Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

 

I think that is the end game.  Probably will need a shot every 6-18 months depending on mutations.  But this ends up being seasonal and less deadly as time passes.

The 1918 flu killed 50 million people when it was a pandemic.  We deal with its mutations to this day.

 

Yep - that is my hope.  I get the seasonal Flu shot - used the get the flu like once every other year or sometimes every year.  I've had good fortune with the flu shot and haven't had the flu in a long time.  I'd love to be able to get a combo Flu/Covid vaccine each year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

 

Great post (assuming your math is correct ;)  )

If we do assume that then we are looking at Covid being about 3-5x more deadly than the flu.  (Don't @ me I'm not a #justaflubro)

I think if any of the pills work out then we (those of us who are vaccinated and maybe a good portion of unvaccinated) can truly treat this like the Flu.  Nothing you want to get, could be deadly, but take the same precautions you did against the flu.  Stay home when sick, try to keep yourself in good shape, all the common sense stuff but maybe no other measures would be necessary at that point.  Do you agree?

Heh.

I did find some more detail that made me want to revise this (Pfizer vs Moderna; Immunocompetent vs Immunocompromised) but the gist of what I posted is still right -- once you're vaxxed and boostered you're in good shape unless you have a big medical issue or get very unlucky -- so I left it.

And yeah -- if the treatment pills work and the variants continue to respond to the vaccine, it's not a big deal anymore.  If you're young and healthy and vaxxed it already isn't IMO.  I'm just old enough and just safety-first enough and around older people enough that I'll continue to treat it with respect though.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really need to be careful with any possible overreaction to variants like omicron. It seems like some more information was warranted before some of the actions being done were implemented. Hopefully this isn't a severe variant but I'd hate to see a "boy who cried wolf" scenario when/if something really deadlier comes about.

World is put on high alert over the Omicron coronavirus variant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamny said:

They really need to be careful with any possible overreaction to variants like omicron. It seems like some more information was warranted before some of the actions being done were implemented. Hopefully this isn't a severe variant but I'd hate to see a "boy who cried wolf" scenario when/if something really deadlier comes about.

Counterpoint: Stopping to wait and analyze while another known variant is suddenly traveling the world may be a mistake. Erring on the side of caution may be best.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, worrierking said:

Here's another potential treatment, a repurposed drug for alcoholism:

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2021/11/23/covid19-severe-disease-alcoholism-drug-may-help/2441637676069/

I'm hoping it's the booze they drink and not the drug that actually helps!

 


As much as I’d like for this to be ‘something’, I think it’s much more likely that the recovering alcoholic vets are at less risk of COVID due to social isolation rather than this medication. I’ve always found it strange that these random medications get studied without having any idea why it would be effective against COVID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fatness said:

Counterpoint: Stopping to wait and analyze while another known variant is suddenly traveling the world may be a mistake. Erring on the side of caution may be best.


I completely agree with this. Better to overreact rather than underestimate the risk. It’ll get into the country but better to do it on our terms as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Doug B said:

From what I've seen ... losing taste/smell is pretty much a positive COVID test in and of itself.

13 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If ever there was a horses/zebras thing, this is surely it.  I know there are other esoteric diseases that cause people to lose their sense of taste and smell, but realistically if you experience this particular symptom, there is probably like a 99.9% chance that it's covid.  

Although it seems specific to covid, other viral URIs can also cause those symptoms. This includes rhinovirus, the main cause of the common cold.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

I think most states, it has to be sent to a lab for analyzing in order to identify which strain you have. 

Although, I did read a blurb somewhere that Omicron, similar to one of the early strains (Alpha, IIRC) is identifiable in PCR test due to one of the areas it "lights up" on the test that other strains don't activate. That's one way scientists caught Omicron outbreak fairly early on compared to other strains. I don't know how accurate that is. I'll try to remember where I read that and post the link.

Specialized gene sequencing is generally needed to identify the virus' strain. But some PCRs can imply omicron is present.

Nucleic acid amplification tests recognize several parts of the virus, sometimes including a segment of the spike protein. Because omicron's spike RNA is so altered, it isn't amplified by the NAATs. But other gene segments are, so the tests recognize a spikeless coronavirus. This is the same result alpha strains yield, but since those are no longer widespread, it's a pretty good bet the pattern represents omicron.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jamny said:

Thanks.

