COVID-19 treatment and vaccine update thread

[Sudy]

How good is this?

Scientists at UC Riverside have demonstrated a new, RNA-based vaccine strategy that is effective against any strain of a virus and can be used safely even by babies or the immunocompromised. Every year, researchers try to predict the four influenza strains that are most likely to be prevalent during the upcoming flu season. And every year, people line up to get their updated vaccine, hoping the researchers formulated the shot correctly. The same is true of COVID vaccines, which have been reformulated to target sub-variants of the most prevalent strains circulating in the U.S. This new strategy would eliminate the need to create all these different shots, because it targets a part of the viral genome that is common to all strains of a virus. The vaccine, how it works, and a demonstration of its efficacy in mice is described in a paper published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

...

Ultimately, the researchers believe they can ‘cut and paste’ this strategy to make a one-and-done vaccine for any number of viruses. “There are several well-known human pathogens; dengue, SARS, COVID. They all have similar viral functions,” Ding said. “This should be applicable to these viruses in an easy transfer of knowledge.”

[Isgrimnur]

[Smoove_B]

It would be great, yes. Haven't seen any reasonable guess as to when it might start being used though. And of course, trying to get people to accept it will be difficult but the technology and application is indeed awesome.

[Blackhawk]

If it can make those who choose to take it immune, then the anti-vaxxers are welcome to skip it. I'll do a Vir Cotto wave as I walk past their mass graves. Maybe they can share a Darwin award.

(Me, being jaded after trying to survive almost half a decade of widespread idiocy.)

[Moliere]

If it can make those who choose to take it immune, then the anti-vaxxers are welcome to skip it. I'll do a Vir Cotto wave as I walk past their mass graves. Maybe they can share a Darwin award.

(Me, being jaded after trying to survive almost half a decade of widespread idiocy.)

I've never understood this constant joy here at OO in the death of others.

The current vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid, nor from spreading Covid.
Therefore, whether I have been vaccinated or not, it has zero impact on you. So, how are you "trying to survive" based on someone else's decision to not be vaccinated?

[Zaxxon]

The current vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid, nor from spreading Covid.

True.

Therefore, whether I have been vaccinated or not, it has zero impact on you.

False.

[Blackhawk]

If it can make those who choose to take it immune, then the anti-vaxxers are welcome to skip it. I'll do a Vir Cotto wave as I walk past their mass graves. Maybe they can share a Darwin award.

(Me, being jaded after trying to survive almost half a decade of widespread idiocy.)

I've never understood this constant joy here at OO in the death of others.

No joy. None at all.

I'm just done fighting to keep people from self-destructing, and taking innocent people with them. It's more of an, "I've been shouting and pointing at the oncoming train for four years, and being called every name in the book for it. If they want to keep being stupid, I'm ready to let them."

Anti-vaxxers represent a real, genuine threat to millions of people. Not just because they're spreading diseases to those who can't vaccinate, but because they're actively and aggressively spreading their seriously dangerous views to those around them. I've spent years arguing and stressing because of them. At this point, if they've had real information made available to them and they're still choosing to endanger themselves and others so that they can be part of a 'tribe', then I'm done trying to stop them.

[Smoove_B]

The current vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid, nor from spreading Covid.

Just to clarify, it's not a binary outcome. The current vaccine significantly reduces the chances of you experiencing severe symptoms associated with Covid. As part of that, it also has an impact on your ability to spread the virus. This isn't unique to the Covid vaccines either; it's a primary function of most of them.

Therefore, whether I have been vaccinated or not, it has zero impact on you.

See above; it's absolutely untrue. Your decisions - in so many things - directly and indirectly impact the people in your community. That fact that you don't see this or experience a direct, immediate benefit to your (our) decisions is part of the reason we're collectively living in the world we are now.

[Zaxxon]

Gee, Smoove, you once again had to repeat my post but without the snark...

[Smoove_B]

I'm in professional mode during business hours. I will log in after dinner and revise with A+ level sarcasm.

[Zaxxon]

I'm in professional mode during business hours. I will log in after dinner and revise with A+ level sarcasm.

