BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic

[China]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

From my day today, I gave a final today.  30+ people in a room with max capacity of 50 so the room is pretty full.  These are junior/senior science and engineering majors.  Many of them pre-med.  Several of them were obviously sick today coughing, sneezing, and sniffling.  None of the sick people were wearing a mask.

 

There is no mask mandate and no requirement to wear a mask.  I have one guy that is one of my better students that will be in medical school in a year or 2 (unless something shocking/disastrous happens).  He's smarter, harder working, and more contentious than my average student where my average student is smarter, harder working, and more contentious (and more educated) than the average American.  He regularly wears a mask to class (he doesn't wear one to meet with me one-on-one).  I don't know why he wears a mask but it certainly seems his intentions are good.  And it isn't like he's wearing the mask below his nose on a regular basis and doing so because he has to.

 

2 hours into a 2.5 hour final, he takes his mask off.  Takes a drink, eats a little (food is going hand to mouth and he didn't use hand sanitizer), drinks a little more, uses his hand to wipe around his mouth, and then puts his mask back on.

 

After 2 hours of people spewing whatever into the air that they're breathing/coughing, you have to think the air is full of whatever the sick people have.  When you take the mask off, you are exposing the inside of the mask to that air.  You are breathing in the things in the air.  Anything on a surface he's touched is on his hands, can transfer from his hand to his food, and to his mouth.  And then rubbing his hands around the mouth just makes it worse.  And then when you put the mask back on, the air that gets trapped isn't being sterilized.  All the air that's trapped between the mask and the mouth, everything he's now breathed or gotten into into his mouth is now being breathed out into the mask.  Anything around his mouth or on the inside of the mask that can be aerolized as he's breathing in and out of the mask can now be breathed in. 

 

I'm not comfortable putting a percentage on it, but I'd be willing to be that the majority of whatever benefit he got from wearing the mask for 2 hours was negated in the 2 minutes he had it off.

 

And again, this guy is smarter, more contentious, and better educated than the average American.  And pretty much as an upper level science major to take the classes he has to take to get into my class he's had several lab classes where there is some PPE wearing (though not normally mask) so he has more experience wearing some PPE and thinking about PPE than the average American.  And he can't do it right.

 

 

 

It's a good visual representation of how disgusting we humans are and how easily we spread viruses.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

From my day today, I gave a final today.  30+ people in a room with max capacity of 50 so the room is pretty full.  These are junior/senior science and engineering majors.  Many of them pre-med. 

 

College Professor, huh?

 

I can see that...

[China]

Do a Few Sprays a Day Keep COVID Away?

 

We’re in the fourth holiday season in which COVID is a reality that we have to deal with—and while most protective measures have disappeared from public view, some people are trying new approaches to avoid getting sick. As someone who works in public health, I follow these things closely. One of these tools I’m seeing more and more on social media is nasal sprays of all types, with some influencers suggesting the nasal sprays are part of a smart COVID prevention tool kit, along with tests, masks, and vaccines.

 

While these sprays are interesting, innovative, and have some data suggesting they do something, they aren’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Though there are ways of getting them—usually by ordering them online—you can’t buy these sprays from the shelves at a CVS in the U.S.

 

Before we can get into talking about the sprays themselves, we must understand the role the nose plays in getting infected. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, infects us by binding to receptors in our cells known as ACE2 receptors. The nose and mouth both contain a whole bunch of these receptors. Wearing a mask is one way to make these receptors less accessible to the virus. But what if you could interrupt the binding process more subtly? That’s where nasal sprays come in—at least, in theory. (Any protection offered by the sprays would be enhanced by also wearing a mask, since you do not spray your mouth.)