(not directed at you specifically) So what test do the FDA and CDC use to determine that immunity is waning and there is a need for boosters? They must have some specific antibody stat that they use to determine a threshold. 

Nope. No standard test, nor agreed upon cut-off which implies immunity. Waning immunity just means antibody levels decrease over time, to undetectable levels in some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

Great post (assuming your math is correct ;)  )

If we do assume that then we are looking at Covid being about 3-5x more deadly than the flu.  (Don't @ me I'm not a #justaflubro)

I think if any of the pills work out then we (those of us who are vaccinated and maybe a good portion of unvaccinated) can truly treat this like the Flu.  Nothing you want to get, could be deadly, but take the same precautions you did against the flu.  Stay home when sick, try to keep yourself in good shape, all the common sense stuff but maybe no other measures would be necessary at that point.  Do you agree?

Because SARS-CoV-2 is so much more contagious than influenza, IFR in a vacuum is a little misleading. When hospitals get overcrowded, people die more frequently than they should - since 1918, that hasn't happened with the flu.

Flu kills ~35K per year, on average. Covid has killed 10X that many, two years running, with a ton of mitigation strategies in place. Hopefully that won't be true moving forward, but the anti-science crew is working overtime to exhaust our medical resources.

Agree that vaccinated folks with effective antivirals can make covid roughly as deadly as flu, but it remains to be seen how impactful the infection will be for those who survive it.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jamny said:

As for my blood test. Some say it isn't useful for a determination but I've tested positive twice for antibodies. If, on my next test, I show negative, it would get me to go for a booster. Seems like a reasonable way to make a decision given that it is the only way for the public to make a determination at this time.

You also could ask your doctor. Or listen to public health experts. :shrug:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, belljr said:

I'm over all of it...... vaccines allegedly not effective against new variant.  New variant allegedly mild to moderate.

I know more data needs to be studied but when the head of the company says its not effective :shrug:

 

I found when my consumption of news about Covid went down so did my Covid fatigue.  I'm not sure if where you are there are still some restrictions and things that make it obvious that Covid is still around but for me, if I don't seek out news about Covid, it is essentially over for me now.  Granted, it's not because I'm still trying to be precautions but if I wanted I could be 100% back to my pre-Covid life.  If things get bad with Omicron and things close down again it will suck but with it being winter I'd be home most of the time anyway.  Probably the biggest thing that it may impact for us is my daughter's competitive cheer competitions. 

I am curious where things go with regards to an additional booster.  Would I be willing to get a 4th shot (2nd booster)?  Ultimately, I would be but as mentioned up thread, I'd like to know what our broader strategy with variants/boosters will be.  I'm willing to accept "we don't know but here is what we think...." - I realize this is a fluid/every-changing thing and they can't speak in absolutes right now.

Edited by AAABatteries
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, belljr said:

I'm over all of it...... vaccines allegedly not effective against new variant.  New variant allegedly mild to moderate.

I know more data needs to be studied but when the head of the company says its not effective :shrug:

 

Where are you seeing it is not effective?  Seems like Moderna CEO is jumping the gun a bit -- we know it may evade more, but they cannot say how much yet.

But I guess maybe we should have mixed the boosters for max coverage, instead of 3 Moderna shots for me.  Damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, belljr said:

I'm over all of it...... vaccines allegedly not effective against new variant.  New variant allegedly mild to moderate.

I know more data needs to be studied but when the head of the company says its not effective :shrug:

 

That's not exactly right. He guessed that the current vaccine wouldn't be as effective against the omicron variant, while saying more information is needed. I'm not sure it's wise to base anything on someone's guess. Moderna does stand to make money if another vaccine is needed, after all.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-not-going-to-be-good-moderna-ceo-on-what-scientists-are-telling-him-about-the-omicron-coronavirus-variant-11638266621

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, fatness said:

That's not exactly right. He guessed that the current vaccine wouldn't be as effective against the omicron variant, while saying more information is needed. I'm not sure it's wise to base anything on someone's guess. Moderna does stand to make money if another vaccine is needed, after all.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-not-going-to-be-good-moderna-ceo-on-what-scientists-are-telling-him-about-the-omicron-coronavirus-variant-11638266621

On the other hand, vaccine manufacturers had a golden opportunity to cry wolf when everybody was overreacting to the delta variant.  They didn't.  So when they say that their product may not work as well against omicron, that gets my attention.

