PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[mkirsh]

Today's winning health care savant is Nicki Minaj who told her 22M followers that the vaccine makes men impotent and swells up their testicles. Joe Biden offered to call her on the phone and explain her ineptitude, then she said she'd accepted his invitation to the White House which, of course, he never offered. So yes, we are in good hands overall.

Best thing I saw today

KpihD6T.jpg

[Dedgummit]

I have a question for this thread's medical experts in immunology/virology:
If someone contracts a severe case of Covid-19 (most likely the Delta variant)-- and has severe medical symptoms-- but now appears to be "somewhat" recovered-- although still suffering from a variety of lingering effects (i.e.- what is often called "long Covid")-- does that person remain a likely carrier/spreader of the virus, weeks (and even a month or two) after having the infection? Do these people have the "high viral loads" in their upper respiratory tract that tend to describe the people who are still actively likely to spread the virus?

Put succintly: Are "long Covid" sufferers considered to still be Typhoid Marys of Covid-19, when they are that long, lingering phase?

[mph]

I have a question for this thread's medical experts in immunology/virology:
If someone contracts a severe case of Covid-19 (most likely the Delta variant)-- and has severe medical symptoms-- but now appears to be "somewhat" recovered-- although still suffering from a variety of lingering effects (i.e.- what is often called "long Covid")-- does that person remain a likely carrier/spreader of the virus, weeks (and even a month or two) after having the infection? Do these people have the "high viral loads" in their upper respiratory tract that tend to describe the people who are still actively likely to spread the virus?

Put succintly: Are "long Covid" sufferers considered to still be Typhoid Marys of Covid-19, when they are that long, lingering phase?

I’m no medical expert but my story might help a little. I’ve recovered from a recent breakthrough infection. At the end of the 10 day quarantine period I hadn’t had a fever for 6 days but still had some nasal congestion and a cough. Both had improved but were still there. On day 14 I took a PCR test which came back negative. My primary physician told me it was common to have lingering symptoms and I was gtg as long as I was fever free and my other symptoms had improved. I’ve been out and about since my PCR test came back even though I still have a slight cough at day 21. I wear a mask in indoor spaces to model the behavior I like to see in others but I’m not worried about being a vector of transmission.

Also, for what it’s worth both my wife and I have experienced lingering symptoms that are cyclical but not in a predictable pattern. So, my cough might be gone for 2 days and then reappear the third. Same with the nasal congestion although the cough and nasal congestion might not reappear at the same time. My wife still has occasional fatigue and headache.

One last thought. Anecdotally, there seems to be a fair number of mild to moderate COVID sufferers who have long COVID symptoms, but I don’t know if there’s statistical correlation between severe disease and higher rates of long COVID.

[rsvman]

I have a question for this thread's medical experts in immunology/virology:
If someone contracts a severe case of Covid-19 (most likely the Delta variant)-- and has severe medical symptoms-- but now appears to be "somewhat" recovered-- although still suffering from a variety of lingering effects (i.e.- what is often called "long Covid")-- does that person remain a likely carrier/spreader of the virus, weeks (and even a month or two) after having the infection? Do these people have the "high viral loads" in their upper respiratory tract that tend to describe the people who are still actively likely to spread the virus?

Put succintly: Are "long Covid" sufferers considered to still be Typhoid Marys of Covid-19, when they are that long, lingering phase?

No. Long Covid sufferers appear to be non-contagious.

Testing is sometimes positive for up to as long as ninety days even in patients who recovery uneventfully, just FYI. These people are also generally thought to be non-contagious provided it has been more then ten days since the symptoms began, they have had nl fever for at least 24 hours, and all other symptoms are improving.

[MChambers]

Interesting analysis for those of us who got the J&J vaccine. I think I'll call my PCP this week.

"If I got the J&J vaccine, I would check-in with my clinician to discuss my risks of COVID19 and the benefits of a second dose. But, it’s important to note that clinicians can’t formally advise either. A second dose for J&J is not approved by the FDA. After having this discussion with my clinician, I would go get an mRNA vaccine. I wouldn’t have done this before, but I’m not liking these recent J&J hospitalization effectiveness numbers from the CDC."

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.subs...s-what-we-know

[jtelander]

My spouse and I are in our late 60s and received the Pfizer vaccine in Jan/Feb.

After enjoying a period of normalcy post-vaccination, as Covid case numbers have risen in our area (Alamance County, NC), we've more or less reverted to the same level of caution we practiced prior to getting vaccinated. We stay home and only leave the house for essentials. No gatherings, no restaurants, etc.
Assuming the FDA approves boosters for those over 65, we were planning to get it as soon as available.
This article in The Atlantic suggests that booster timing warrants strategic thinking to better prepare our immune systems for the next surge.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...r-shot/620123/

[budwom]

Pretty annoying about how a lot of the (legitimate) press are treating the booster issue. Organizations that had been very good up until this point (e.g. NBC News) now describing booster "chaos" and "confusion," despite numerous scientiests like Collins pointing out that the science evolves, and the process has been transparents as to whether or not a booster is a good idea. I don't think this is helpful, it only feeds the morons who think the scientists are clueless, or devious.