 

There are two main types of nasal sprays out there right now, both of which call for a few sprays a day. One type of nasal spray uses something called iota-carrageenan, which is derived from seaweed (I recognized it as being used in the vegan marshmallows I get at Trader Joe’s). The idea is that this gel-like substance acts like a protective barrier, which may physically prevent the virus from binding to the cells, at least to an extent. Lab studies have shown that there are potential antiviral properties to iota-carrageenan, and studies on children have shown that the ingredient is effective at reducing viral load when it comes to children who already have the common cold. One study among health care workers in Argentina found that workers who received four daily doses of the nasal spray containing the substance for 21 days had a lower rate of COVID diagnosis compared with those who received the placebo. Out of 196 and 198 health care workers in each group, two who received the nasal spray got COVID, and 10 got COVID in the latter group. One spray containing iota-carrageenan is marketed as “ePothex” and is sold online for $20 a bottle, although there are many others that contain this ingredient.

 

The other type of spray contains nitric oxide, which acts as an antimicrobial and may inhibit the replication of viruses, among other properties. It is the primary ingredient in the spray known as Enovid, which retails for about $90 for one spray bottle. Unlike with iota-carrageenan, there aren’t studies that show nitric oxide has been effective at preventing COVID, but there have been studies that show it is effective at reducing the viral load when used by people who have a mild case of  COVID.

 

But as to whether these sprays really work to meaningfully reduce your risk of catching or spreading COVID, the plain and simple answer is that there isn’t enough data. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PeterMP]

Blocking ACE2 signaling isn't likely without consequence.  A lot of the issues COVID causes is because of how it affects ACE2 signaling.

 

https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/051620/what-is-the-ace2-receptor

 

"Of greatest relevance to COVID-19, ANG II can increase inflammation and the death of cells in the alveoli which are critical for bringing oxygen into the body; these harmful effects of ANG II are reduced by ACE2.

 

When the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to ACE2, it prevents ACE2 from performing its normal function to regulate ANG II signaling. Thus, ACE2 action is “inhibited,” removing the brakes from ANG II signaling and making more ANG II available to injure tissues. This “decreased braking” likely contributes to injury, especially to the lungs and heart, in COVID-19 patients."

 

I'd worry a little about giving myself something to block ACE2 signaling that hasn't been studied very much.

[Renegade7]

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingas****/s/lq3K3fQJta

[China]

Spain makes masks mandatory in hospitals after spike in Covid and flu cases

 

Face masks will be mandatory in hospitals and healthcare centres in Spain from Wednesday after a surge in respiratory illnesses, the Health Ministry said.

 

The new leftist minority coalition government is imposing the measure despite opposition from most of Spain’s 17 autonomous regions.

 

“We are talking about putting on a mask when you enter a health centre and taking it off when you leave,” Health Minister Monica Garcia told Cadena Ser radio.

 

“I don’t think it is any drama. It is a basic and simple measure of the first order,” she added.

 

Spain’s hospitals have come under immense pressure in recent weeks following a spike in cases of flu, Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[sjinhan]

 

 

Hmm interesting that only place you hear about closing the loop on this thing is only few sources on the internet and completely ignored by MSM

[PeterMP]

16 hours ago, sjinhan said:

Hmm interesting that only place you hear about closing the loop on this thing is only few sources on the internet and completely ignored by MSM

 

As somebody that has said here that people have been to quick to completely dismiss the lab leak theory and that we shouldn't support gain of function, I think it is being ignored mostly because there is no real smoking gun there.  Some people that are pushing this are being overly assertive in how much this supports a lab leak theory.  What has been found moves the needle a little more in that direction.  And it is disappointing that the intelligence agencies didn't seem to find these (unfunded) DARPA proposals when doing their analysis.

 

But these proposals weren't funded.  There is no evidence that the work was ever done.  And while the Covid genome might appear to be the product of such work, there are also reasonable (and arguably even better) explanations that the genome is the result of natural evolution based on other viral genomes we have.

 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214427119

 

For the MSM to get involved in reporting this, I think you'll need something that really is a smoking gun.  e.g. there is evidence that this sort of work was actually done, etc.

[PeterMP]

I hadn't watched the video to the end earlier. but if you do there is a little talk about how a NYT reader believes natural origins is a slam dunk.

