currently, simply because there isn't enough testing done of all of a community, to verify any algorithm etc. that they can come up with.

[Stank_Nasty]

5 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

Can you help me understand where your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are coming from? After looking over the link provided, I'm not seeing any of the specific numbers or conclusions you're sharing in those two paragraphs. 

 

After you help me see the origins of your data (and thank you for doing so), could you do me one more favor? Can you help us all better understand or contextualize how useful/accurate sewage studies are in tracking Covid cases (and more specifically Covid death rates, which you cite in your post but I don't see cited anywhere in the article linked)? Thank you. 

 

I can be a bit careless in the wee hours of the morning, so I appreciate the help in verifying the stats you've cited in your post.

The confirmed cases and deaths i cite in the 2nd paragraph are from my own knowledge of the situation. As a gym owner in the area I’ve paid very close attention to what’s going on. The adjusted fatality rates I speak of are me doing the math. It’s the confirmed deaths, at the time, put up against the estimated total cases from the article. 
 

As far as how useful or accurate the data is I cannot say. I’m no scientist. And in my post I sort of hint that maybe it’s not an accepted or reliable practice right now. So that might be why it’s gained no traction. But if those numbers are even 25%-50% correct it completely drops the floor out of the fatality rate and hospitalization rate on a local level anyways. 

3 hours ago, Buddo said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52544247

 

It can be a useful tool in finding 'spikes' and also perhaps giving some advance warning, but to think it can accurately say how many cases there are, is something of a stretch, imho.

Maybe over time, with far more extensive testing in communities, they can get a closer sense of how many cases there are, (in relation to the waste) but until they can actually correlate that sort of thing, I'd be very wary of taking the estimates as gospel.

 

Undoubtedly they can tell you if overall if it's on the rise or fall for a given area, but I don't think they can be particularly more accurate than that currently, simply because there isn't enough testing done of all of a community, to verify any algorithm etc. that they can come up with.

I’m not taking it as gospel. I’m just tossing it out there. I continue to be mindful of my surroundings and situation. And as a gym owner in the area my sanitation protocol is STRINGENT.  But like I said in my original post, if these numbers are even 25% correct it still literally drops the floor out of the fatality and hospital rates. 
 

The infectious disease specialist, Howard Nadworny, that they are interviewing in the article is a colleague and close friend of a nursing professor that I personally train. My client has told me that she and him have had some in depth talks over the study and he’s quite an advocate and very confident in the data.  For whatever that’s worth ?‍♂️....  I would hope my county isn’t paying for a study that’s only 25% accurate. That would be silly right? 
 

like i said. I continue to do what I need to do to keep my family, strangers i come in contact with and my 300 gym members safe but I think it should be obvious that the case counts are much higher than we hear and in turn the fatality rate is much less. I also get that there are more risks than just death. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Stank_Nasty

[BillsFan4]

15 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I've stayed away from most covid talks because i feel like it just gets too judgey from either side. But i'm gonna go ahead and post a link to an article about a study done in my own county of Erie, PA. Why this hasnt gotten more hype i dont know. i think maybe because it doesnt support the medias fear based narrative. It could also be that the formulas used arent peer reviewed and its relatively uncharted territory so maybe people just arent confident in the results of the data.

 

Anyways.... This is a sewage study done in one of 400 different cities. The bio company apparently created a formula to estimate active covid cases through testing the sewage before it gets cleansed. I'll preface these staggering numbers by saying that at the date of this article 3 weeks ago there was less than 1000 CONFIRMED cases in Erie county, PA since march and 7 or 8 deaths at the time of this article. With that being said, this article estimates over 30,000 active cases from just mid june to early july. this isnt even accounting for anything before june. 

 

If you plug the deaths into those estimates is drops the fatality rate to a staggeringly low %. Like less than .0003.... heck even if their numbers are 75% off it still drops the death rate an extremely low number of .001

 

I'm not saying this study is any sort of "end all be all", but it blows my mind it hasnt gotten more coverage. if these numbers are even remotely close it would seem to change the views on things quite a bit. I'm just tossing it out there. Do with it what you will.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/erie-county-s-covid-19-sewage-numbers-drop-again/ar-BB16v2dJ

how so?
 