Appreciate it.

[Punisher]

Yeah, I don't understand why people think vecause a vaccine isn't 100% effective on everyone with full immunity that means it's 0% effective.
Anti-virus isn't 100% but you should still have it on your pc.
Your doors and locks aren't 100% effective from keeping out criminals but that doesn't mean you don't install them.
Everything is about minimizing the risks. Eliminating would be great, but minimizing is good enough.

[Victoria Raverna]

If it can make those who choose to take it immune, then the anti-vaxxers are welcome to skip it. I'll do a Vir Cotto wave as I walk past their mass graves. Maybe they can share a Darwin award.

(Me, being jaded after trying to survive almost half a decade of widespread idiocy.)

I've never understood this constant joy here at OO in the death of others.

The current vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid, nor from spreading Covid.
Therefore, whether I have been vaccinated or not, it has zero impact on you. So, how are you "trying to survive" based on someone else's decision to not be vaccinated?

Anything that reduce the severity of Covid is going to reduce the chance of spreading Covid.

So someone's decision to not be vaccinated still can affect others.

[LordMortis]

I don't know about any of that. I'd think that it's two sides of a coin. If you reduce viral spread and heavy respiration, it would seem you'd reduce spread. However, if you reduce symptoms generally and there is no incentive to stay away from other people (work, family, errands, and socially), it would seem spread goes up. Which is dominant? I dunno. I've long since learned not to trust parents of young children to refrain from getting me sick. Our will and need to be around be people seems to shit all any willful ignorance against getting others sick.

[Isgrimnur]

Anything that reduce the severity of Covid is going to reduce the chance of spreading Covid.

Typhoid Mary never showed any symptoms.

[Smoove_B]

Very true - we're always going to have asymptomatic carriers and spread. I believe the current guess is that for COVID-19, it's somewhere around 40% though I think that number is being inferred through outbreak information not anything that's been formally studied.

What we're still trying to figure out is the magical infectious dose - how many virions (i.e. viral particles) of SARS-CoV-2 does the average person need to be exposed to (breathe in) to put them at risk for infection.

The vaccines reduce the number of viral particles someone is shedding and simultaneously boost immune systems to respond to whatever particles you've been exposed to faster.

For Typhoid Mary, she was asymptomatic and constantly shedding low levels of the bacterium. The biggest difference is the method of transmission - fecal/oral - which is a whole different animal. For SARS-CoV-2, you're just breathing/coughing it out into the air - it's floating around. For typhoid, the most likely scenario is you're eating or drinking something that's contaminated with feces. Here the most problematic foods are going to be ones that are already cooked (ready to eat). So Mary preparing a steak with her poo-poo hands? Concerning but not as much as Mary handling a toasted bagel for your breakfast. My point here is that there should be multiple potential ways to stop infection (hand washing, cooking food, use of gloves, etc...) reducing risk of transmission. For COVID-19 it's literally breathing that is spreading it - which means our methods for reducing transmission are going to need to be different.

Incidentally this is the big reason that so many (myself included) have been pushing for cleaner indoor air - devices or systems that will help to eliminate virions that are floating around. Refusal to do so (in our minds) is the equivalent of removing chlorine from treated drinking water, not requiring hand washing in restaurants, or not requiring ready to eat foods have minimized bare-handed contact for food you're being served.

Sorry for the info dump, but there you go.

[Zaxxon]

Incidentally this is the big reason that so many (myself included) have been pushing for cleaner indoor air - devices or systems that will help to eliminate virions that are floating around. Refusal to do so (in our minds) is the equivalent of removing chlorine from treated drinking water, not requiring hand washing in restaurants, or not requiring ready to eat foods have minimized bare-handed contact for food you're being served.

I will once again take this opening to recommend air filters in the home. We added two a couple of years back, and this (along with our more-strictly-remembered-than-pre-COVID cracking of windows whenever anyone shows any symptoms of anything) has resulted in extremely few intra-family infections.