[Matches]

Pretty annoying about how a lot of the (legitimate) press are treating the booster issue. Organizations that had been very good up until this point (e.g. NBC News) now describing booster "chaos" and "confusion," despite numerous scientiests like Collins pointing out that the science evolves, and the process has been transparents as to whether or not a booster is a good idea. I don't think this is helpful, it only feeds the morons who think the scientists are clueless, or devious.

Totally agreed, and yet another example of the media’s need to politicize literally everything. If the CDC says I don’t need a booster…. Ok?

[PackMan97]

Pretty annoying about how a lot of the (legitimate) press are treating the booster issue. Organizations that had been very good up until this point (e.g. NBC News) now describing booster "chaos" and "confusion," despite numerous scientiests like Collins pointing out that the science evolves, and the process has been transparents as to whether or not a booster is a good idea. I don't think this is helpful, it only feeds the morons who think the scientists are clueless, or devious.

The FDA doesn't help itself at all. They love to shoot themselves in the foot. The optics on the booster shots is horrid.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...-covid-booster

In a surprising vote, a panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration on Friday recommended against approval of a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people 16 years and older.

The 16-2 vote against broad use of the booster, which would be given about six months after completion of the two-dose immunization regimen, dealt a setback to Pfizer and complicates the FDA's approach to boosters.

After a brief intermission following the rejection, FDA officials returned to the meeting with a revised booster question. The panel then voted 18-0 in support of the agency authorizing a booster shot of the vaccine for people 65 and older or at high risk of severe COVID-19.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...oster-approval

Pfizer had originally proposed approving a booster shot for everyone 16 and older. But the advisers rejected that idea out of concern that the data to support such a broad application was thin and there could be risks, especially for younger people.

“It’s not clear to me that the data we’re seeing right now is applicable or necessary for the general population,” said National Institutes of Health scientist Michael Kurilla. Another panelist, Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he wanted to see more data on the risk of heart inflammation in younger men.

Instead, the panel voted 18-0 in favor of an emergency-use authorization -- a more limited clearance than a full approval -- for people 65 and older or individuals at high risk of severe Covid-19. The vote didn’t specify what was meant by “high risk,” though panelists later agreed the authorization could include people who may be exposed to Covid-19 because of their jobs, such as health-care workers.

....

Arnold Monto, acting chair of the advisory committee, also left the door open for the group to recommend emergency use authorization for boosters in younger people later, when more information becomes available about potential side effects and effectiveness.

“That’s the beauty of an EUA,” he said. “It can be changed based on changing data.”

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

My commentary: I believe the FDA wants to do a phased rollout of the booster shots to focus on those that got them at the start of the vaccine rollout since many of them are already 7-9 months out from their last shot. However, they are using their approval/denial as their approach do it it. I don't believe for a second that the "data" in inconclusive or shows that a booster isn't necessary. The end result is my trust in the FDA as an organization is lessened.

There are many different ways they could have handled the situation, but I feel like they picked that one that is going to cause the most public confusion and chaos.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Pretty annoying about how a lot of the (legitimate) press are treating the booster issue. Organizations that had been very good up until this point (e.g. NBC News) now describing booster "chaos" and "confusion," despite numerous scientiests like Collins pointing out that the science evolves, and the process has been transparents as to whether or not a booster is a good idea. I don't think this is helpful, it only feeds the morons who think the scientists are clueless, or devious.

Scientists aren't journalists and sometimes science struggles to communicate in a seamless manner with the general population. Also journalists are not scientists and sometimes struggle to deliver scientific information in an accurate manner. Otherwise we are doing great!

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Scientists aren't journalists and sometimes science struggles to communicate in a seamless manner with the general population. Also journalists are not scientists and sometimes struggle to deliver scientific information in an accurate manner. Otherwise we are doing great!

Among the most valuable people in any organization are those who can bridge the divide between the technical and the non-technical. Most things technology/IT related make my eyes glaze over but I have been drafted onto various IT related projects throughout my career. The ones that have gone most smoothly are those where there was someone who understood the technology side of things and could translate it to us non-technical folks (usually the end users) and similarly could understand what we wanted and translate it to the IT people in a way that they could easily make things happen.

One would think they would have people like this working in science-related government agencies. Though I think that in current times, no matter how clearly journalists and others delivered the scientific information, people are still going to hear what they want to hear.

