5,993 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. On 2020-05-17 16:22:51, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Main findings<br /> The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent COVID-19 disease in pregnant women at different trimesters is not well described. The precise influence of a potentially dysregulated antiviral response to this pathogen during pregnancy is unclear, so a better understanding would guide management for pregnant women, who may be more susceptible to infection. Here, Hosier et al. profile a case of a woman with COVID-19 in the second trimester of pregnancy with severe hypertension, elevated liver enzymes, and coagulopathy. These symptoms led to a diagnosis of severe preeclampsia.

      The patient initially presented with a high fever, non-productive cough, nausea, diarrhea, diffuse myalgias, anorexia, and malaise. A RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a nasopharyngeal swab of the patient was positive. Upon admission, the patient was treated for hypertension, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and she eventually elected to terminate via dilation and evacuation. During surgical management and recovery, the patient developed lymphopenia, though she was able to be extubated and weaned to room air on post-operative day 1. The patient was given hydroxychloroquine. Two days later, her coagulation markers improved, and she was discharged.

      RT-PCR and sequencing and phylogenetic analyses showed that the placenta and umbilical cord were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, but no other major fetal tissues tested positive. Saliva and urine, collected from the patient, also tested positive, although the oral and nasal swabs did not. Whole genome sequencing of the viral genome isolated from the placenta was phylogenetically similar to those isolated from local cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and those identified in Europe and Australia.

      Serologic testing for patients' antibodies revealed high titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies. These levels were reportedly the highest of the 56 COVID-19 patients admitted to the Yale New Haven Hospital, suggesting that the patient was not unsuccessful in eliciting a humoral response.

      Gross pathological examination revealed a marginally adherent blood clot, presenting as a focal placental infarct, while histological analyses using CD3 and CD68 as markers revealed an infiltration of T cells and macrophages, which suggests that fibrin-dense intervillositis may have contributed to the coagulopathy observed in the patient. No necrotic tissue was seen. Immunohistochemistry staining for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and in situ hybridization for the SARS-CoV-2 RNA revealed that the infection of fetal tissue was localized preferentially to the syncytiotrophoblasts of the placenta.

      Electron microscopy confirmed the presence of viral particles (75-100 nm in diameter) in the cytosol of placental cells.

      Limitations<br /> Technical<br /> This report profiles a single patient to describe the impact of COVID-19 in pregnant women. Without a larger sample size, it is difficult to assess, however, how infection or peak disease at a given trimester differentially influence prognosis and clinical outcome. It is also important to note that this patient was diagnosed with an underlying autoimmune disease, psoriasis. It will also be important for future studies to consider the stage of pregnancy and whether COVID infection leads to other pregnancy-related disorders, such as recurring miscarriage, fetal growth restriction and possibly even increase in size of fetus creating challenges for delivery.

      Biological<br /> Finally, it is unclear whether these placental cells express the ACE2 receptor. Though electron microscopy, among other methods, identified viral particles in placental cells and indicated SARS-CoV-2 infection of the placenta, the authors did not demonstrate that the syncytiotrophoblasts expressed the ACE2 receptor, which has been shown to be the target of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry into host cells.

      Additional considerations<br /> The immunology of pregnancy is not static - the myeloid and T cell repertoire of the placental micro-environment is dynamic throughout the different trimesters. For instance, during the first trimester, trophoblastic cells secrete cytokines and chemokines that promote the recruitment and infiltration of circulating monocytes, neutrophils, NK cells, and T cells (1,2). This trafficking is essential, and disruption of any elements of this signaling axis results in poor pregnancy outcomes (1). Notably, NK cells and monocyte-derived macrophages are responsible for decidual vascular and tissue remodeling (1,2).

      The second trimester, however, is described as an anti-inflammatory stage, characterized by the induction of regulatory T cells by decidual CD56brightCD16- NK cells and monocyte-derived macrophages. Interestingly, a population of TH17 cells are also present and expand during the second trimester (1). The third trimester is then marked by a return to an inflammatory phenotype (1). It is unclear how these differential states are influenced by an antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The authors reported the presence of macrophages and T cells, but a lack of more specific stains and analyses make it difficult to precisely characterize the immunological anomalies of the placental micro-environment in pregnant women with COVID-19. The role of decidual NK cells is likely to be especially important, given their role in trophoblast-mediated immune modulation during the different trimesters of pregnancy and their role in the antiviral response to viral infections.

      Significance<br /> Hypertensive disorders, like preeclampsia, in pregnant women increase the likelihood for complicated pregnancies, and recent studies of the field suggest that dysregulated immune activity may partially be responsible for these outcomes. The trimesters of pregnancy exhibit different immune landscapes, so the presence of certain microbes, including viral pathogens, is likely to perturb homeostatic immune processes that are required for a normal pregnancy. The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection, therefore, warrants its own investigation, as the health outcomes of COVID-19 are especially poor. The authors report direct infection of the syncytiotrophoblast by SARS-CoV-2. These cells are derived from trophoblasts, which play an important immuno-modulatory role in all three trimesters of pregnancy. So, collectively, given the role of the ACE2 receptor as the target of SARS-CoV-2 viral entry and the involvement of ACE2 in the physiology of preeclampsia, the two pathologies likely share altered immune states and a dysfunctional renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) as etiologies.

      This review was undertaken by Matthew D. Park as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn school of medicine, Mount Sinai.

      References<br /> 1 Mor, G., Aldo, P., & Alvero, A.B. The unique immunological and microbial aspects of <br /> pregnancy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 17, 469-482 (2020).<br /> 2 Yockey, L.J., Lucas, C., & Iwasaki, A. Contributions of maternal and fetal antiviral <br /> immunity in congenital disease. Science. 368, 608-612 (2020).

    1. On 2020-05-18 08:41:42, user Anton De Spiegeleer wrote:

      @jkoenin, what do you mean by 'questionably executed' from a scientific viewpoint? We agree it is a small study with limitations (also clearly mentioned in the study), however we believe it is well-conducted and valuable. We would be happy to hear concrete possible improvements of the study or current alternatives to save lives of older COVID-19 residents from you.

    1. On 2020-05-18 08:51:23, user Joanna Treasure wrote:

      People are citing this study as indicating that chidren do not bring the infection home, but the study only identifies the first person showing symptoms and sign, which may be less apparen in children. Circular argument.

    1. On 2020-05-18 23:55:59, user BannedbyN4stickingup4Marjolein wrote:

      I find the conclusions of this paper seem to have been presented in a quite mis-leading way. I say this because of the many Twitter comments above which appear to have come from people who have been thus mis-led: their inference is that contracting Covid-19 is no more dangerous for an under-65 year-old than driving a car.

      This is clearly not what the paper calculates - it looks at the combined probability of both contracting COVID-19 AND death from it during the first wave of the epidemic. An epidemic of this nature spreads in a series of multiple outbreaks each with its own start date and peak. Country totals for a specific date range do not necessarily capture the intensity of a "wave".

      The actual risk of dying from Covid-19 is larger, since we must consider not just the risk of dying in this short period, but over the next 18 months or so (presuming successful implementation of yet to be proven immunisation strategies). This additional risk could possibly dwarf that experienced so far in any location where the government cannot get itself in control of the transmission rate.