[Isgrimnur]

Corsi–Rosenthal Box

[Smoove_B]

You might start hearing about the FLiRT variants and (possibly) the idea that we're headed toward another dramatic increase in cases. In that spirit, I share a trusted voice:

The real question now is whether this takeover by FLiRT mutations, a replacement in the works for JN.1, will translate to a new wave. My impression is that it won’t since they are mutations we’ve been exposed to before (specifically F456L and R346T). It’s hard to know for sure, since the context is quite different, now in a BA.2.86 framework rather than preceding major variants, and there are other mutations outside the spike, and changes in secondary and tertiary structure of the virus that are not taken into account. My projection is that we could see a wavelet but not a significant new wave of infections as a result of the FLiRT variants in the next couple of months. I think it will take a much bigger challenge of our immune response than what we see with the FLiRTs. We can’t necessarily count on that optimistic perspective. Time will tell.

...

Covid’s not going away, but I don’t think there is a significant short-term threat of the emerging FLiRT variants. High-risk people should continue to take precautions, keeping up with boosters, and all forms of protection. Even if FLiRT doesn’t kick in, there’s plenty more ways that SARS-CoV2 can reinvent itself and find new ways or better ways to evade our immune response. We’ve seen that movie before. That’s the longer term worry, that it hasn’t and won’t just “burn out.” And why we need better vaccines to be prepared for that potential.

[em2nought]

WHO says the bird flu is coming?

[Smoove_B]

You're referring to this? Probably better in the general disease thread, not COVID-19 (though both are zoonotic).

[Smoove_B]

This is so good:

The recent Covid-19 pandemic highlighted that understanding the channels of disease transmission is crucially important for public health policies. However, measuring transmissions occurring through casual contact in the public space is highly challenging as researchers generally do not observe when infected individuals intersect casually with noninfected individuals. We overcome this methodological challenge in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic by combining card payment data, indicating exactly where and when individuals visited stores, with test data indicating when they were infected. We document that exposure to an infected individual in a store is associated with a significantly higher infection rate in the following week. Our estimates imply that transmissions between retail shoppers made a substantial contribution to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Literally checking the receipts.

[Blackhawk]

Now my mind sees the CDC as having a massive screen the size of an IMAX in their HQ, with a full-sized map and little red dots and lines zipping around. A little like War Games, but with less DEFCON and more COVID.

[Smoove_B]

We (states and locals) have used all kinds of creative techniques to try and trace outbreaks. Probably the biggest one I've seen is the use of the "loyalty cards" that supermarkets provide (for coupons) or even just membership cards (for places like Costco). This is the first time I'm aware of this kind of study - just using known illness with general shopping receipts.

We're always watching (but it's not creepy, I promise).

[Isgrimnur]

Well, the Danes are, anyway.

We combine micro-data from three sources: Danske Bank that is the largest retail bank in Denmark [7]; Statens Serum Institut in Denmark that collect and process Covid-19 test data from public as well as private test providers [8]; and Statistics Denmark that compiles administrative micro-data from a range of government registers [9-13]. All the data sources use the same unique personal identifiers, which makes it possible to combine them at the level of individuals. Personal identifiers are encrypted and the datasets contain no other information that directly identifies individuals (e.g. names and addresses).

[Moliere]

We (states and locals) have used all kinds of creative techniques to try and trace outbreaks. Probably the biggest one I've seen is the use of the "loyalty cards" that supermarkets provide (for coupons) or even just membership cards (for places like Costco). This is the first time I'm aware of this kind of study - just using known illness with general shopping receipts.

We're always watching (but it's not creepy, I promise).

By definition it is creepy. It's also this kind of good intention that will be used to pass the CBDC. Then all financial privacy is out the door.

[gilraen]

By definition it is creepy. It's also this kind of good intention that will be used to pass the CBDC. Then all financial privacy is out the door.

What financial privacy? What do you think the grocery store is doing with the data that they collect from your loyalty/membership card? (spoiler alert: sell it to advertisers for billions of dollars). What fucking difference does it really make at this point if CDC uses a tiny slice of that data to trace outbreaks?