[PackMan97]

Scientists aren't journalists and sometimes science struggles to communicate in a seamless manner with the general population. Also journalists are not scientists and sometimes struggle to deliver scientific information in an accurate manner. Otherwise we are doing great!

If only there were folks whose job it was to talk to the media and craft messages to the public for maximum positive effect?

/sarcasm

[Rich]

My commentary: I believe the FDA wants to do a phased rollout of the booster shots to focus on those that got them at the start of the vaccine rollout since many of them are already 7-9 months out from their last shot. However, they are using their approval/denial as their approach do it it. I don't believe for a second that the "data" in inconclusive or shows that a booster isn't necessary. The end result is my trust in the FDA as an organization is lessened.

There are many different ways they could have handled the situation, but I feel like they picked that one that is going to cause the most public confusion and chaos.

Interesting take. Just curious, do you believe that the WHO position that other countries should get access to their first shot before the US gets its third shot played a role?

[PackMan97]

Interesting take. Just curious, do you believe that the WHO position that other countries should get access to their first shot before the US gets its third shot played a role?

I hadn't thought about that. It wouldn't surprise me if it did, but I hope it did not.

I understand WHO's position, but I disagree. I tend to feel the WHO and other UN based groups tend not to have America's best interests at heart. To get into more of a discussion would likely cross into prohibited discussion territory.

My go-to source of Covid-19 information, Dr John Campbell (PhD, not MD), saw the data out of Israel at the end of July and discussed the need to a booster based on the time since second dose. I think I'm linking to the right video here. I trust him 100x more on COVID-19 than I do anything that comes out of the US government.

[MChambers]

Scientists aren't journalists and sometimes science struggles to communicate in a seamless manner with the general population. Also journalists are not scientists and sometimes struggle to deliver scientific information in an accurate manner. Otherwise we are doing great!

The FDA and NIH (and the White House) have public relation specialists who should know better. Don't know if those folks have much of a role in coronavirus communications, sadly.

[MChambers]

Gotta love capitalism!
covid advertising.jpg

[Bluedog]

Great news!

Covid Vaccine Prompts Strong Immune Response in Younger Children, Pfizer Says

The Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine has been shown to be safe and highly effective in young children aged 5 to 11 years, the companies announced early Monday morning.

Given how rarely children become severely ill, the trial was not big enough to draw meaningful conclusions about the vaccine’s ability to prevent Covid or hospitalization. Instead, the researchers relied on measurements of the youngsters’ immune response, on the assumption that the protective levels of antibodies seen in older people would be as protective in younger children.

The children who got the vaccine produced a strong immune response, comparable to the levels of antibodies seen in the earlier trials of participants aged 16 to 25 years. But children in the 5- to 11-year-old group achieved this response with 10 micrograms of the vaccine, a third of the dose given to older children and adults.

At higher doses, the researchers observed more side effects in younger children, including fever, headache and fatigue, although none were severe, Dr. Gruber said. With the 10-microgram dose, “we’re actually seeing after the second dose, less fever, less chills than we see in the 16- to 25-year-olds.”

Hoping for it before Halloween!! Although not for my 3-year old....

[Skydog]

The FDA doesn't help itself at all. They love to shoot themselves in the foot. The optics on the booster shots is horrid.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...-covid-booster




https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...oster-approval



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

My commentary: I believe the FDA wants to do a phased rollout of the booster shots to focus on those that got them at the start of the vaccine rollout since many of them are already 7-9 months out from their last shot. However, they are using their approval/denial as their approach do it it. I don't believe for a second that the "data" in inconclusive or shows that a booster isn't necessary. The end result is my trust in the FDA as an organization is lessened.

There are many different ways they could have handled the situation, but I feel like they picked that one that is going to cause the most public confusion and chaos.

I don’t know a about this theory. A great summary of the discussion was just posted here and it did seem like Pfizer didn’t have the data needed to justify 3rd dose for everyone. IIRC there was evidence that it was needed in 60 yo plus, but definitely not enough data to justify efficacy for young people. It was weird that the FDA went with 65+ instead of 60+. I figured that was because 65 has become a default cutoff in US?

[Bostondevil]

I don’t know a about this theory. A great summary of the discussion was just posted here and it did seem like Pfizer didn’t have the data needed to justify 3rd dose for everyone. IIRC there was evidence that it was needed in 60 yo plus, but definitely not enough data to justify efficacy for young people. It was weird that the FDA went with 65+ instead of 60+. I figured that was because 65 has become a default cutoff in US?

I'm guessing it has to do with which pile of money will be used to pay for it, 65+ is eligible for Medicare.

[budwom]

I'm guessing it has to do with which pile of money will be used to pay for it, 65+ is eligible for Medicare.

I dunno, my last Medicare statement made zero mention of my two jabs...