      Also, "comorbidities" and "underlying diseases" are referred to, but given no clear definition. What for example is "hypertension"? Does it involve having been prescribed medication for this condition? Having abnormal blood pressure recorded at any one time? Without careful examination of the data and these definitions, it could just be that most of the dead have ended up being lumped under the comorbidity/underlying diseases heading, with a resulting bias to the study's conclusions.

    1. On 2020-05-19 03:07:59, user rferrisx wrote:

      Hoping to find these two segregated: "Prior COPD or asthma". Trying to figure out why the 25M who have asthma in the US don't show up much at all in Covid-19 comorbidities.

    1. On 2020-05-19 06:40:04, user Mike Stevens wrote:

      You’ve resubmitted this, but it isn’t any better.<br /> You haven’t even shown a correlative relationship, let alone a causative one.

    1. On 2020-05-19 09:44:20, user Ivan Berlin wrote:

      This is a unique sample. Why not to compare the COVID-19 + sample to a matched COVID-19 - sample? We lack case-control studies in this field.

    1. On 2020-05-19 11:46:53, user James Eridon wrote:

      Very practical, reasonable approach to the issue. Seems to indicate about a 50% reduction in poor outcomes. Not a silver bullet, but certainly a big deal, especially considering the low cost and ease of treatment. Tired of complaints about how it’s not double blind and randomized - that doesn’t make it invalid. It’s the sort of argument made by someone trying to advance an agenda, rather than knowledge. <br /> One minor point. I believe the OR and p-value on Intubation in Table 3 are off. The actual values are somewhat better than those shown.

    1. On 2020-05-22 01:22:41, user Dee Bee wrote:

      So one wonders how the model does in predicting the pandemic path as controls are relaxed. From a couple of statements, at the end of the abstract indicates, seems like not so much.

    1. On 2020-05-25 09:06:03, user Paul Ananth Tambyah wrote:

      Would be good to know the breakdown within the bigger groups of healthcare professionals and healthcare associate professionals - in particular how many had direct patient contact

    1. On 2020-07-17 11:16:47, user ADisquietingSuggestion wrote:

      This paper puts the global burden of COVID-19 at 4.3 million YLL. The WHO tables on disease burden put this in context: all of the top 20 diseases by YLL are above 25 million. How would you characterize this comparison?

    1. On 2020-07-17 15:36:12, user Mathieu Perrin wrote:

      Dear authors,

      thank you for raising awareness that a low FPR does not per se translate into a high significance of a positive result. Hopefully, this will encourage labs to make an EQA for SARS-CoV-2.

      1) Is it possible that the FPR actually depends on the prevalence rate? For instance, if the prevalence is high, there is a greater risk to contaminate a negative sample.<br /> 2) Should the FPR be lower if two tests are conducted on the same person? I expect this to be the case unless a negative patient always give positive results for some reason. If so, the practice of double testing should be generalized. I understand you have trouble determining precisely how each country defines a positive result, whether it is on a sample basis or if samples are pooled or if an individual gets tested several times.

      Regards,<br /> Mathieu

    1. On 2020-07-18 00:08:26, user dottore b wrote:

      As an emergency physician turned co-voligist (not my choice!), this paper is one of the single most important papers of the year. Period. We need to get governments, academic institutions, payer providers and even venture capital in public-private partnerships deploying this system today

    1. On 2020-07-19 05:03:49, user HarryDeedra Hodges wrote:

      The tweet storm is quite odd. Seems like a mini-army, particularly in Spanish moving the story along. Others seems quite happy to spread the negative results. The patients seem evenly matched, but nearly all needed O2 supports implying quite ill, more HCQ patients were > 70 than the control. Dosage was 1600mg loading, 400 mg daily for 9 days, no mention of zinc. No adverse effects noted. The dosage is only slightly higher than the evolving standard which includes zinc. The study shows HCQ without zinc not useful in critically ill patients.

    1. On 2020-07-19 22:45:26, user George wrote:

      " Lettuce consumption increased COVID-19 mortality."<br /> If you lack the commonsense to see how ridiculous that is, at least put it in non-causal language next time.

    1. On 2020-07-20 15:23:57, user Gerald Williams wrote:

      I have followed your work since April NBC story.

      You said you followed the Zelenko protocol (HCQ+Zn+Azithromycin) and just added Ivermectin in order to get the great results.

      In a prior version of your article I recall reading that you had HCQ & Azithromycin in a large % of the Ivermectin group as well as in some of the "usual care" group. You never mention critical Zinc in your article. If I was reviewing, I would want to know the details even if they may make the study more "messy". Your results are already very significant in that adding Ivermectin to the Zelenko cocktail extends efficacy to many days later.

      There is no need at this time to kill placebo group by having a DB RCT.<br /> What is needed is to repeat protocol where the the control group exactly follows the Zelenko protocol (now in preprint or via Yale's Dr. Risch review in Am. J. Epidemiology) vs the Zelenko protocol + Ivermectin. You should reference.

      It is not just you, but every article on treatment should document # of days since first symptoms and # of days since hospitalization (if former isn't known).

      The current hypothesis is that Zelenko protocol works great up to 5 days of symptoms and sometimes up to 7 days. Your addition of Ivermectin extends that window into many days after hospital admission, It is no coincidence that in the less severe group you did not find significance because the Zelenko protocol was adequate (except some patients didn't receive full Zelenko protocol.

      Your protocol makes Remdesivir obsolete, dangerous and too expensive.

      You can follow me and others on Twitter to continue discussion,.<br /> It is shameful that Big Pharma is suppressing this very important finding.

      Ideally the Zelenko protocol should be followed at first signs of symptoms and if fails, around day 6, can add Ivermectin to cocktail and repeat (in outpatient or hospital setting).<br /> As you know, Doxycycline (doesn't interact w/HCQ) can be substituted for Azithromycin, so no need for outpatient cardiac monitoring. Perhaps even use the 4 drug cocktail in outpatient setting from start, if continues to prove safe.

    1. On 2020-07-20 17:17:47, user JayTe wrote:

      In the Annals of Internal Medicine, the authors demonstrated in the research article, Cloth Masks and Surgical Masks Ineffective in filtering SARS-COV-2 in COVID-19 Patients, Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0 and 3.1 um in diameter. As well Lee and his colleges showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 um particles can penetrate surgical masks. If we assume that the SARS-COV2 particle has a similar size to the SARS-COV1 particle even surgical masks are unlikely to effective filter the virus. In this study the primary means of the spread was via coughing. Now the author of this article claims that it is primarily via contact or droplets!?! If a person has respiratory issues due to covid-19, would it not make sense that they would be coughing? If you have persons that are not ill or asymptomatic then given the existing evidence, there is little to no chance of an individual becoming ill by the transmission of the SARS-COV2 virus. Doing a meta-study where one chooses studies that conform to their particular perspective and avoids the probability of transmission via coughing doesn't help the debate on the value of masks.

      It also excludes the negative effect of wearing masks which in a 2015 study in the BMJ: “A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers“ highlighted that not only are these masks 100% ineffective at reducing the spread of COVID-19, but they can actually harm you since the moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.