[em2nought]

I'm almost convinced the biggest benefit of the mask is that it keeps me from touching my mouth or nose with my dirty mitts. Combine that with the sliced piece of PVC that I snap over my shopping cart handle each time and so far I'm covid free. I did a crap ton of shopping during covid since my mom used to want an item or two weekly from almost every store off their sales flyers. I've still continued with the mask & PVC sleeve to this day.

[LordMortis]

By definition it is creepy. It's also this kind of good intention that will be used to pass the CBDC. Then all financial privacy is out the door.

What financial privacy? What do you think the grocery store is doing with the data that they collect from your loyalty/membership card? (spoiler alert: sell it to advertisers for billions of dollars). What fucking difference does it really make at this point if CDC uses a tiny slice of that data to trace outbreaks?

I know that when I use a credit card to buy a gift card at Home Depot from Kroger that Home Depot will know that I bought the Gift Card and even assume that I am using it and cross reference it to online purchases made, as they email "how did you like" questionnaires. Unless you use cash, everything is aggregated by every one and not anonymously. I pay for the convenience of a credit card with my privacy. Loyalty cards and apps are just more icing on the cake. I just hate that the price of free to use google ties even more of it together and I just don't have it in me to go full on AB with my Internet existence.

[Smoove_B]

By definition it is creepy. It's also this kind of good intention that will be used to pass the CBDC. Then all financial privacy is out the door.

Is watching the purchase of OTC medications also creepy? Like, I don't know if you purchase 3 bottles of Imodium A-D because you have sudden awful diarrhea, but people like me do know if there's a sudden uptick in bottles being purchased in your zip code - suggesting there's been an outbreak. We've also tried to get data from social media (Twitter, Yelp) where people are sharing symptoms or experiences, ("I ate at [X] and vomited for 2 days"), but that hasn't been nearly as successful.

The loyalty card one is interesting to me because we're "down the chain" of people getting information - long after the local store and regional supermarket/retailer have scraped, sorted and analyzed that data. For the study I linked above, that was interesting to me because it was much closer to the "source' - literally just pulling info (like receipts) to try and create connections on a spot-map of sorts.

I get that people are anxious (?) about a central bank or that people are potentially watching purchases but with the amount of information people willingly share, we're just rifling through the scraps...

And again, it's not the CDC (federal) - this is going to be state and local agencies. If it's large enough and spreading to other states, the CDC might jump in to help coordinate a unified response, but they aren't logging anywhere that you purchased another 7 layer burrito from Taco Bell this week.

[Smoove_B]

I'm almost convinced the biggest benefit of the mask is that it keeps me from touching my mouth or nose with my dirty mitts. Combine that with the sliced piece of PVC that I snap over my shopping cart handle each time and so far I'm covid free. I did a crap ton of shopping during covid since my mom used to want an item or two weekly from almost every store off their sales flyers. I've still continued with the mask & PVC sleeve to this day.

Sure, that is helpful (to stop you from touching your face), but COVID-19 is primarily spread through breathing it in - not touching surfaces. This is a message that seems to have been lost or confused since early on we were very focused on hand-washing. To be clear, hand washing is important and does help control the spread of other diseases so the mask is indirectly helping you there, but in terms of reducing the number of foreign particles you're breathing in when out and about, that's the real benefit of the mask.

My septuagenarian parents are very much "stuck" on the hand washing idea; in terms of COVID-19 it's not something people should be focusing on anymore (imho).

It's also why any mask is better than no mask - because just about anything you're wearing (regardless of whether or not it's a "perfect fit") is going to reduce the number of virions you're breathing in. Going back to what I mentioned earlier, the reduction in virions is really a reduction (ideally) below whatever the infectious dose -or- the reduction plus your vaccination gives your body a fighting chance to ward off illness.

[LordMortis]

Never would I have guessed that em2nought would outlast me for diligent masking. It seems I only mask in health care environments any more. The shopping thing really surprises me... or maybe not... While I don't mask when I shop any more, as I never linger, I do find that I notice is someone is coughy/sneezey/sniffly/whatever and I zoom by them as quickly and with as wide of a birth as is possible. I'm still mostly in isolation, with a rare restaurant or gaming day. If I have to go somewhere else that is closed or requires me to linger I still have stock N-95s. I have 9 more days of antibiotics and then another surgery to schedule... After that, I am going out dammit! That will be the day I catch COVID and become debilitated, of course.