More generally, the people who I follow who reacted sanely to delta all seem to agree that omicron is legitimately worrisome.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting, is it seems that Omicron took over Delta swiftly in South Africa.  But there are doubts that it could overtake Delta in the USA and other places -- that is the potential saving grace -- that the mutations do not seem to be ones that make it more transmissible than Delta (and some other failed variants) and infection seems milder as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Although it seems specific to covid, other viral URIs can also cause those symptoms. This includes rhinovirus, the main cause of the common cold.

When people talk of not being able to smell/taste as well with a head cold ... I always took that to mean the specific issue was that their nasal passages were plugged up, thus preventing them from smelling as well. Not so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doug B said:

When people talk of not being able to smell/taste as well with a head cold ... I always took that to mean the specific issue was that their nasal passages were plugged up, thus preventing them from smelling as well. Not so?

Wasn't with me at all. No congestion, just completely lost taste and smell for weeks followed by parosmia for a couple of months where  certain foods tasted strange to the point that I couldn't eat them. That has mostly gone away but I still don't think my taste and smell is as good as it was pre-Covid.

 

eta: realized you probably meant for a standard cold. nm :)

Edited by jamny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But he does not see many important mutations that might make the Omicron version more contagious than Delta. "The ones that might affect transmissibility, I mean, I'm just not seeing a whole lot that would give it a real strong advantage over Delta," he said. "That's really the big question. You know, when it gets into a population that has Delta, is it going to out-compete or not out-compete?"

Other genetics experts also note Omicron does not carry some of the changes that helped make Delta so very contagious. "Given that Omicron lacks so many of the non-spike mutations that have seemed to contribute to Delta's increased fitness I wouldn't be surprised if its intrinsic transmissibility is similar to Gamma," Trevor Bedford, a genome scientist and epidemiologist at the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, said on Twitter.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/health/omicron-delta-variant-comparison/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

What is interesting, is it seems that Omicron took over Delta swiftly in South Africa.  But there are doubts that it could overtake Delta in the USA and other places -- that is the potential saving grace -- that the mutations do not seem to be ones that make it more transmissible than Delta (and some other failed variants) and infection seems milder as well. 

Wouldn't the best case be that a variant that is highly transmissible but has mild symptoms becomes the dominant strain, and it just ends up endemic?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Wouldn't the best case be that a variant that is highly transmissible but has mild symptoms becomes the dominant strain, and it just ends up endemic?

 

Well, the best case scenario would be the current vaccines work against all variants, so that we don't really need to worry.

But yes, I said the same thing to my wife last night.  If everyone who isn't vaccinated (or even is) caught this and it was just a 2-day mild cold, but allowed for production of antibodies that worked across future variants, that would be the fastest way to global immunity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:

When people talk of not being able to smell/taste as well with a head cold ... I always took that to mean the specific issue was that their nasal passages were plugged up, thus preventing them from smelling as well. Not so?

I am now about 90 days out from having COVID and my sense of smell is ~65% back. I can smell most things but the smells are generally muted. Even when this first started I was not congested. For a while I could smell nothing. Then I could start to smell some things but other things smelled like an ashtray. Now I can smell most things but there are some things that still don't register. For example, I can smell my own farts only around 20% of the time right now (up from 0% of the time for weeks after illness). Pre-COVID I could most definitely smell 100% of them.

My sense of taste never completely went away, but it continues to be slightly muted as well. Things taste good - but nothing is as "bright" as before. It's a bummer and I hope that both taste and smell come back to full strength at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, soothsayer said:

I am now about 90 days out from having COVID and my sense of smell is ~65% back. I can smell most things but the smells are generally muted. Even when this first started I was not congested. For a while I could smell nothing. Then I could start to smell some things but other things smelled like an ashtray. Now I can smell most things but there are some things that still don't register. For example, I can smell my own farts only around 20% of the time right now (up from 0% of the time for weeks after illness). Pre-COVID I could most definitely smell 100% of them.