    1. On 2020-07-21 13:22:43, user Evolution 321 wrote:

      Preprint implies an intention to formerly publish at a later time. Where has this manuscript been submitted for peer review? What journal was this intended for?

    1. On 2020-07-22 03:42:29, user Steven Hall wrote:

      I would love to know was there any determination as to the best wearable. <br /> I run a Circulation Clinic and We have all of our Clients use wearable to help us get the best results. You feed back would be very helpful. Blessings Steven Hall Director of the Fountain of Youth Circulation Clinics 425-770-9466 https://happyheartclinic.com/

    1. On 2020-06-22 23:00:16, user Marcus Quintilian wrote:

      Some iportant words are missing: "Our machine learning analysis also showed that the two groups were linearly separable. .....incubation of COVID-19 along with previous statistical analysis. "

    1. On 2020-07-23 15:48:06, user Joseph Psotka wrote:

      a couple of factors you did not take into account: 1. Florida's population is much smaller than the official one because about a third of all "residents" leave in April and May, when it gets seriously hot. 2.) Maryland and Virginia suffer from contagion from New York which increased their Re in the peak months, so your model probably underestimated as New York declined.

    1. On 2020-06-24 02:12:28, user Nobuhiro Sho wrote:

      Non-pharmcological intervention such as wearing mask is the key strategy for novel cotagious respiratory disease. Because drug’s efficacy is not adequately proven yet. This article shows the importance of masks for preventing the transmission of covid-19.<br /> Every contagious disease is multiplicative.<br /> As everyone is wearing mask, it reduces the huge amount of infection.

    1. On 2020-06-24 12:15:40, user Ayse Balat wrote:

      I would like to congratulate the authors introducing such a beneficial model for the diagnosis of erosive-vesiculobullous diseases. I am sure it would be one of the great methods for clinicians. Professor Ayse Balat

    2. On 2020-07-04 10:35:54, user Vincent Fokker wrote:

      I was reading your publication and I had some questions: (1) how does individual predicted probability work? is this based on certainty that it is this type of cell (as with resnet ?) and what thresholds are used? are different thresholds used for different cells it detects? and how did you define your final metrics?

      Definitely seems like an awesome solution to bridging the gap of knowledge and interpretation of medical personnel in assisting them to practice their job more informed and efficient. Keep up the good work!

    1. On 2020-07-24 23:05:36, user Guest wrote:

      IFR is a good thing to measure. I’d rather concentrate on Excess Deaths.

      Total Deaths from any cause are way up. There is a second spike forming (first was mostly NY city)

      Click: “Weekly Number of Deaths by Age,” then “Update Dashboard”

      Select a Jurisdiction or Age group if you wish to change the chart

      See the Weekly Deaths by jurisdiction and age group over the previous 5 years (gray) & this year (red)

      Title: <br /> Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

      https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nv...

    1. On 2020-07-26 11:16:28, user Rosemary TATE wrote:

      This is a very interesting paper. However, I'm not convinced of the conclusions that the lower rate of test and hospitalisation are due to gender bias. It could be just that females have milder symptoms. And indeed the analysis shows that their symptom profile is different. Have the authors considered carrying out a multivariable analysis to adjust for some of these?<br /> I would suggest changing the title and moderating the conclusions. Incidentally, this is a cross-sectional study, and this should be mentioned somewhere. I would suggest replacing the term "big data" in the title with something more meaningful - as suggested in the StROBE guidelines. where is the checklist, could you please upload.

    1. On 2020-07-26 13:57:22, user catcarouser wrote:

      I’ve read the comments criticizing the study. Since Norway adopted the study standards and opened gyms, the infection rate there — well, look it up yourselves. This has been a success.

    1. On 2020-07-26 17:35:19, user Dude Dujmovic wrote:

      Very interesting paper but I think emphasis on waning humoral immunity is misplaced in most recent papers. This infection will be controlled by memory lymphocytes not by present antibodies. .

    1. On 2020-06-30 11:48:25, user J. M. Groh wrote:

      Hello, thanks for your important paper. May I suggest clarifying in the abstract the numerical effects that you saw, esp. reductions in the death rate in the treated group vs. controls (page 4, 5% mortality in the treated group vs. 45% in the control group, for groups of ~20 and ~50 patients). That is an impressive effect size. Thank you!

    1. On 2020-07-01 00:05:45, user ??? wrote:

      Dear Colleagues

      I'm Jaehun Jung, the corresponding author of the manuscript.

      Our manuscript was published after peer-review as follows.

      'Ji W, Huh K, Kang M, Hong J, Bae GH, Lee R, Na Y, Choi H, Gong SY, Choi YH, Ko KP, Im JS, Jung J. Effect of Underlying Comorbidities on the Infection and Severity of COVID-19 in Korea: a Nationwide Case-Control Study. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Jun;35(25):e237. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkm...

      Our published version have the following changes, please refer to the newly published paper.

      1) Database changes<br /> -HIRA combines epidemiological investigations data from Korea's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and extends the database until May 15. Our published version are based on this recent database. Therefore, the results of the pre-print version and the printed version are quite different.

      2) Case definition and comorbidity identification

      The pre-print version was able to check past history of more than 5 years. However, due to the expansion of the DB, only the past history can be confirmed within the past three years, and there has been a methodological adjustment.

    1. On 2020-08-03 13:49:53, user Michael wrote:

      You may be interested in our research at the optimized boarding of passenger groups in times of COVID-19. We find that the consideration of groups in a pandemic scenario will significantly contribute to a faster boarding (reduction of time by about 60%) and less transmission risk (reduced by 85%), which reaches the level of boarding times in pre-pandemic scenarios.

      The preprint publication “Analytical approach to solve the problem of aircraft passenger boarding during the coronavirus pandemic” is available here:<br /> https://www.researchgate.ne....

      Additional information about common passenger boarding in times of COVID-19 are available here:<br /> Evaluation of Aircraft Boarding Scenarios Considering Reduced Transmissions Risks (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1... "https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5329)").

    1. On 2020-07-03 20:49:23, user Brooke wrote:

      "Asian" and "Other" are not appropriate ethnic categories. People of Chinese heritage are considered Asian. If you do not include Chinese people as Asians, then this ethnic category should be renamed "South Asian" (which includes people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.). As for applying the term "other" to an ethnic group, this term literally "others" them. It may require more words to describe, but the more appropriate category for these participants would be "participants if more than one ethnicity or an ethnicity not listed in the survey." Although this tweet thread is about gender, the same gist applies here about ethnicity: https://twitter.com/theorig...

    1. On 2020-07-05 17:14:25, user Research Explained wrote:

      Unfortunately this study includes a great deal of speculation and very little evidence to back up the claims. The sample sizes were far too small and the primary outcome measure lacks statistical significance. The study also does not address the obvious confounding factor of the large health disparities between African Americans and other groups in the United States.

      Check out our general public friendly explanation of this study:<br /> https://www.researchexplain...

