Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.
We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.
Thanks!
Click here for the original OP:
Spoiler!
Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.
California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.
“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”
The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.
The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”
Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.
The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.
The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.
A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.
Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.
“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”
It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.
“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”
On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.
“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”
According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.
More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.
But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.
“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”
CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.
Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.
“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”
Originally Posted by TLO:
What's this I'm hearing about the Pfizer vaccine not being all that effective against the Indian variant? Just saw a headline and haven't looked into it much more.
Originally Posted by :
The research team analyzed antibodies in the blood of 250 healthy people, ages 33-52, up to 3 months after receiving their first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The team looked for “neutralizing antibodies,” or the ability of antibodies to block the virus from entering cells.
The researchers tested five variants: the original strain discovered in China, the dominant strain in Europe during the first wave in April 2020, the B.1.1.7 variant discovered in the U.K., the B.1.351 variant first seen in South Africa, and the newest variant of concern, which is the B.1.617.2 variant discovered in India.
The team compared the concentrations of the neutralizing antibodies among the variants. They found that people who had been fully vaccinated with two Pfizer doses had antibodies that were 6 times lower against the B.1.617.2 variant, 5 times lower against the B.1.351 variant, and 2.6 times lower against the B.1.1.7 variant when compared to the original strain.
The antibody response was even lower in people who had received only one dose. After a single Pfizer dose, 79% of people had neutralizing antibodies against the original strain, which fell to 50% for the B.1.1.7 variant, 32% for the B.1.617.2 variant, and 25% for the B.1.351 variant.
Now what does "5 times lower" mean? I don't know. They didn't give original counts and they didn't give a specific amount of antibodies required to be effective, so these numbers are meaningless to me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
However, it is worth highlighting that in the case of two BNT162b2 doses, our cohort of generally healthy, relatively young, recently vaccinated, and mostly single-ethnicity individuals presents a reasonable best-case scenario for NAb activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Indeed, regardless of the absolute vaccine efficacy requirements, peak NAbTs are significantly reduced against VOCs B.1.617.2 and B.1.351 compared with NAbTs against earlier variants, and consequently, vaccine efficacy on an individual or sub-population level will become more sensitive to reductions in NAbTs occurring as a result of factors aside from virus strain (appendix p 5), providing a basis to understand observed vaccine efficacy failure in other combinations of vaccine and target population.6
Originally Posted by :
In the longer term, we note that both increased age and time since the second dose of BNT162b2 significantly correlate with decreased NAb activity against B.1.617.2 and B.1.351—both of which are also characteristic of the population in the UK at highest risk of severe COVID-19 (ie, older and vaccinated earlier), independent of other existing factors such as compromised immune status or comorbidity, or geographic-specific responses to vaccination.
Originally Posted by :
Consequently, further booster immunisations of JCVI Priority Groups in the UK and similar groups in other counties, as well as others with lower vaccine-induced NAbTs than the cohort of BNT162b2 recipients studied here (ideally with modified vaccines that induce NAbs that broadly neutralise emerging VOCs) are more likely to be required to maintain the highest levels of NAbs in regions where B.1.617.2 or other equally NAb-resistant strains become prevalent.
This study, although rather small, shows the following: It looks like age significantly decreases the antibodies produced and so does time. If you're young and healthy, you'll fare much better. It appears that this will end up going the way of the flu shot, with yearly boosters required to better match the prevalent variants. [Reply]
Now what does "5 times lower" mean? I don't know. They didn't give original counts and they didn't give a specific amount of antibodies required to be effective, so these numbers are meaningless to me.
This study, although rather small, shows the following: It looks like age significantly decreases the antibodies produced and so does time. If you're young and healthy, you'll fare much better. It appears that this will end up going the way of the flu shot, with yearly boosters required to better match the prevalent variants.
Thanks. I dove in and read the study earlier this morning. This bit made me question exactly how useful the study actually is.
Originally Posted by :
However, levels of antibodies alone do not predict vaccine effectiveness and prospective population studies are also needed.
Seeing a bit of an uptick in cases in our area. We were steady at 1, 2, 5 cases per day for a long time. We've been up around 11, 15 17, 18 over the past few days. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
Seeing a bit of an uptick in cases in our area. We were sta sta steady at 1, 2, 5 cases per day for a long time. We've been up around 11, 15 17, 18 over the past few days.
We're starting to see pretty clear patterns related to vaccines in Colorado. We're in relatively good shape in Denver, where vaccination rates are high, but Grand Junction is getting hit hard (relatively speaking - still nothing compared to the fall).
I've generally decided that I'm just not all that worried about it. The vaccines are working really well, so if people choose not to get them and pay the consequences, it is what it is.
I do feel bad for healthcare workers, though. It has to be intensely frustrating to have people getting it when they could have avoided it. [Reply]
I try to limit how much I worry about things I have no control over. And it's great news that the vaccines are, so far anyway, doing really well even against the variants.
But it's not just hospital workers. It's sad to see the suffering that could have been avoided. But there is also a tremendous financial cost for anyone who ends up at a hospital. A cost that is going to be paid through other people's premiums and taxes depending on what type of insurance the person has.
And some of those who get sick, who may not have even gone to the hospital initially, will end up with some version of long covid. And it sounds like some of those could likely rack up large life time health bills.
But hey, it all doesn't effect anyone else because the vaccines are 85% effective against the variants. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
What's this I'm hearing about the Pfizer vaccine not being all that effective against the Indian variant? Just saw a headline and haven't looked into it much more.
Here you go, TLO:
The variant has become the dominant strain in the U.K., accounting for an estimated 60% of new cases. It’s now more prevalent than the Alpha strain, formerly called the B.1.1.7 strain, which was first identified in the U.K., and transmission is peaking in people between the ages of 12 and 20, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said at a press briefing Tuesday.
In the U.S., the Delta variant accounts for more than 6% of cases scientists have been able to sequence, he said. The actual number is likely higher, as the U.S. is running the genetic sequence on a fraction of cases.
Studies also show that two doses of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca shots are effective against the Delta strain, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Two doses of the Pfizer vaccine were shown to be 88% effective against the Delta variant, while two doses of the AstraZeneca shot were shown to be 60% effective against the strain, according to NIH data.
Fauci stressed the importance of getting two doses after NIH studies showed that, three weeks after being given, just one dose of either vaccine provided only 33% efficacy against the Delta variant.
Read an article this morning that there are several hot spots in Missouri right now. SW Missouri is seeing an uptick in hospitalized cases, primarily in people under 40. Areas being hit the hardest are among some of the lowest vaccination numbers in the state. :-) [Reply]
Please tell me these crazy people on TikTok who think you can become magnetic just from being around people who've been vaccinated are getting dunked on, and no one actually buys this crap. Please? [Reply]