My sense of taste never completely went away, but it continues to be slightly muted as well. Things taste good - but nothing is as "bright" as before. It's a bummer and I hope that both taste and smell come back to full strength at some point.

This was me from March 2020.  I would say it was almost a year before things were back to "normal".  And I'm not convinced my current normal is the same as it was before.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like some possible good news. Though I don't know how they have enough of a sample size yet to tell much of anything.

First signs that vaccine protects against Omicron

Quote

a report by Channel 12 said the Pfizer vaccine is just slightly less effective in preventing infection with Omicron than with Delta – 90% as opposed to 95% – while it is as effective – around 93% – in preventing serious symptoms at least for those vaccinated with a booster.

According to the report, the ability of the variant to infect is higher than Delta but not as much as feared – around 1.3 times higher.

At the same time, those not inoculated have a 2.4 times greater chance of developing serious symptoms, a significant figure.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 12:10 PM, [icon] said:

Geting a LabCorp Quantitative Antibody test later today. Curious where my antibody levels are since my 100mcg Moderna Booster in late August (6mo mark). 


Got the results back and apparently I'm off the top end of the scale. 

The results came back as >2500 U/ml for RBD Antibodies where positive for protective antibodies is 0.8 U/ml :lol: 

Anyone know where that number falls in? It seems like, if accurate, I'm essentially as bulletproof to COVID as one can be? :lol: 

(I realize there is some question as to how accurate these tests are, before someone posts those links ;))

 

Edited by [icon]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, [icon] said:


Got the results back and apparently I'm off the top end of the scale. 

The results came back as >2500 U/ml for RBD Antibodies where positive for protective antibodies is 0.8 U/ml :lol: 

Anyone know where that number falls in? It seems like, if accurate, I'm essentially as bulletproof to COVID as one can be? :lol: 

(I realize there is some question as to how accurate these tests are, before someone posts those links ;))

 

 

Time to start licking handrails!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, [icon] said:


Got the results back and apparently I'm off the top end of the scale. 

The results came back as >2500 U/ml for RBD Antibodies where positive for protective antibodies is 0.8 U/ml :lol: 

Anyone know where that number falls in? It seems like, if accurate, I'm essentially as bulletproof to COVID as one can be? :lol: 

(I realize there is some question as to how accurate these tests are, before someone posts those links ;))

 

Found this page here that addresses the labcorp test specifically: 
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95156

 

Quote

"Commercial tests look at overall antibodies that bind to the target, so that can include some with neutralizing capability and some that would not have good neutralizing capability," said Wilburn.

Most of these tests read out positive or negative. While they can provide a numeric value, these values can range from manufacturer to manufacturer. There is no standard across these tests, which are FDA authorized, not approved, experts said. The FDA's most recent update lists a total of 89 such tests.

Still, some researchers have been working closely with those tests for many months now, including Dorry Segev, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, who has been studying transplant patients -- an immunocompromised population that's been particularly concerned about their levels of protection against COVID.

Segev has published a number of papers on this population, including a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine of 30 transplant patients who received third doses of COVID vaccines, and has correlated neutralization assays with commercial antibody test readouts. He has now studied some 400 transplant patients who've gotten three doses of the vaccine.

He has primarily worked with LabCorp, which reads out positive or negative for spike IgG antibodies (a test is negative if levels are below 0.8 units/mL; you can see a sample report here). The report also provides a numeric value, but only in a generic "units/mL."

Segev said he and his team do see some clear trends in the LabCorp data. They've confirmed that "antibody levels correlate with pseudoviral and live virus neutralization, and the curves are threshold linear."

That means, for LabCorp at least, "until you reach 250 units/mL, you have little evidence of neutralization," he added.

"When you get to 500 or 1,000, it rises in a linear fashion," Segev told MedPage Today. "So 2,000 gives you twice as much neutralizing capability as 1,000 on a LabCorp test."

Segev is confident enough in the data to interpret what it can mean, generally, for protection against COVID.

