Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

So there's a novel covid treatment from some Israeli-Canadian biotech firm (delivered via nasal spray for the needle-phobes ) that has reportedly very good results. It's a bit trial by press release so a little bit sketchy but their trial in the UK was with a pretty large NHS Trust and the NHS Chief Investigator said "Simply stated, I think this could be revolutionary." 

If the trial data holds up it's self administered and reduces viral load by more than 95% within 24 hours in infected participants and 99% within 72 hours. Obviously being an NHS Trust it's mainly been dealing with the UK variant too but could hugely help reduce transmission as well as apparently shortening the course of infection and decreasing the severity.

They've applied for emergency use authorisation in the UK and Canada (where the trials were done) and at the minute it is all by press release. But potentially that could have a huge impact in combination with vaccines, testing and re-opening - my first thought was it could really help over autumn/winter while countries are doing booster shots. It's very early and reasons to be cautious but interesting/hopeful.

[Berkut]

That is awesome.

It is so fucking weird to watch a lot of this unfold.

On the one hand, we are seeing a triumph of human intelligence, technical prowess, and logistical ability. Truly an amazing thing to see.

And on the other hand, we are seeing a staggering failure of human political ability - with a significant portion of the population rejecting that same example of scientific achievement on the altar of the culture wars.

[Sheilbh]

There's so much about this whole pandemic to think about and wonder what we can learn from.

I find the human intelligence and creativity - as you say - absolutely inspiring. And it does make me re-think what we can/cannot do about climate if we treat it, as we have covid, like a war. If solving that issue had the entire backing of the state and its immense, unique ability to marshal resources - and the willingness to take risks. And government needs to move from cost/benefit analysis to a more risk/return based approach of spending money. Some of the vaccines failed and we don't care because others worked. I don't know, yet, if we have the politics/rhetoric of crisis around climate to allow that type of approach.

I agree about the other failures.

In the UK a lot of the blame for our failure on the first wave is that the government was following the wrong plan - we were prepared for flu not a coronavirus and it behaved differently. But I think we need to re-think that plan it assumed that no lockdown or social distancing would be possible, the modellers advising the government didn't think it would work so didn't model it and when they did assumed as their most optimistic scenario 75% compliance. Apparently compliance has actually been around 85-90%. So that flu plan is based on no lockdowns or social distancing and assumes as its central scenario a death toll of 300,000 - I don't think we would accept that and I don't think it's inevitable any more.

The corollary of that is, despite tall the rhetoric and assumptions of "freedom-loving Brits/Dutch/Frenchmen/etc" we're actually very compliant and I'm sure that's something that state bodies/agencies have noticed.

I also think the other really interesting long term thing is the role of the big tech companies. The UK, German and French public health authorities were not able to implement the contact tracing apps they wanted because of the terms imposed by Apple and Google. As we move more into digital public services I think that's a coming battle - do authorities that are ultimately answerable to democratically elected governments get to decide how those are implemented, or do the tech platforms (who can at least plausibly feign neutrality when rejecting, say, Chinese government apps from their platforms)?

[Sheilbh]

Lockdown partially lifted and outdoor hospitality is allowed again - celebrated here in Cranleigh, Surrey:


(In fairness - it is beautifully sunny where I am 40 miles North in South London).

[Tonitrus]

My car was encased in ice and snow this morning.

This afternoon was gloriously sunny, though.  The two pubs I drive past on my way home from work had their outdoor seating jam packed.

[Syt]

Official statements tonight, but details have already leaked. Mask mandate indoors everywhere. The one week Easter break at schools will be extended by one week distance learning. Non-essential shops will close over the Easter weekend.

Well, Vienna extends the lockdown till May 2nd.

[Tamas]

One of the pro-vaccination press photos posted by a Hungarian government Facebook account:

[Josquius]

"Nora, 35, gets her vaccination at Budapest Central Hospital"

[Legbiter]

Lockdown partially lifted and outdoor hospitality is allowed again - celebrated here in Cranleigh, Surrey:

So lucky with that good spring weather. Jealous af watching these.

[Sheilbh]

Hopefully we don't start suspending before the regulators have reviewed - but the EMA are investigating reports of blood-clotting issues with the J&J vaccine. Apparently there's been four cases (one in clinical trials and three in roll-out in the US) and one death. No sign or evidence of a causal link. But this may just end up being another thing where a new side effect is listed and hopefully won't impact the start of the roll out in Europe (or the UK if they follow suit).