 

While the NYT hasn't published on all of the details, the idea that NYT readers would believe that the natural origins explanation is a slam dunk is just false.  The NYT has talked about the controversy and did report on the Dept. of Energy report that concluded it was likely that it was a lab leak.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/us/politics/covid-origins-lab-leak-politics.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html

 

 

CNN and W. Post also reported on the Dept. of Energy report.  I don't understand the need to run down the NYT.  And it isn't like it is hard to check the NYT to see what they've reported.  Anybody watching those people that wants to check the NYT to see their reporting can.  It just undermines the credibility of anything else those people say.

Edited January 27 by PeterMP

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

And people thought the appeals court ruling today about Trump was slow to come out.  Holy crap, way to be timely.

[philibusters]

I think lab leak is the more likely origin, but until there is a smoking gun either way, we have to admit we don't know for sure.  I'd probably put my confidence level in lab leak at somewhere around 80% or 90%, but I would not be shocked if I was wrong.

 

In terms of the NYT in particular, though this goes for other mainstream media, they have covered lab leak but at the same time do have other reporters who completely dismiss it.  These big outlets have lots of reporters and they are not always going to agree on anything.  So sometimes the NYT's has covered lab leak fairly.  Other times, like when the study came out that pretty definitively the wet market was the first super spreader event, they act like its a smoking gun against lab leak, which it clearly was not (it could have been the first super spreader event and still come from a lab leak or there could have been an earlier undetected super spreader event that is not documented because the people did not go to the hospital or get tested)

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, philibusters said:

I think lab leak is the more likely origin, but until there is a smoking gun either way, we have to admit we don't know for sure.  I'd probably put my confidence level in lab leak at somewhere around 80% or 90%, but I would not be shocked if I was wrong.

 

In terms of the NYT in particular, though this goes for other mainstream media, they have covered lab leak but at the same time do have other reporters who completely dismiss it.  These big outlets have lots of reporters and they are not always going to agree on anything.  So sometimes the NYT's has covered lab leak fairly.  Other times, like when the study came out that pretty definitively the wet market was the first super spreader event, they act like its a smoking gun against lab leak, which it clearly was not (it could have been the first super spreader event and still come from a lab leak or there could have been an earlier undetected super spreader event that is not documented because the people did not go to the hospital or get tested)

 

This isn't really true.  The main story the NYT published in fact raises the exact scenario that you suggest.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html

 

"But David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University, raised the possibility that these patterns might be just evidence that the market boosted the epidemic after the virus started spreading in humans somewhere else.

 

“The virus would have arrived in a person, who then infected other people,” he said. “And the neighborhood of the market, or the market itself, became a kind of a sustained superspreader event.”"

 

(Now, they do in the next paragraph explain why the authors of the published papers think that's wrong.  But the exact scenario you raised is addressed and put forward with support from a Stanford microbiologist no less.)

 

There are number of quotes from people that are doubtful of the market origin.  And they end with a person that is an author on the paper what else could be done to support the market origin suggesting that he doesn't think it is a closed case.

 

"Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and a co-author of the new studies, said it was important to figure out where the wild mammals for sale at Huanan came from, and to look for evidence of past outbreaks in those places. It’s possible, for example, that villagers at the sources of that wildlife still carry antibodies from exposures to coronaviruses.

 

“If I had to say what would be most helpful to do now, it would be those types of studies,” he said."

 

There's no real indication in the story this is a case closed situation. The story is clear.  The authors think they've very much moved the needled to the market origin, but others still have doubts.  And even one of the authors is suggesting more work that could be done to support the market origin so not an indication of case closed or a smoking gun.  If you have the smoking gun, you don't talk about the next piece of information that you need.

 

It is so easy to check yourself today.  I don't understand why people don't.  I don't understand the idea of let me go say something wrong/false in a public forum that I could take 5 minutes to check myself before I do so.

Edited February 7 by PeterMP

[philibusters]

9 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

This isn't really true.  The main story the NYT published in fact raises the exact scenario that you suggest.