We know for a fact that this virus is plenty deadly, no matter what the mortality rate ends up being. This virus has killed 150,000 people in just over 4 months. and that’s with the (half-assed) preventative measures we’ve taken. I can’t even imagine how much worse it would have been if we just stayed open and did nothing. 

 

No average flu we’ve ever seen has killed 150,000 Americans in 4+ months. Our worst flu season in the last decade saw 30 to 60,000 deaths over the entire flu season (8-9 months). Covid has killed at least 2-4 x that amount in half the time (or less) and we haven’t even hit flu season yet this year. Covid is going to finish among the top 5 causes of death in the United States this year, and actually, probably top 3. For a whole month it was the #1 killer in the US. 
 

leading causes of death in the US, for comparison:

https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death
 

 

The mortality rate also doesn’t change the fact that this virus spreads fast and can quickly start to overwhelm our healthcare systems if left to spread unchecked (as we’ve seen over and over again here and around the world). 
 

We are also finding out that there could be longer term health effects, like damage to the heart and lungs. See the study that Hapless posted in the other covid thread that examined 100 “mild cases” (people who weren’t hospitalized) and found 78% with heart damage (in many people with no previous health issues).

[HappyDays]

 

This is concerning with schools set to reopen in the fall.

20 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Here's the study referenced above:  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6931e1.htm?s_cid=mm6931e1_w

 

A total of 597 Georgia residents attended camp A.

Median camper age was 12 years (range = 6–19 years), and 53% (182 of 346) were female.

The median age of staff members and trainees was 17 years (range = 14–59 years), and 59% (148 of 251) were female.

Test results were available for 344 (58%) attendees; among these, 260 (76%) were positive.

The overall attack rate was 44% (260 of 597), 51% among those aged 6–10 years, 44% among those aged 11–17 years, and 33% among those aged 18–21 years (Table).

Attack rates increased with increasing length of time spent at the camp, with staff members having the highest attack rate (56%). During June 21–27, occupancy of the 31 cabins averaged 15 persons per cabin (range = 1–26); median cabin attack rate was 50% (range = 22%–70%) among 28 cabins that had one or more cases.

Among 136 cases with available symptom data, 36 (26%) patients reported no symptoms; among 100 (74%) who reported symptoms, those most commonly reported were subjective or documented fever (65%), headache (61%), and sore throat (46%).

 

Staffers were required to wear cloth masks.  Campers were not required to wear cloth masks.  Campers had to provide documentation of a negative RT-PCR test taken <12 days before arriving and were assigned to "pods": "Camp attendees were cohorted by cabin and engaged in a variety of indoor and outdoor activities, including daily vigorous singing and cheering."

A 51% attack rate in age 6-10 is astoundingly high.  A widespread contact tracing study in S. Korea during mitigation measures reported an attack rate of ~12% inside the home, with the highest attack rate occurring in children age 10-19 (~18%) and a low attack rate in younger children.  But evidently when children are grouped together all day, the attack rate is much higher.

One does wonder if the attack rate would be lower had the Georgia CDC had access to test data on all campers, but even if it decreased by 50% it would still be a yike!ingly high 25%.

[Richard Noggin]

16 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

The confirmed cases and deaths i cite in the 2nd paragraph are from my own knowledge of the situation. As a gym owner in the area I’ve paid very close attention to what’s going on. The adjusted fatality rates I speak of are me doing the math. It’s the confirmed deaths, at the time, put up against the estimated total cases from the article. 
 

As far as how useful or accurate the data is I cannot say. I’m no scientist. And in my post I sort of hint that maybe it’s not an accepted or reliable practice right now. So that might be why it’s gained no traction. But if those numbers are even 25%-50% correct it completely drops the floor out of the fatality rate and hospitalization rate on a local level anyways. 

 

Thanks for clarifying. That was gracious of you, and transparent.