    1. On 2020-07-05 17:53:43, user Babak Navi wrote:

      The final version of this study was published in JAMA Neurology on July 2, 2020 and can be found at doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

    1. On 2020-07-05 18:52:28, user Kamran Kadkhoda wrote:

      Neigher Abbott nor the authors used well pedigreed serum samples from patients recently infected with common coronaviruses . this means the specificity arm of the study is very well biased and essentially hundred percent is neither mathematically nor statistically possible.

    1. On 2020-08-11 11:14:29, user One bird one cup wrote:

      Limited evidence to support effectiveness of quarantine? <br /> SARS: 8,098 cases worldwide. About 5300 in China. "Most included trials had poor design, reporting and sparse events." No difference between N95 and surgical masks? <br /> I'm not buying this.

    1. On 2020-08-11 14:13:04, user Randy Von Fistenburg wrote:

      Has this type of study not already been performed in other countries before this? It was my understanding that results of such studies from countries whose initial wave hit earlier than UK, concluded no increased risk for those with HIV infection (on ARV treatment). It would seem that government health officials, NHS patient advice and statements from HIV organisations and charities were entirely wrong when, at the start of the lockdown period, they assured public the complete opposite was the case: As long as those infected with HIV were taking ARV medication then they did not have increased mortality risk compared to rest of population. I remember a small study done in Barcelona and a larger one in China both seemed to indicate no increased risk, but I find it highly irresponsible for advice from official sources that was then used to make policy on what was considered high risk groups and organisation of shielding and other provisions and protections , not be backed up by research such as this study to be absurd - Its outrageous for these for these statements and advice to have been offered in the first place!

    1. On 2020-08-13 08:17:50, user Blanket Box wrote:

      This paper fails to define what constitutes a Covid "case" and so the statistics are essentially meaningless. There are multiple problems with national "case" data, including multiple swabs from one person being counted as multiple unique "cases", and serology (antibody) tests being counted as "cases" . However the major problem with "case" counts is that PCR testing creates cases. PCR does not verify presence of viable virus. The virus is not isolated. PCR amplifies viral RNA. However, people recovered from Covid shed inactive viral fragments for around 3 months. These are detectable by PCR and create false positive results - which are counted as "cases". The test is quite literally creating the cases. The number of PCR amplification cycles selected by the operator will determine the number of positive tests. More cycles will manufacturer more RNA and result in more positive results and therefore more cases. There is no peer reviewed methodology for determining how many cycles because the PCR test is not a diagnostic test and should not be used as such. One of the foundational principles of diagnosis is that the usefulness of a lab test is measured by how frequently the test results confirm the clinical diagnosis of symptoms by a doctor. Most of these so called “cases” do not represent people diagnosed with any disease or presenting any symptoms. They are positive PCR tests and nothing more. It should not be inferred or implied that a positive PCR test represents a unique individual with an active infection because that is simply not the case.

      Most of the links about PCR test including shedding of inactive virus by recovered people can be found in this article https://www.conservativerev...

      Other useful links are<br /> https://vimeo.com/443416775<br /> https://twitter.com/ussuric...<br /> https://medium.com/@vernunf...

    1. On 2020-07-08 21:52:08, user F Philibert wrote:

      Faulty Data sources were used in this study.

      I question the use of the GVA data, which was generated by an organization with its own agenda, rather than FBI data, which is more accurate but lags behind.

      As well, NICS checks do not represent a one-to-one count against firearms purchases; In most states, <br /> 1. Multiple guns can be purchased on a single NICS background check,<br /> 2. Holders of Carry Permits may not need NICS Checks, and <br /> 3. NICS checks are also performed for other reasons, such as Purchase or Carry Permit issuance or renewal. <br /> To get a proper number for gun purchases, consult data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

      The cause and effect are likely backwards here. Coinciding with the pandemic were riots and civil disturbance, which increased violence, and likely caused a surge in firearms purchases for self protection. Also, with the 2016 election cycle comes the threat of increased Gun Control, and perceived restriction on ability to purchase firearms in the future. Nothing increases a population's desire for an object more than perceived future scarcity. E.g., Toilet Paper at the outset of the pandemic.

      Note also that there was a surge in firearms sales in 2013, with a corresponding DECREASE in crime.

      I find the conclusions of this study to be questionable at best.

    1. On 2020-07-09 05:04:08, user Hesham wrote:

      Based on your validation data (p1 of the supplemental material), you had better sensitivity/LOD for E, N1, and N2 than you did for IP2/IP4. Therefore if you were able to detect IP2/IP4 in the March 12, 2019 samples (Fig 2A in your results), you should have been able to detect E, N1 and N2. But you didn't ! This is not consistent with the presence of SARS-Cov-2 and would never qualify as a positive result.

      I would question the wisdom of publishing such tentative data, especially in the current environment. There are people such as Tom Jefferson of Oxford who are citing your work as "proof" to support outlandish claims about the origins of this virus. I fear this article is causing more harm than good.

    1. On 2020-08-14 09:13:14, user Alexandre Júlio wrote:

      Louis Pasteur taught us the importance of Pasteurization. Against air-borne epidemics, we are needing a safe indoor place to drink & eat. Up-down HEPA laminar flow is a speciality that I knew only in semiconductor clean rooms. Against Covid-19, my faith is going to UHT treated air, cooled to lower than 50ºC by heat-exchange with aspirated air. Further cooling may be provided by humidification with sterilized water and/or heat pump. What are UHT-air parameters used in Japan?

    1. On 2020-08-14 16:20:29, user Paul Gordon wrote:

      Very interesting, thanks for posting. The paper described 649 genomes, but only 253 appear to be in GISAID. Do you know if the remaining genomes will be released? Thanks!

    1. On 2020-07-10 16:14:28, user Copernicus wrote:

      Hosting lectures with many students in an indoor environment, based on recent scientific guidance on small particles, will not be easy and the solution seems to be mostly online. virtual and tutorials. The questions then arises why should students pay high fees. best to delay until next year and let students take a gap year!

    1. On 2020-08-22 13:26:22, user Euan Arnott wrote:

      Very valuable paper! I second the previous enquiry about crew age data, since I suspect that they might be younger than the population average in such a physically demanding job? Ditto the enquiry about WHEN the key Abbott-positive trio were actively sick. Would it be possible to screen the three who were Abbott-positive but neutralising-negative to see if they show specific antibodies to endemic coronaviruses OC43, 299E, NL63, or HKU-1? This might help to understand if a recent non-COVID coronavirus infection reduces the Positive Predictive value (PPV) of the Abbott test (via anti-Nucleoprotein antibody cross-reactivity). Even just a question to the whole crew as to who had ANY cold-type symptoms within the month before sailing might be useful data. Again, a great paper.

    1. On 2021-01-24 19:40:01, user Han-Kwang Nienhuys wrote:

      I have further analyzed the data in fig. 2; the odds ratios (frequency ratio B.1.1.7 / other) grow exponentially with daily growth factors between 1.06 and 1.09 between 6 weeks and 1 week before the of the data (only considering the UK regions where the error bars in Fig. 4 were reasonably small: EE, EMid, London, NEE, SEE, SWE, WMid). For this I need to assume that a fraction of the SGTF cases are 'false positive', since most regions show a constant SGTF rate in October, before taking off with exponential growth.