 

 

 

I don't think there is a main NYT articles on Wuhan.  But

9 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

This isn't really true.  The main story the NYT published in fact raises the exact scenario that you suggest.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html

 

"But David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University, raised the possibility that these patterns might be just evidence that the market boosted the epidemic after the virus started spreading in humans somewhere else.

 

“The virus would have arrived in a person, who then infected other people,” he said. “And the neighborhood of the market, or the market itself, became a kind of a sustained superspreader event.”"

 

(Now, they do in the next paragraph explain why the authors of the published papers think that's wrong.  But the exact scenario you raised is addressed and put forward with support from a Stanford microbiologist no less.)

 

There are number of quotes from people that are doubtful of the market origin.  And they end with a person that is an author on the paper what else could be done to support the market origin suggesting that he doesn't think it is a closed case.

 

"Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and a co-author of the new studies, said it was important to figure out where the wild mammals for sale at Huanan came from, and to look for evidence of past outbreaks in those places. It’s possible, for example, that villagers at the sources of that wildlife still carry antibodies from exposures to coronaviruses.

 

“If I had to say what would be most helpful to do now, it would be those types of studies,” he said."

 

There's no real indication in the story this is a case closed situation. The story is clear.  The authors think they've very much moved the needled to the market origin, but others still have doubts.  And even one of the authors is suggesting more work that could be done to support the market origin so not an indication of case closed or a smoking gun.  If you have the smoking gun, you don't talk about the next piece of information that you need.

 

It is so easy to check yourself today.  I don't understand why people don't.  I don't understand the idea of let me go say something wrong/false in a public forum that I could take 5 minutes to check myself before I do so.

 

Fair.  I am not sure I ever read the article, my impression of it was second hand.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Between COVID and 60 degree weather on SB weekend, the old Mazda store staff is down about 50%.

[Larry]

4 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Between COVID and 60 degree weather on SB weekend, the old Mazda store staff is down about 50%.

 

Means you'll have better pickings, from . . . all the people who go car shopping on SB weekend.  

[China]

Tax records reveal the lucrative world of covid misinformation

 

Four major nonprofits that rose to prominence during the coronavirus pandemic by capitalizing on the spread of medical misinformation collectively gained more than $118 million between 2020 and 2022, enabling the organizations to deepen their influence in statehouses, courtrooms and communities across the country, a Washington Post analysis of tax records shows.

 

Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., received $23.5 million in contributions, grants and other revenue in 2022 alone — eight times what it collected the year before the pandemic began — allowing it to expand its state-based lobbying operations to cover half the country. Another influential anti-vaccine group, Informed Consent Action Network, nearly quadrupled its revenue during that time to about $13.4 million in 2022, giving it the resources to finance lawsuits seeking to roll back vaccine requirements as Americans’ faith in vaccines drops.

 

Two other groups, Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance and America’s Frontline Doctors, went from receiving $1 million combined when they formed in 2020 to collecting more than $21 million combined in 2022, according to the latest tax filings available for the groups.

 

The four groups routinely buck scientific consensus. Children’s Health Defense and Informed Consent Action Network raise doubts about the safety of vaccines despite assurances from federal regulators. “Vaccines have never been safer than they are today,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on its webpage outlining vaccine safety.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[EmirOfShmo]

Looks like this is turning into a 3-times per year vax for old folks...

 

Why Older Adults Need Another COVID-19 Shot

 

Older adults should get the COVID-19 vaccine more frequently than previously recommended, according to new guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Health officials are urging people ages 65 and older to receive another vaccine dose in the spring, or at least four months after their most recent dose.

CDC director Dr. Mandy Cohen announced the decision after a CDC advisory committee, which is made up of independent vaccine and infectious disease experts, voted 11-1 to make the change. “An additional vaccine dose can provide added protection that may have decreased over time for those at highest risk,” she said in a statement

 

https://time.com/6836390/older-adults-covid-19-vaccine-2024

[The Evil Genius]

Youngins called it the Boomer Remover for a reason.