 

I'm going to have to shrug my shoulders at Covid levels in waste water as an indicator of anything, because I've not yet seen a single scientific source point to that metric as meaningful (or at all). Seems like we can't responsibly glean anything from that data without some kind of expert support for doing so. And as for the numbers you've come up with on your own, it's difficult for anyone else to find significance in them without transparent evidence and methodology. I appreciate your efforts, but it isn't apparent how accurate or meaningful that effort is without support. 

[DefenseWins]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/health/coronavirus-children-camp.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2020 by DefenseWins

[Saxum]

https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/coronavirus?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln_key_updates&variant=2_variant&region=body&context=what_you_need_to_know

Key developments you may have missed.

Updated weekday evenings

• Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline will receive $2.1 billion to supply the U.S. government with 100 million doses of an experimental coronavirus vaccine — the largest such deal to date.
• Dr. Anthony Fauci said the U.S. would most likely have a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine by the end of 2020 or early in 2021.
  
  [Edit:  this is just one of several deals brokered by the "Operation Warp Speed" project.  An earlier deal offered Pfizer/BioNTec $1.95 billion.   Novavax, a struggling small company in Maryland, has received $1.6 billion. 
  
  There's a not-quite-up-to-date and not-very-transparent summary here.]
  
  [And edit again: part of the deals being offered to these companies specifies that the vaccine will be provided at no or low cost}

[Saxum]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/column-gop-plan-cant-sue-172938487.html

 

It would absolve employers of responsibility for taking any but the most minimal steps to make their workplaces safe. It would preempt tough state workplace safety laws (not that there are very many of them).

 

And while shutting the courthouse door to workers, it would allow employers to sue workers for demanding safer conditions.

 

This is the provision that McConnell has described as his "red line" in negotiations over the next coronavirus relief bill, meaning that he intends to demand that it be incorporated in anything passed on Capitol Hill and sent to President Trump for his signature. The provision would be retroactive to last Dec. 1 and remain in effect at least until Oct. 1, 2024.

 

The proposal would supersede such federal worker safeguards as the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, among oth

------------------

[Edit: I think this belongs here as it's being proposed as legislation related to covid-19, so folks with opinions either way have a need to be informed and weigh in pro or con with their elected representatives and senators. 

 

Gentle reminder that there are several places for discussion and that this post may be linked for the purpose by clicking on the posting date and time in the upper L corner- but if you wish to discuss or debate this: Somewhere else, Not here.  Thanks.]

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

More vaccine stuff.

 

Pfizer and BioNTech pick a hoss.  For those who don't know, Pfizer and BioNTech have been simultaneously advancing 4 different vaccine candidates, two into the clinic.  This choice comes as somewhat of a surprise as all the stuff Pfizer has published to date has been on a different vaccine candidate, but the assertion is this choice beat the other out. Since their published candidate data looked very good indeed, that's good news.

• Companies advance nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) candidate BNT162b2, which encodes an optimized SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike glycoprotein, at a 30µg dose level in a 2 dose regimen into Phase 2/3 Study
• Candidate and dose level selection informed by preclinical and clinical data obtained in Phase 1/2 studies conducted in the U.S. (C4591001) and Germany (BNT162-01) 
• The Phase 2/3 study protocol follows all the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on clinical trial design for COVID-19 vaccine studies.
• Phase 2/3 study of up to 30,000 participants aged 18 – 85 years started in the U.S. and expected to include approximately 120 sites globally  
• Trial regions to include areas with significant expected SARS-CoV-2 transmission to assess whether investigational vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, is effective in preventing COVID-19
• Assuming clinical success, Pfizer and BioNTech on track to seek regulatory review as early as October 2020 and, if regulatory authorization or approval is obtained, plan to supply up to 100 million doses by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021

 