      Also notable, genomic analysis in UK SEE, Denmark, Netherlands, and Portugal show consistently growth rates between 7 %/d and 9.4 %/d with only Denmark showing a slowdown (from 12 %/d to 7 %/d).

      Also, one would expect the odds ratio to grow exponentially over time if there are just two competing variants, each with their own transmissibility or reproduction number. However, the other strains that make up everything else than B.1.1.7 are likely to have slightly different transmissibilities. Over time, one would expect the transmissibility to drift to higher values, also among those other strains. The fact that the odds ratio growth rate is decreasing does not necessarily mean that the B.1.1.7 is getting less infectious; rather, the mixture of other strains could be getting more infectious over time, just because the contributions of the less infectious ones in the mix gradually decreases.

      Summarizing: I believe that 6 %/d is an estimate that is significantly too low.

      For graphs of my analysis, please see https://twitter.com/hk_nien... .

    1. On 2021-01-26 07:48:38, user Oliver Kumpf wrote:

      This is an interesting study. Regarding some analyses I would be interested in the distribution of organ dysfunction. Were vasopressor-free days and pulmonary-support-free days equally distributed in the therapy vs control cohorts? What were the age groups who profited most? Younger patients were much more likely to survive as is represented in the suplementary material. The Kaplan-Meier curves were without statiscal analysis. Was there a statistically significant difference between pooled IL-6Ra treated patients and controls? What is the number needed to treat. This therapy is expensive and especially in countries with restricted ressources it would almost be impossible to use such treatment.

    2. On 2021-01-21 15:04:47, user CB Bass wrote:

      Been saying this for 9 months but Ignored by all MSM outlets. Our published study found that the culprit in the cytokine storm and Covid severity is IL-6. Guess what else? Your gut bacteria- specifically Bifidobacterium regulate IL-6. This is why we are not seeing severe cases of covid in children. They have much higher concentrations of Bifidobacterium in their guts than adults do and it down regulates IL-6 which is pro inflammatory, while up regulates interferon and IL-10 which are anti inflammatory.

      Also a study coming out of Hong Kong university last week not only confirmed what our Initial study and discovery showed, it found that patients with Covid severity had deficiencies in Bifidobacterium.

      Here is a summary of our study if you’d like to read more on how IL-6 plays a major role in Covid severity in high risk individuals.

      https://www.worldhealth.net...

    1. On 2021-01-29 18:20:06, user Neal wrote:

      I think it's worth looking at institutional conflict-the possibility that the institution that they work for has received major donations from interests that have some potential financial gain possible from negative results for Ivermectin. That would explain the strange results and methodologies of this study, such as 1. Including large studies as having "no data" 2. Selective negative individual outcomes from trials which did have positive results 3. Meta-analysis showing the exact opposite conclusion.

      In an age when medical science may be highly corrupted by financial inducements, this needs to be scrutinized carefully. There are all too many "studies" or "Meta-analyses" that seem to have strange data, especially when an inexpensive treatment or prophylaxis threatens an expensive one.

    2. On 2021-02-24 19:02:08, user George Orwell wrote:

      The findings of this review are an outlier, in stark contrast to the rest - those produced by the WHO, FLCCC, EBM-C, and @CovidAnalysis. This pre-print says the studies considered had "7412 participants" but only reported mortality data on under two hundred of them. Even then, it shows Ivermectin reduced mortality (logRR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.70, p = 0.04), but reported Ivermectin was "not associated" with reduced mortality.<br /> It excluded the vast majority of the FORTY-ONE clinical trials with results, 18 published, the rest in preprint, .<br /> So even though the authors reported on a small fraction of a small fraction of the results, they still found significant improvement in the most important and elusive metric of all to show improvement in, mortality. But nonetheless, they reported this as a negative finding.<br /> As is widely reported, "The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 41 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000045)."

    3. On 2021-02-01 15:59:31, user Victoria Gates wrote:

      What about the studies done by the FLCCC Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance? They present strong evidence to the contrary.

    4. On 2021-02-02 16:30:41, user Martha Albertson wrote:

      This is a poorly-designed study that looked at very few trials of ivermectin. The authors picked the studies that portrayed ivermectin in the worst light and ignored the many studies showing that ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for Covid-19. I wonder who funded this study. Ivermectin is so much more effective than the expensive treatments promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. I can't imagine this biased study will survive peer review.

    1. On 2021-01-29 22:05:04, user José Raymond Herrera wrote:

      It's about the predictable anti-inflammatory effect of Colchicine. I don't know if it's better than Dexamethasone already proved useful in those cases. In any event, we're talking about cheap drugs not promoted by big pharma...

    2. On 2021-01-30 17:36:26, user Olga Rebrova wrote:

      For the primary outcome P=0.0492 (Yates corrected Chi-sq.), authors do not mention which Chi-sq. test they used. Odds ratio is unappropriate measure for RCT. RR have to be used instead, and it's upper limit of 95% CI is 0.999. Adding 1 patient dramatically changes the conclusion.

    1. On 2021-01-29 22:20:14, user Britt-Marie Halvarsson wrote:

      Hi!

      Very interesting paper and I am very grateful of your transparency with code and data!

      However, I find it a bit problematic that the corrected R0's are not very normally distributed. Do you have a comment on that?

      Best Regards,<br /> Britt-Marie Halvarsson

    1. On 2021-01-31 17:34:25, user Paul Hunter wrote:

      Very misleading analyses in this paper and the conclusions and recommendations that the authors make are not supprted by their data. How can the say “The decrement in<br /> incidence was evident from day 18 after first dose” and then estimate efficacy using data from days when they know that vaccine was not yet working. What they have shown is by three weeks after injection a single dose of Pfizer gives about 80 to 90% protection

    2. On 2021-01-29 18:28:35, user hlritter wrote:

      The stated 51% reduction in daily incidence reflects only that half as many cases occurred in the second 12 days as in the first 12. But that does not take into account the fact that the curves don't begin to diverge until 6 days into the second 12-day interval. What's important is the improvement in incidence that occurs after immunity develops, not after the halfway point to some arbitrary date. It appears that only about 1/6 as many new cases occurred in the 6 days after the onset of relative immunity at Day 6 as occurred in any 6-day interval prior to this. This supports an efficacy in the range of 80%-85%, not 51%.

    3. On 2021-02-06 06:12:34, user Scott Huffman wrote:

      So what exactly was the n value in the non-vaccinated group, and what was the n value in the vaccinated group? How was a positive case defined? Was it merely a positive PCR test, or was it an actual symptomatic case where a person was sick? And importantly, what was the average cycle rate of the PCR testing? What is the Absolute Risk Reduction? What's the NNT? These are legitimate questions that must be asked. The answers should be very simple.

    1. On 2021-06-19 15:42:33, user TB wrote:

      The data in Figure one is duplicated. The 'left orbitofrontal cortex (thickness)' data is the exact same at the 'left superior insula' data.

