1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

The biology of coronavirus COVID-19 - including research and treatments

Discussion in 'Epidemics (including Covid-19, not Long Covid)' started by Trish, Mar 12, 2020.

  1. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,827
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes, it's certainly cause for skepticism.
     
    Michelle, Trish and ladycatlover like this.
  2. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,921
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53095336
     
    Michelle, ladycatlover and Trish like this.
  3. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,816
    It bugs me that the BBC says UK when it was only going to be used in England. On a par with their ME work.
     
    Daisymay, ladycatlover and Trish like this.
  4. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,164
    Location:
    Australia
    The COVID tracing app put out by our government has been a flop. Nowhere enough people downloaded it, there was problems getting to work from the start and it still doesn't work very well, and I think only one contact has been traced by it.

    The government has been very quiet about it since the initial hype at its release.
     
    merylg, Michelle, oldtimer and 3 others like this.
  5. Wits_End

    Wits_End Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,342
    Location:
    UK London
    I didn't follow this through, but I noticed in passing by the local shop this afternoon that the Daily Mail had a front-page headline which implied that a deficiency of Vitamin D seemed to be associated with poor Covid-19 outcomes. Anyone know any more?

    Once again, I can't believe I'm quoting the DM, but they do seem to have produced one or two good articles :(
     
    ladycatlover and merylg like this.
  6. Ebb Tide

    Ebb Tide Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    247
    Towards the bottom of this BBC article Vitamin D is mentioned (haven't read it properly yet):

    "Meanwhile, work by Queen Mary University of London has suggested heart disease and vitamin D levels do not explain the increased risk of coronavirus in black, Asian and minority ethnic people.

    Both had been suggested as potential explanations for the greater risk in some groups."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53097676
     
    Leila, ladycatlover, merylg and 2 others like this.
  7. MeSci

    MeSci Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
    Well, I am over 60, have hypertension and have Type A Rhesus Positive blood. I also have ME.

    Type A blood is supposed to give "a 50 percent higher risk of needing oxygen or a ventilator" in covid-19 patients in Italy and Spain.

    I haven't had any breathing problems, but do have occasional pains in my chest. This has been the case for several days at least.

    Also had apparent gout in one toe, referred to earlier.

    So who knows...?
     
  8. ladycatlover

    ladycatlover Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,702
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    There's some interesting stuff about a possible new breath test arrived in my inbox from ProMED Mail today.

     
    merylg likes this.
  9. Anna H

    Anna H Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    241
    Location:
    Sweden
    https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/svart-sjuka-covidpatienter-behandlas-med-kortison

    Severely ill covid patients are treated with cortisone in several large hospitals

     
  10. wastwater

    wastwater Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    347
    Michelle and merylg like this.
  11. wastwater

    wastwater Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    347
    Michelle and merylg like this.
  12. MeSci

    MeSci Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,492
    Location:
    Cornwall, UK
  13. ladycatlover

    ladycatlover Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,702
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    Michelle, merylg, Anna H and 3 others like this.
  14. Wits_End

    Wits_End Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,342
    Location:
    UK London
  15. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,426
    Location:
    Canada
    Decoding SARS-CoV-2 Hijacking of Host Mitochondria in Pathogenesis of COVID-19

    https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpcell.00224.2020
    [​IMG]
     
    ladycatlover, Michelle and merylg like this.
  16. JaneL

    JaneL Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Would anyone like to share their thoughts on the usefulness and/or ethics of using human challenge studies to study COVID-19? (For those who aren’t aware: human challenge studies involve the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers). I was a bit alarmed to learn that WHO appears to be endorsing their use in a recent document entitled “Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies”:

    https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream...2019-nCoV-Ethics_criteria-2020.1-eng.pdf?ua=1

    I also came across this article:

    The article then goes on to explain precisely why deliberately infecting volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 is unnecessary, uninformative, and unethical. I hope he is correct that this approach is uninformative (?). But mostly I hope that the overwhelming majority of people in the research community share the view that these challenge studies are unethical and that they won’t be permitted to go ahead...

    https://www.stabroeknews.com/2020/06/09/features/project-syndicate/human-covid-19-vaccine-trials-are-unnecessary-uninformative-and-unethical/
     
  17. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,827
    Location:
    Australia
    There are only two ways to test the real-world efficacy of vaccines, a naturalistic randomised controlled study where you recruit a large population (tens of thousands of people) but only vaccinate half of them, and hope that many of them will be exposed to the infection. The other is to deliberately expose a much smaller number of people who have been vaccinated. The latter is the only choice to test effiacy in regions which means to control the spread of the infection are mostly successful.

    Both have ethical issues. In the end, it is all about informed consent.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2020
  18. JaneL

    JaneL Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Thanks @Snow Leopard. So am I correct in my understanding that you disagree with the author of the article that the second type of study is “uninformative”? This is what he says in relation to that:

     
    Michelle and Simbindi like this.
  19. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,827
    Location:
    Australia
    His argument about elderly individuals is a non-sequitur.

    The reason why we have to test vaccines directly, is because seroconversion/antibody titres is not enough evidence to show the vaccine actually works. This is doubly so for SARS-2 vaccines, which are testing a variety of new and unproven vaccine technologies (that utilise genetic engineering), none of which is guaranteed. Whether you test in young people or elderly people is irrelevant on this point, since it is not antibody titres that we are interested in, but whether the antibodies actually neutralise the virus. It is true that elderly populations are less likely to seroconvert, but this is not specific to any vaccine and this doesn't discount the fact that the goal of vaccine efficacy is to achieve herd immunity - so that elderly people aren't exposed in the first place. Once we know the induced antibodies are effective at stopping infection in young volunteers, elderly participants don't have to be exposed to the virus for us to generalise whether the vaccine is likely to be effective - measurement of seroconversion would be sufficient.

    Secondly, exposing volunteers speeds up the development process considerably, compared to a 3 month naturalistic exposure trial, and hence could save far more lives overall if the vaccine is able to be approved sooner!

    Finally, he mentions that Australia, NZ, Taiwan etc have controlled the virus - this is true, but we can't hold the virus at bay forever without ongoing severe travel restrictions. For things to go back to normal, we need an effective vaccine.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2020
    Michelle, mango, Simbindi and 3 others like this.
  20. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,228
    Location:
    UK
    The Guardian newspaper, UK:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...l&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK
    Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at-risk older people, say scientists

     

Share This Page