Pharma Blogger Derek Lowe has some commentary about it: It comes down to the antigen(s) being coded for. The b1 candidate, the one we’ve been hearing about, codes for the coronavirus Spike protein’s receptor-binding domain (RBD), and this was constructed as a trimer, three RBDs attached to a “foldon” protein core. Meanwhile, the b2 candidate codes for what they say is an “optimized full-length Spike” protein instead, not just the receptor-binding domain. Pfizer’s press release says that both the b1 and b2 candidates “induced favorable viral antigen specific CD4+ and CD8+T cell responses, high levels of neutralizing antibody in various animal species, and beneficial protective effects in a primate SARS-CoV-2 challenge model“. But they made the choice for the b2 variety partly because it seemed to be better tolerated on injection, and also because it led to a wider variety of T-cell responses. These include both CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells, and these were raised not only to recognize the RBD region, but also other regions of the Spike protein that weren’t contained at all in the b1 candidate. And they’re quite right – that could well be beneficial, and the better tolerability is a bonus. The release says that the neutralizing antibody response was similar between the two candidates.

Note that people expecting a vaccine in November can keep expecting.  There may be completion of a Phase III clinical trial, but that will be followed by regulatory review and hopefully, authorization or approval, with vaccine available "by the end of 2020" which probably means January 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

[Buddo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53632043
 

New test for Covid19  that supposedly gives results in about 90 minutes. Could be an important step forward for any track  and trace Systems to become more worthwhile. Doesn’t say who has come up with it, and no data given about accuracy as yet, but you would think that at least positives would get further testing to be certain.

Obviously, false negatives are still a major concern, but speedier testing simply has to be achieved to nail this thing on the head.
 

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

As far as I can tell, what's "new" about this is it's a combined test for covid-19 and flu, which many US companies are coming out with.  It's a 'point of care' test using a proprietary machine sold by the company, similar to the Abbott IDNow test that I believe the White House still uses.

We have no shortage of different tests that give 90 minute results.  Here is an upcoming (August) publication comparing 4 different tests that are already in use have good accuracy, comparable to the CDC assay.  Two of them take a total time of <2 hrs (90 minute run time).

The problem with testing is not the test time per se - even the CDC test officially takes only 3 hrs. 

 

The problem is overall throughput - is the equipment widely available at POC sites? how about the reagants?  if the test will be sent to a lab, how are they situated a far as equipment and reagants?  Tests get taken at a clinic or test site and sent to a designated laboratory working with that clinic or site, even if that laboratory is swamped or running low on reagants.

 

There is no logistical oversight and coordination to share "surge" load.  The FDA is open to authorizing pooled testing strategies, but only for "surveillance" and this may be too late with % positives in many areas outrunning the threshold at which it makes sense.

 

I don't think another proprietary machine for a POC test will be an important step forward, unless it somehow manages to truly become more widespread and available.

 

We could solve the testing bottlenecks with the tests we have now given appropriate logistics, coordination and use of pooled testing strategies that allow individual samples to be identified.

[Buddo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53635692

 

This is an 'update' as regards the UKs attempts, to try and get information from sewage, as to how much Covid19 there is in an area. Seems there are 44 'sites' where this will take place. The hope is that detailed analysis will be able to give more advance warning of where outbreaks are about to occur.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

In case any of you or yours are impacted by "Cuomo's List", the Rochester D&C has a site tracking daily tests and calculating the # positives/100,000k population

 

http://rochester.nydatabases.com/database/ny-quarantine-order-daily-covid-19-cases-100k-residents?fbclid=IwAR0gfzqYRC_gyY6-oDV0CeWhClXdP6OTsHKXlHnRQEmT8gLjjJgrGmufcUA

 

Rhode Island is about to get a "lump of coal" in its stocking from CT, NY, and NJ

Colorado, Delaware, and DC may come off the list.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Dilemma of a school superintendent.  Don't envy his job:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/01/schools-reopening-coronavirus-arizona-superintendent/?arc404=true

 

He does a pretty good job outlining his dilemma I think:

"The governor has told us we have to open our schools to students on August 17th, or else we miss out on five percent of our funding. I run a high-needs district in middle-of-nowhere Arizona. We’re 90 percent Hispanic and more than 90 percent free-and-reduced lunch. These kids need every dollar we can get. But covid is spreading all over this area and hitting my staff, and now it feels like there’s a gun to my head. I already lost one teacher [died, infected 2 other teachers while teaching summer school in a room with 2 other teachers who were masked, distanced, used separate computers etc] to this virus. Do I risk opening back up even if it’s going to cost us more lives? Or do we run school remotely and end up depriving these kids?" "I dream about going back to normal. I’d love to be open. These kids are hurting right now. I don’t need a politician to tell me that."