    1. On 2021-02-03 07:20:39, user Bildung Aber Sicher CH wrote:

      This study failed to mention school autumn holidays. The data they have is, in reality, from a period of low community transmission (not high as they mention) because the 2 weeks holidays coincide with the start of the second wave in the canton. <br /> The sampling starts a week after school resumed, therefore too early to for cluster build up in schools/classes, especially when looking at antibodies which will only appear some weeks after infection.

      It also didn't consider any new studies as references, when plenty was available that contradicts their assumptions and conclusions at the time of publication.

    1. On 2021-02-06 06:55:29, user kdrl nakle wrote:

      Non-randomized comparison of apples to oranges (dosages, numerous differences in groups etc). Too small samples for so many variables.

    1. On 2021-02-09 15:58:51, user David Curtis wrote:

      I don't get it. Mendelian randomisation is supposed to test a causal relationship between two phenotypes. Here, you seem to be saying that your results demonstrate that smoking has a causal effect on depression and that depression has a causal effect on smoking. I don't see how you distinguish this from the alternative explanation - that there are genetic variants which increase risk of both smoking and depression. How do you distinguish causal effects from a simple genetic correlation?

    1. On 2021-02-11 03:05:16, user Another Concerned Resident wrote:

      Interesting study! Where can we find the supplementary materials? I'd like to check the ITT Table 1 because the PP Table 1 shows significant baseline differences.

      A few questions:<br /> - Could you explain why you did not opt for placebo control and double blind?<br /> - What were the serology results performed at day 28?<br /> - You mention "COVID-19 infection occurred in 94% measured by RT-PCR". How were the extra 6% diagnosed?<br /> - Do you have any data on adverse events?<br /> - For the primary outcome: do you have any information on the reasons for admission?

      Thanks

    1. On 2021-02-11 15:28:29, user Robert Olinski wrote:

      You are speaking about Ct values that are not part of clinical diagnostics. What were clinical symptoms of people post-vaccination with decreased viral load? Does it mean that the vaccination did not prevent infection?

    2. On 2021-02-20 15:56:24, user Howard Gu wrote:

      It is surprising that vaccination only reduces the viral load by 4 folds. However, this could be due to the research design. Only the high viral loads are detectable and thus included in the calculation of viral load reduction. Vaccinated people might get infected but have good immune responses effectively suppressing the viral replication. This could result in 400 or 4000 folds lower viral loads which may not be detectable and thus considered not infected and not included in the calculation of viral load reduction.

    1. On 2021-02-14 11:49:33, user Rafael Green wrote:

      Hi,<br /> I looked at world_mortality.csv, summed the deaths by year and got this result:<br /> 2015 15747474<br /> 2016 17246133<br /> 2017 17689889<br /> 2018 16674370<br /> 2019 18004246<br /> 2020 20926842<br /> How are you explaining the decreasing in the number of deaths in 2018?<br /> Thanks,

    1. On 2021-02-15 20:44:04, user Ro H wrote:

      South Asians as a group, especially first generation (citizens or immigrants), regardless of income level, are less likely to voluntarily get tested or go to the doctor unless theyre really sick. People with mild to moderate disease are unlikely to get tested but will self isolate and quarantine. This is a cultural thing observed in great Britain also. This means that their positivity rates will be higher as only the really sick get tested and a higher percentage will be hospitalized. Its interesting that their death rates are lower though. Im a part of this south Asian community in New York and this is what I've experienced with family and friends.

    1. On 2021-02-17 17:12:29, user Tim Pollington wrote:

      Dear Epke and colleagues,

      I would like to share some comments following reading your (v. relevant) paper on impact of COVID on VL in India at the country level. This is the second time I've commented on a preprint like this on medrxiv, and shared an 'open review' so I hope you receive it in the spirit it was intended. As I'm interested in doing similar studies your manuscript was relevant to me. And since I am funded by BMGF I thought it would be a waste of my funded time if I do not share these thoughts with you too, especially since you're at the preprint/pre-accepted stage.

      I thought the paper could benefit from an additional author who has field experience of the IRS/ACD activities occurring there to back-up your assumption that "no IRS and ACD take place and that only passive case detection" during an interruption.

      Given that the role of Asx in infecting others is still debated (some say recent xeno shows near zero contribution while ours last year did fit estimates consistently when relative Asx infectiousness of 0,1 or 2% were used), your use of the models E1 & E0 is a smart move to err on the cautious side.

      Model structure and quantification section<br /> Thanks for much for following best practice and using PRIME-NTD. It is the first time I have seen it and I definitely plan to use it in my next modelling publication and also when initially planning a model re engagement with policymakers.

      Given that the model runs for 30 years has population growth been taken into account?

      Impact assessment section<br /> Although adding incidence rates in the same period is acceptable, as events share the same 'person time at risk' denominator (and if the events are mutually exclusive), I'm not sure if epidemiologically it's a correct calculation to sum up rates over the 30 years since the population will be changing in this time and thus the denominators are changing. Perhaps one can convert it into absolute cases in each year and then sum those up?

      Discussion section - First paragraph<br /> It may help the reader if more emphasis was made on how a 1-year impacted delay by describing how it is amplified. ie How just one year interruption causes growth which needs to be curtailed before it turns over and falls, and the excess cases this generates. This concept of amplification could be strengthened.

      Second paragraph<br /> "80% of [VL-endemic???] sub-districts..." Did this cover just Bihar or all 4/5? endemic states.

      Third paragraph<br /> I think mortality rates are really relevant but can understand your caution re scant data. I think it's so important now considering the 1%CFR 2021-2030 target. Could this independent review help provide some rough estimates from pages 12-15 & 40? <br /> Even rough estimates from your model on excess VL cases and when they would likely be seen in the coming years, could be a useful starting place for resource planning of drugs.

      I think a caveat needs to be noted that this analysis is country-level whereas the threshold targets are at the block-level, to avoid the reader making an ecological fallacy.

      I hope that helps and also encourage you to comment on my work if I get to that stage!

      All the best, Tim.

    1. On 2021-02-24 01:18:23, user algebra wrote:

      Anecdotes of people who had Covid months ago and got the vaccine are alarming. Acquaintances report the side effects of the second shot were worse than the disease itself. Are these people reporting their reactions? No they just tough it out. They were told to expect side effects. How many of them are out there? Does anybody know? <br /> My own physician has been hearing some of these stories and suggests waiting.

    2. On 2021-02-02 22:45:20, user Elizabeth McNally wrote:

      We are running similar ELISA assays after vaccination and not seeing this same robust IgG response. I would like to see more data prior making any recommendations about deviating from the vaccination protocols followed in the clinical trials.

    1. On 2021-02-24 03:55:43, user kdrl nakle wrote:

      Your samples are too small and IQR are too much overlapping to derive any conclusions. Go for bigger samples and perhaps you'll get something of it.

    1. On 2021-03-02 08:33:10, user Miroslava Zeliznakova wrote:

      I am so disgusted how this research was done. The ethical principles were not followed. People didnt know that research is taking place, they were not informed about it. They were forced to test otherwise they have been threatened by government that they can't come out of their house, go to work, post office etc... I am from Slovakia and so many people suffered in hands of the government and i am surprised this study states the participants consent was gained. You should now do another study about how situation is in Slovakia now. Many people had got infected during mass antigen testing actually.