For levels below 250 units/mL, "you have, at most, a modicum of protection," he noted. Those in the 250 to 500 range who are at low risk of exposure -- working from home, taking precautions -- should get a booster, "but there's no urgency." For those in the 500 to 1,000 range who have some risk of exposure or are more vulnerable to COVID, "then you're in the 'now-is-probably-a-good-time-to-get-boosted' range."

"I suspect if you're over 1,000, and not at high risk, then you're probably good," he said.

He cautioned, however, that there's "not a cutoff at which you are protected or not protected."

"Everyone wants a yes or no. Am I safe or unsafe? Protected or unprotected? That's not how it is," he continued. "You're more protected at 2,500 than at 1,000. It's up to you and your risk of exposure, your risk of severe disease, all of those things together, to know whether you need to be at greater than 1,000 or if 1,000 is fine for you."

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doug B said:

When people talk of not being able to smell/taste as well with a head cold ... I always took that to mean the specific issue was that their nasal passages were plugged up, thus preventing them from smelling as well. Not so?

There are several mechanisms contributing to loss of smell (and by extension, taste). It’s not just congestion, as many viruses can damage the lining of the nose and smell receptors. While SARS-CoV-2 does it more frequently than most viruses, by no means is it an isolated symptom of covid. It’s called Post-viral olfactory dysfunction

Quote

Upper respiratory tract infection is one of the most com- mon etiologies of olfactory loss, termed “post-infectious” or “post-viral” olfactory loss, accounting for up to 30-40% of the cases with olfactory loss. A variety of pathogens may cause post-infectious olfactory loss, viruses, and bacteria. However, the most common pathogen is a variety of viruses.18 Suzuki M. et al.21 reported the first study that could detect rhinovi- rus, parainfluenza, coronavirus, and Epstein-Barr virus in the nasal discharge of patients with post-viral olfactory loss. Fur- thermore, they suggested that rhinoviruses can induce a va- riety of severities and different time courses of olfactory loss. The pathophysiology of post-infectious olfactory loss remains poorly understood; many physicians thought about an inflam- matory reaction of the nasal mucosa and the production of na- sal discharge. However, many studies hypothesize that viruses may damage the olfactory neuroepithelium or central olfacto- ry pathways and then transmit directly to the brain (includ- ing the central nervous system such as the olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex).18,22 More evidence supported this theory e.g. neuroepithelial remodeling and substitution with respiratory epithelium, and morphological alterations (decreased volumes in the olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex) in patients with post-infectious olfactory loss.18,23

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug B said:
15 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Although it seems specific to covid, other viral URIs can also cause those symptoms. This includes rhinovirus, the main cause of the common cold.

When people talk of not being able to smell/taste as well with a head cold ... I always took that to mean the specific issue was that their nasal passages were plugged up, thus preventing them from smelling as well. Not so?


Let me rephrase:

When people talk of not being able to smell/taste as well with a pre-COVID, 2019-style head cold ... I always took that to mean the specific issue was that their nasal passages were plugged up, thus preventing them from smelling as well. Not so?

To be clear ... the paragraph above is not about COVID, but about old-school head colds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Terminalxylem said:

The pathophysiology of post-infectious olfactory loss remains poorly understood; many physicians thought about an inflammatory reaction of the nasal mucosa and the production of nasal discharge. However, many studies hypothesize that viruses may damage the olfactory neuroepithelium or central olfactory pathways and then transmit directly to the brain (includ-ing the central nervous system such as the olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex)


I see. I had seen in the past -- and still thought -- that the unbolded portion above was nailed down as "what happens to some people's sense of smell during a bad head cold, pre-COVID". And that the bolded portion was nailed down as "what happens to almost everyone's sense of smell during COVID".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, [icon] said:


Got the results back and apparently I'm off the top end of the scale. 

The results came back as >2500 U/ml for RBD Antibodies where positive for protective antibodies is 0.8 U/ml :lol: 

Anyone know where that number falls in? It seems like, if accurate, I'm essentially as bulletproof to COVID as one can be? :lol: 

(I realize there is some question as to how accurate these tests are, before someone posts those links ;))

 

:hifive: I’m also off the scale, both times my antibodies were checked. Unfortunately, it’s not exactly clear what that means for strength/durability of immune response, other than it’s good.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doug B said:


I see. I had seen in the past -- and still thought -- that the unbolded portion above was nailed down as "what happens to some people's sense of smell during a bad head cold, pre-COVID". And that the bolded portion was nailed down as "what happens to almost everyone's sense of smell during COVID".