 

"More than a quarter of our students live with grandparents. These kids could very easily catch this virus, spread it and bring it back home. It’s not safe. There’s no way it can be safe.

If you think anything else, I’m sorry, but it’s a fantasy. Kids will get sick, or worse. Family members will die. Teachers will die."

 

And that's basically the bottom line.  The kids can catch covid-19 and transmit covid-19.  The S. Korea contact tracing data shows that unambiguously; so do the Georgia summer camp data.  The kids will almost certainly be all right - either no symptoms, or very few symptoms. 

 

The teachers, coaches, aides, bus drivers, custodians, and worse grandparents and other elders who live with or have frequent contact with them....that may be another matter.

 

We could likely mitigate - masks, "airplane arms", pods, "go teams" of experts helping schools assess HVAC.  But school districts just may not have the resources, and where was the push to help them out - back in May?

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Two new studies suggest that young children with mild symptoms may not only spread the covid-19 virus, but may possibly spread it more efficiently than adults.

 

Popular article on the topic from Forbes:

"The Chicago study examines the concentration of the SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx, or the upper region of the throat that connects to the nasal passages, of children and adults. According to the results, children 5 years and younger who develop mild to moderate Covid-19 symptoms have 10 to 100 times as much SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx as older children and adults. 

Whenever these young children cough, sneeze, or shout, they expel virus-laden droplets from the nasopharynx into the air. If they have as much as one hundred times the amount of virus in their throat and nasal passages as adults, it only makes sense that they would spread the virus more efficiently. The study also shows that children from the ages of 5 to 17, also with mild to moderate Covid-19 symptoms, have the same amount of virus in the nasopharynx as adults age 18 and above.
The authors conclude it is likely that young children, while not as prone to suffering from Covid-19 infection, still drive its spread—just as they do with several other respiratory diseases."

 

"The second manuscript reports the results of an extensive contact tracing study conducted in Trento, an autonomous region in Northern Italy. Despite a total lockdown that began in March with the closure of schools, universities, and all businesses except grocery stores, pharmacies, and newsstands, for more than a month the number of cases rose exponentially.  The researchers found that although young children had a somewhat lower risk of infection than adults and were less likely to become ill, children age 14 and younger transmit the virus more efficiently to other children and adults than adults themselves. Their risk of transmitting Covid-19 was 22.4 percent—more than twice that of adults aged 30 to 49, whose rate of contagiousness was about 11 percent. “Although childhood contacts were less likely to become cases,” they wrote, “children were more likely to infect household members.”

This is consistent with a recently published contact tracing study from S. Korea during lockdown which included very few young children as index cases - but which found that children age 10-18 as index case had an attack rate of 18.6%, 1.5x the overall attack rate of 11.8%
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

Oh, and this from Israel:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/world/middleeast/coronavirus-israel-schools-reopen.html?smid=tw-share

 

 

[CountDorkula]

From the office of the state treasurer twitter account. 
 

Remdesivir manufacturer, Gilead, just set the price for the COVID-19 treatment: between $2,300 and $3,100 per patient. @icer_review estimates the treatment costs approx. $1 per vital to produce. $1.

[Edit: this is probably a more balanced take on the subject, though I'm looking for a more solid source.  The current mfr cost is the tip of the iceberg to the actual cost of producing a drug, by the way.  https://www.fastcompany.com/90537165/the-covid-19-drug-remdesivir-costs-as-much-as-3120-per-patient-but-the-government-could-change-that?partner=rss}]

AND Gilead weighs in (Thanks @Limeaid)

 

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

 

https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/company-statements/gilead-sciences-statement-on-state-attorneys-general-letter-on-remdesivir

 

[Nervous Guy]

14 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

From the office of the state treasurer twitter account. 
 