    2. On 2021-03-07 09:48:53, user Pencroft wrote:

      • voluntary? Yes, it was voluntary testing. As it is described in the article itself. There were (and there are) restrictions applied regarding the COVID pandemic as they are applied elsewhere in the world. Those who preferred somehow reduced level of them were required to prove that they are not infected. This type of the test or PCR one were accepted.<br /> There was no punishment by law for not taking part in this type of testing.
      • written consent?<br /> As long as the researchers evaluate output and other public data and are not the ones who performs the test on their own as a part of their research, what is the base for requiring written consent? Those are 2 separate activities.
    3. On 2021-01-19 18:29:14, user Monika J. wrote:

      As a Slovak citizen I can tell your that they are NOT telling the whole truth. Your can fact check my every single word.<br /> They claim that the testing was not obligatory... NOT TRUE<br /> People where forced to attend this mass testing. Prime minister admitted that they forced us to do this on the Press conference. Our Human rights where oppresed. Without negative test certificate your couldnt go to work, bank, post Office, all shops denied you to enter their premises. All services where denied to your without certificate. Even some doctors refused to treat patients without cerificate. You could only go to grocery store, pharmacy and drugstore without certificate. There were some exceptions, but not important. Some employers called the police on employees who wanted to go to work (they where healthy, had no symptoms) but didnt hlave the certificate. A lot of employees were fired, because they refused to get tested.

      Lets talk about the study. They claim that they have participant conset.... NOT TRUE we havent sign anythig. Nobody informed people what kind of test they are using, who will hlave their samples afterwards, who will procesed their personal information..yes they hlave our personal numer and wrote some information from our ID....we dont know which information they collected.

      Thay claim that tests where done ONLY by profesionals.. NOT TRUE. Tests where done by non medical personnel too - in some cities - those people braged about it on Facebook. There is NO name of person who tested you. You can not check if this person <br /> is profesionall or not.<br /> In some cities testing was done outside. People where forced to stand for multiple hours in lane just to get tested, in rain, and low tempersture...<br /> I could continue on and on and on....<br /> Now they are going to do the second round od this mass testing. They are again FORCING us to do it Once again. The second round is even worst than the first one. Now they want us to stand in lane to get tested in -10 to -15°C.<br /> Now the police will be controlling us if we have the certificate or not. If your will not have the certificate you will get a fine. And they will oppresed our human rights again. Segregstion od people to two categories is called apartheid and it is illegeal....this is what they are doing. They are creating second category people. First category Has certificate and Can live relatively normaly. Second category is treated like garbage.

    4. On 2021-01-24 11:43:28, user Zdenko Ontek wrote:

      I have to express myself as a citizen of the Slovak Republic. Several points in the research conditions do not agree with reality. Test subjects did not sign informed consent or instruction. It is also untrue to claim that testing was voluntary. The Government of the Slovak Republic created direct and indirect pressure, for example, through employers, who conditioned the entry of their employees into the workplace by passing testing. I note that the translation is machine, so I apologize for the English. Affected citizen of the Slovak Republic.

    1. On 2021-03-03 22:58:04, user Dan Elton wrote:

      The data from Phase, I, II, and III and our prior scientific knowledge on vaccines like this one indicate this vaccine is very safe and effective. It also appears to be our best weapon against the B.1.351 variant. US taxpayers have already footed the bill for 110 million doses and it's very likely millions of doses have already been produced. The US FDA should ask Novavax to submit all the data they have collected so far and their EUA application immediately and then the FDA should work overtime to approve it within a week in order to save lives. The FDA should also allow the vaccine to be pre-distributed to ensure the vaccine gets to at-risk groups as quickly as possibe. With 1,000+ people dying every day, we must act quickly to save lives! The status-quo is dangerous - the vaccine by contrast is very safe and will save lives!

    1. On 2021-03-05 23:06:05, user Minga wrote:

      Several authors omitted to declare known links of interest with pharmaceutical firms. <br /> One of them declare not least than 24 pages of links with pharmaceutical firms on this official website : https://transparence.sante...., and nothing here. Such an offense to integrity put serious doubts about this pre-print.

    2. On 2021-01-15 14:29:13, user Serge Richard wrote:

      Would you please inform the financial Interest Links between these authors and the pharmaceutical compagnies involved in the drugs refered to ?

    3. On 2021-01-16 00:11:22, user Sandrine_G ???????? ???????? wrote:

      All the people involved and mentioned above have the duty (and the obligation, for the French) to declare their conflicts of interest. Make them obey the law. Thank you !

      Toutes les personnes impliquées et citées en haut ont le devoir (et l'obligation, pour les français) de déclarer leurs conflits d'intêret. Obligez les à respecter la loi. Merci

    1. On 2021-03-06 11:40:17, user Patti wrote:

      I had Covid back in October 2020, I still hane no smell or little to no taste. The feeling in my nose is driving me nuts - I call it a vortex or the feeling I have when I take a breath is like a upside down tornado - it feels like clean air and yet sometimes burns. I have used nasal saline but doesn’t seem to do anything. Also slight blood when I blow my nose.

    2. On 2021-01-05 14:01:12, user Lianna Martin wrote:

      Hiya - I had suspected covid 11th March and still can barely smell. My nasal passage more recently has become painfully crusted up coinciding with most things with a strong smell coming across like bleach or petrol to me. Taste comes and goes. I can live with symptoms, but would love to be part of a study...

    1. On 2021-03-08 08:44:37, user CD wrote:

      "Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring how members of these known 501Y lineages, and others still undiscovered, are convergently evolving similar strategies to ensure their persistence in the face of mounting infection and vaccine induced host immune recognition ..."

      The statement above makes it appear as if the SARS-cov-2 chooses where to mutate to escape host immunity, which is not the case. The pressure is put on the virus and mutations occur randomly, resulting in escape variants and some resulting in weaker variants

    1. On 2021-03-14 10:34:35, user KalleMP wrote:

      There are a number of data errors in this report. Having looked at 5 of the original 25 papers listed here I find that errors that are significant have been made in at least 4 of them.

      The Turkey values are 75.5% deficient and 16.61nmol/l median instead of the listed 70nmol/l.

      Bosnia reads 24.4% and should be 60.6% (their mean is 48.25nmol/l)

      Italy reads 33.3% but a weighted average is closer to 30.7%<br /> Italy has used values from the highest performing Vitamin-D region and compared them to the national CoViD-19 figures which are accepted to be low.

      Finland has used the native Finnish values and compared them to the national CoViD-19 figures which include immigrants who are more deficient yet represent a larger portion of the CoViD-19 figures.

    1. On 2021-03-17 10:44:27, user Krisantha Weerasuriya wrote:

      If there was the opportunity, a small simultaneous blood sample from the mother to measure the COVID19 antibodies would have provided further useful information.

      Would it be possible with covering permission from the Ethical Committee to do a simultaneous blood sample for COVID 19 antibodies from mother and baby at 3 months (or the most appropriate time)?