[Max Peck]

Coming soon to the northern hellscape: No Paxlovid for the poors.

Who needs Paxlovid now? New guidelines suggest only highest-risk groups should get COVID drug

If you consider yourself at a higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19 — because of your age, or maybe due to preexisting health issues — you might assume you'll be able to get treatment with Paxlovid when the time comes.

And you might assume the steep cost of the antiviral drug would be automatically covered by your provincial health plan.

But all that might change. There are new Canadian recommendations for who should actually get Paxlovid at this point, guided by a growing body of research suggesting the drug's life-saving benefits now apply to a narrower definition of high-risk individuals.

The expert committee for the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the body providing advice for the country's publicly funded health care systems, released draft recommendations earlier this year which offer fresh guidance for how drug plans should cover the treatment.

It stipulates Paxlovid should only be reimbursed for patients in two scenarios: If someone is severely immunosuppressed (such as organ transplant recipients) or moderately immunosuppressed (such as someone undergoing cancer treatment, individuals with advanced HIV infections, or anyone with moderate immunodeficiencies).

Simply being older or unvaccinated — both factors long thought to hike someone's risk of serious illness or death from COVID — didn't make the cut.

The recommendations were provided to drug plans on April 11 as part of a negotiation process during which provinces decide whether or not to follow suit.

Multiple medical experts said if provincial decision makers do choose to align with the committee's suggestions, Canadians would only be eligible to get Paxlovid covered if they meet the narrow criteria for severe or moderate immunosuppression.

[Smoove_B]

Kinda saw that coming. Didn't think would be in Canada first though.

[Max Peck]

My guess is that people who can foot the bill (or have supplementary health insurance that is willing to cover it) will still be able to get it if they want it, but for the most part the provincial healthcare plans (which are administered by the provincial governments rather than the federal government) will be restricting coverage as much as possible. They have both fiscal and political/ideological reasons for doing so.

[em2nought]

because just about anything you're wearing

I know you meant (over the mouth), but it got me thinking that if you walked around with say a balloon that you had statically charged by rubbing on your hair, I wonder if that would draw virus molecules to it that might otherwise end up "in" you. Sort of like an outboard motor with installed sacrificial anodes that corrode instead of the propeller.

I'm not sure you'd want a mask that draws virus molecules to it unless it catches them without sending them on to you.

...and just how expensive is Paxlovid?

[Zarathud]

If your mask is electrically charged, see a doctor immediately.

[Smoove_B]

I know you meant (over the mouth), but it got me thinking that if you walked around with say a balloon that you had statically charged by rubbing on your hair, I wonder if that would draw virus molecules to it that might otherwise end up "in" you. Sort of like an outboard motor with installed sacrificial anodes that corrode instead of the propeller.

Well, the n95 fibers have an electrical charge so in theory it could work. Though I don't know if I'd want a balloon drawing the virus particles towards me (electrically) when I'm raw-dogging the air. I'd imagine my lungs are going to be a stronger force than whatever weak electrical attraction is happening with the balloon. I guess it might be like dumping a chum bucket into the ocean and then jumping in to float among the mix.

..and just how expensive is Paxlovid?

Without insurance? Here in the U.S. it would be somewhere around $600-$800, iirc.

[Pyperkub]

The current vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid, nor from spreading Covid.

True.

Therefore, whether I have been vaccinated or not, it has zero impact on you.

False.

Yup.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah, I don't understand why people think vecause a vaccine isn't 100% effective on everyone with full immunity that means it's 0% effective.
Anti-virus isn't 100% but you should still have it on your pc.
Your doors and locks aren't 100% effective from keeping out criminals but that doesn't mean you don't install them.
Everything is about minimizing the risks. Eliminating would be great, but minimizing is good enough.

It's because of those who profit from spreading fud. 100%