Remdesivir manufacturer, Gilead, just set the price for the COVID-19 treatment: between $2,300 and $3,100 per patient. @icer_review estimates the treatment costs approx. $1 per vital to produce. $1.

[Edit: this is probably a more balanced take on the subject, though I'm looking for a more solid source.  The current mfr cost is the tip of the iceberg to the actual cost of producing a drug, by the way.  https://www.fastcompany.com/90537165/the-covid-19-drug-remdesivir-costs-as-much-as-3120-per-patient-but-the-government-could-change-that?partner=rss}]

AND Gilead weighs in (Thanks @Limeaid)

 

 

It's not exactly a new tactic from this company..."Gilead made headlines in 2013 when its first HCV drug, sofosbuvir (brand name Sovaldi), went on the market at a cost of $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 for a full 12-week course of treatment (see here and here). In 2014, Gilead introduced its second HCV drug, Harvoni — which combines sofosbuvir with ledipasvir — at a price of $1,125 per pill, or $94,500 for a full course of treatment. According to ATF, the actual cost of making a 12-week course of sofosbuvir is estimated at $100 to $1,400."

 

https://www.citizen.org/news/outrage-of-the-month-a-price-gouging-tax-dodging-drug-company/

[CountDorkula]

Possible great news for vaccines and affordability, outside of America.

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/serum-institute-to-produce-up-to-100-million-covid-19-vaccine-doses-for-india-other-countries/articleshow/77413870.cms

 

The company has set an affordable ceiling price of $3

 

[Astrazeneca, one of the companies involved, has brokered or is brokering deals around the world including in the US.   They have pledged not to profit from the vaccine, should it be successful

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/astrazeneca-profit-covid-19-vaccine-pandemic-72080936
AstraZeneca has struck a number of deals around the world to supply the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, which has shown promise in early testing. The Anglo-Swedish company recently completed agreements with the United States, Britain, the European Union, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a public-private-charitable partnership based in Norway, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, another public-private partnership headquartered in Geneva.

It has also reached a licensing agreement with Serum Institute of India to supply low-and-middle-income countries and agreements with R-Pharm in Russia and SK Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd in the Republic of Korea “to manufacture and export for other global markets."

“We want to cover the whole world,'' Soriot said, “so everyone can get access to this vaccine.'' 

 

For those following vaccine progress, this is the Oxford University vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or AZD1222, which uses a Chimpanzee Adenovirus as the delivery truck for SARS-CoV2 spike protein - more stuff on it up thread.  It has had promising results published recently in Lancet; the concern is whether older adults who may have anti-human adenovirus immunity would find it less effective. 

Here is a summary of various vaccine programs being funded by US BARDA under "Operation Warpspeed" https://medicalcountermeasures.gov/app/barda/coronavirus/COVID19.aspx?filter=vaccine ]

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

More vaccine stuff.  This "wired" article is perhaps a wee bit exaggerative, at least to my understanding of "pretty bad".  But I think it makes a valid and necessary point that one needs to look carefully at the details of the adverse events, what they are, and exactly how prevalent they are.

 

https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-vaccines-with-minor-side-effects-could-still-be-pretty-bad/?itm_campaign=BottomRelatedStories_Sections_4&itm_content=footer-recirc

 

For a vaccine developer, there's a balance - to work, a vaccine has to induce an immune response, and immune responses result in minor ill effects - soreness at the vaccine site, a headache or a low-grade fever for a day.  Modern acellular vaccines can have lower side effects, but sometimes turn out to be less effective at inducing a persistent immune response (example: Tdap)

 

From the point of  view of acceptance in the general public, if we're going to be asking people who may experience no or mild symptoms from covid-19 disease to be vaccinated for the benefit of the large number of Americans who have hypertension, diabetes, other cardiac problems, or are just plain old.....I think it's very important to be up-front about what the side effects are.