So the US regulators are suspending J&J over, I believe 7 cases out of about 7 million doses administered.

The argument is, in theory, this builds confidence because it shows the regulators taking safety seriously and investigating them etc. I think, as with the European suspensions, that's optimistic. We may think the public will hear "J&J has been suspended as a precaution following an extremely small number of rare side effects"; I think they'll hear "J&J might not be safe" and I think that may affect confidence in the other vaccines too. It just doesn't seem like a great idea to me - I don't think people have confidence beceause we have rigorous systems and they like seeing that, I think they have confidence because regulators/decision makers sort of assert it with confidence

Edit: And to clarify the European suspensions were member state level - the EMA didn't suspend.

[Tamas]

Hopefully we don't start suspending before the regulators have reviewed - but the EMA are investigating reports of blood-clotting issues with the J&J vaccine. Apparently there's been four cases (one in clinical trials and three in roll-out in the US) and one death. No sign or evidence of a causal link. But this may just end up being another thing where a new side effect is listed and hopefully won't impact the start of the roll out in Europe (or the UK if they follow suit).

So the US regulators are suspending J&J over, I believe 7 cases out of about 7 million doses administered.

The argument is, in theory, this builds confidence because it shows the regulators taking safety seriously and investigating them etc. I think, as with the European suspensions, that's optimistic. We may think the public will hear "J&J has been suspended as a precaution following an extremely small number of rare side effects"; I think they'll hear "J&J might not be safe" and I think that may affect confidence in the other vaccines too. It just doesn't seem like a great idea to me - I don't think people have confidence beceause we have rigorous systems and they like seeing that, I think they have confidence because regulators/decision makers sort of assert it with confidence

Edit: And to clarify the European suspensions were member state level - the EMA didn't suspend.

Agreed.

[Zoupa]

I work for JnJ on the vaccine. While I agree with your read on it, the reason behind the pause was to inform health care practitioners on how to treat those blood clots, which are very specific. Doing a standard treatment (usually with heparin) could worsen the patient's condition.

So I think once the docs are updated on what to do, vaccinations will resume. Still, I fear the damage will be done, even if the pause is only a couple of days.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think that makes sense - and Europe may be a little ahead because this sounds very similar to the AZ issue (same point on heparin) so seems to be an issue with that type of vaccine.

I think it's one of those things that works like this normally when people don't see the sausage being made, but because everyone's attention is on these vaccines it lands differently.

It's a bit like quibbling over which vaccine is more effective - none of us know about the effectiveness of any of the other vaccines we've had in our lives. We take it because we're told it works and it's safe even though - in a few cases I imagine no vaccine is 100% either. But the entire world's hope is on these vaccines.

[Barrister]

Yeah regulators are in a tough spot.

Governments were widely criticized for claiming that "masks don't work" last spring.  It later came out there was good reason to think masks did work (which has been overwhelmingly confirmed), but governments didn't want there to be a rush on masks and run out in hospitals.  So they told the good-intentioned lie.

So now there's evidence of a very rare, very serious but treatable reaction to the J&J shot in women.  If they ignore it they get accused of lying again.  But if they pause distribution like this they risk increasing vaccine hesitancy.

[alfred russel]

Yeah regulators are in a tough spot.

Governments were widely criticized for claiming that "masks don't work" last spring.  It later came out there was good reason to think masks did work (which has been overwhelmingly confirmed), but governments didn't want there to be a rush on masks and run out in hospitals.  So they told the good-intentioned lie.

So now there's evidence of a very rare, very serious but treatable reaction to the J&J shot in women.  If they ignore it they get accused of lying again.  But if they pause distribution like this they risk increasing vaccine hesitancy.

If only there was an option other than ignoring/lying and pausing distribution.

Really, it was obvious to anyone capable of the most basic reasoning skills that masks would reduce spread. The British were going after mask manufacturers for false advertising for indicating their masks would do just that. At the time I posted that the masks would do that based on how the CDC said the disease would spread, and there were others on the forum that did the same (Legbiter is one I remember). There is something deeply Orwellian about regulators going after private companies trying to provide life saving tools in a pandemic, because they are saying the truth about the tool.