Definitely more prevalent with covid, but not unusual enough with other common viral infections to hang your hat on it.

Edited by Terminalxylem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not going to take any news in the next two weeks very seriously, both positive and negative. With the normal course of disease and the timeline the drug manufactures put out anything coming out now seems premature and bouncing between fear porn and underselling the risk. Let it play out before getting too worked up one way or another.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

may have been posted but...

Omicron Update: Nov 29 from YLE

Lots of good info, but regarding why we haven't found a case yet in the US (and a point we discussed earlier in the thread):

Quote

 

Regardless, we have 68 Public Health Labs sequencing 15,000-20,000 specimens to search for variants like Omicron. We also have commercial labs, CDC contract labs, and academic labs. Nationally, ~5% of all specimens are sequenced. This means our system can detect down to 0.01% of circulating variants. So, Omicron can be found…eventually.

We can also identify Omicron on PCR tests. Usually a swab would have to go to a special lab for genome sequencing to know which variant caused the infection. However, it looks like Omicron has a special signal on the PCR directly. For example, when the PCR is positive it lights up two channels instead of three channels, indicating that it’s Omicron instead of Delta, for example. So why haven’t PCR tests caught Omicron in the U.S. either?

  • It may be that testing centers don’t know this handy trick yet
  • Maybe we have a positive PCR but it was sent to a lab for confirmation
  • Maybe we aren’t testing enough to detect a small number of cases
  • Or, there’s the possibility that it’s just not here yet

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sand said:

Jerusalem Post:  Vaccine appears to be effective against Omicron and Omicron is 1.3x more contagious than Delta.  

Obviously very early, but this is very encouraging.  No signs so far that virulence is higher and the contagiousness isn't too far off of what Delta is already.

That’s Pfizer. Wonder about Moderna….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

That’s Pfizer. Wonder about Moderna….


I’d consider them interchangeable at this point. Their secret sauce may be a little different but I’d be shocked if they were significantly different in any way. Moderna will probably show slightly higher effectiveness against the variant simply because of the higher doses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less than a ringing endorsement for Merck's pill.

Merck COVID Pill Narrowly Endorsed by FDA Panel for High-Risk Adults

Quote

The drug, known as molnupiravir, was recommended in a 13-10 vote after data were presented showing its “modest” effect on reducing hospitalization and death. The decision was made despite members of the panel going back and forth on the drug’s effectiveness, safety, and whether it could potentially aid the virus’ mutation capabilities.

Quote

A final study analysis showed that the pill reduced hospitalization and death by 30 percent, despite an interim clinical trial’s findings that molnupiravir cut the risk of both in half. A Merck executive said he didn’t “have a satisfying answer” on the discrepancy.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, fatness said:

Less than a ringing endorsement for Merck's pill.

Merck COVID Pill Narrowly Endorsed by FDA Panel for High-Risk Adults

 

COVID is a different beast from other diseases, but in "normal" times, demonstration of 30% reduced risk for death/hospitalization from a serious disease is considered a major benefit and would likely lead to a strong endorsement for approval unless there were serious safety issues. 

Not saying I think this should be approved, as I haven't read enough about it, but just providing context. We live in weird times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pip's Invitation said:

COVID is a different beast from other diseases, but in "normal" times, demonstration of 30% reduced risk for death/hospitalization from a serious disease is considered a major benefit and would likely lead to a strong endorsement for approval unless there were serious safety issues.

COVID's a weird animal in that it has overwhelmed the world in such a short time. Normal timeframes for developing and testing vaccines and medications are forced to be so compressed; if the old timeframes held, the pharmaceutical and approval entities would approve much less and over a longer period of time. Obviously we want and need medications that help, but with the short time frames and fewer studies there's always the risk of pushing the approval process closer and closer to the level of hydrochloroquinine and ivermectin and bleach. As you said, it's a weird time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...