    1. On 2021-03-17 10:51:20, user D Greenwood wrote:

      The trials registry protocol suggests n=507 symptomatic cases would be recruited and followed up, to "characterise prevalence and severity of organ volume change and damage in patients recovering from COVID-19 disease". Yet the preprint appears to focus on n=201 individuals still "symptomatic after recovery" and it is therefore not surprising that nearly 100% of them report symptoms, as this appears to be the eligibility criteria for the paper. Either that, or a substantial deviation from the published protocol. I therefore agree with previous comments on the importance of clarifying the recruitment process and inclusion/exclusion criteria so we know what the denominator is here. There is some benefit in knowing what the % of organ damage is in people with continuing symptoms, but the crucial question that health services and strategic leaders need to know is what this is as a % of all cases, or at least as a % of symptomatic cases. I hope that a revised version of this paper will make that clearer.

    1. On 2021-03-18 09:12:13, user Bernhard Brodowicz wrote:

      The summary in the last paragraph of discussion states: 'On the contrary, we found a significant, slightly increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which, however, was attenuated when taking account of older children in the same household.' The first paragraph of the discussion however is stating 'The risk of infection was amplified with increasing number of young children living in the household, but the overall association was attenuated when excluding households with older children.' and figure one, shows an increased risk associated with increasing number of children and increasing age of children.<br /> The wording in the summary (last paragraph of discussion) might be a bit misleading.

    1. On 2021-03-23 18:30:37, user Moshe Elitzur wrote:

      To CL: <br /> Do lockdowns work??

      They certainly do, but we could not prove that decisively because lockdowns were implemented, on average, just before "flattening of the curve" was already occuring. So lockdowns were not put to the test during the first wave.

    1. On 2021-03-23 20:14:18, user Gustavo Bellini wrote:

      Great article, congratulations to everyone involved in this research!

      Could you replicate the tests by adding sufficient levels of vitamin D to these cells? I believe that the behavior of macrophages in this case can be changed from the pro-inflammatory pathway to the anti-inflammatory pathway, thus avoiding the "storm of inflammatory cytokines" and restoring (?) their "normal" phagocytosis behavior.

      Vitamin D has an immunomodulatory action that affects both the innate and the adaptive system.

      Sufficient levels of vitamin D are needed for immune cells to produce IFN-y:<br /> - Vitamin D Is Required for IFN-? – Mediated Antimicrobial Activity of Human Macrophages<br /> https://stm.sciencemag.org/...

      A 2010 study showed that sufficient levels of vitamin D are also necessary for T lymphocytes to be activated correctly:<br /> - Vitamin D crucial to activating immune defenses<br /> https://www.sciencedaily.co...

      Macrophages and dentritic cells have the CYP27b1 gene and are able to transform 25OHD into Calcitriol (the active hormone).

      All immune cells have VDR and are subject to the biological actions of the active form of vitamin D.

      Here are two great recent reviews on the action of vitamin D on immune cells:<br /> - Vitamin D and Immune Regulation: Antibacterial, Antiviral, Anti-Inflammatory<br /> https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm...

      Many studies are showing a significant correlation between vitamin D deficiency and the increased risk for severe symptoms / mortality from Covid. This website lists some of these studies: https://vitamin-d-covid.sho...

      I hope this comment is useful in some way.<br /> Thanks.

    1. On 2021-03-29 21:57:10, user Carl Steinbeisser wrote:

      Great work. Really minor comment: In the acknowledgement only the Grant Agreement number is mentioned not the name of the project. Many IMI projects (and H2020 projects) do mention the name of the project too. Suggest to add the project name EHDEN.

    1. On 2021-04-09 12:25:07, user Keish Gonzalez Acosta wrote:

      Hi. I am a breastfeeding mother. I took the JJ vaccine 4 days ago. I am pumping milk. If your team is interested in collecting milk samples after JJ vaccine I would like to participate.

    1. On 2021-04-20 02:03:34, user Hector Moises Chip / Micro Chi wrote:

      By "reasoning" - that is according to Kant's a priori approach - to keep schools open would be a source of virus transmission. Basically because in spite of gathering "in bubbles", it breaks the gold epidemiologic principle of social distancing, particularly difficult in youngsters besides the fact that they wander (usually) in several unchecked other bubbles... Also there are on the empiric side, cases of intra school viral circulation that the present article has not searched . The whole script is therefore incomplete enough to draw firm conclusions. In any case, it would mean to stay in the prudent side, which is do not open school if the sanitary system is on crisis.

    1. On 2021-05-10 06:59:28, user Maria Ban wrote:

      The 42% protection after first dose is not a very good protection. How about protection from severe Covid after first dose, is it higher? The reason for my question is that I am not allowed to have a second dose (due to severe allergic reaction) and I fear that I will have to avoid other people for ever.

    1. On 2021-05-14 10:40:29, user NABIL ABID wrote:

      i am really happy to be part of this project, including more than 100 African researchers. Thanks to all collaborators to provide high quality paper.

    1. On 2021-05-14 15:19:36, user Misha Kogan wrote:

      First controlled trial! Excellent news. Our real life experience with no funding is not so far off. At GWCIM over last 3 years 15 patients who stayed with program demonstrated 70% response rate with 4 patients showing very significant improvement. Funding is a key. Of 44 patients who came through out clinic most dropped out due to cost and logistics.

    1. On 2020-11-21 23:33:56, user VirusWar wrote:

      Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Scientific chief of WHO explained on ECCVID conference that in Solidarity trial, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was widely used in Standard of Care group, despite rules said it should not. She said they had to do some "adjustment" but this doc don't talk about this issue or any adjustment.

      Dosage of Hydroxychloroquine is also far too high and patients in that group are worse at entry than the one in supposed "control" group.<br /> There is a big issue in mortality graph over time in Figure 2a for remdesivir : death rate at 28 days is supposed to be 11% but graph shows it at 13%

      It is odd to compare HCQ against HCQ

    2. On 2020-11-25 16:37:17, user Duke Pham wrote:

      The main flaws of #solidarity #study can be found here : <br /> https://c19study.com/solida...

      HCQ dosage very high as in RECOVERY, 1.6g in the first 24 hours, 9.6g total over 10 days, only 25% less than the high dosage that Borba et al. show greatly increases risk (OR 2.8) [1].

      Authors state they do not know the weight or obesity status of patients to analyze toxicity (since they do not adjust dosage based on patient weight, toxicity may be higher in patients of lower weight).

      KM curves show a spike in HCQ mortality days 5-7, corresponding to ~90% of the total excess seen at day 28 (a similar spike is seen in the RECOVERY trial).

      Almost all excess mortality is from ventilated patients.

      Authors refer to a lack of excess mortality in the first few days to suggest a lack of toxicity, but they are ignoring the very long half-life of HCQ and the dosing regimen - much higher levels of HCQ will be reached later. Increased mortality in Borba et al. occurred after 2 days.

      An unspecified percentage used the more toxic CQ. No placebo used.<br /> [1] c19study.com/borba.html<br /> death, ?19.0%, p=0.23


      According to scientific studies, #hydroxychloroquine is efficient against #covid19. <br /> This website lists all the studies (positive or negative) : www.c19study.com. <br /> Majority of the 181 studies show a reduced #mortality and #severity in the disease with patients treated with #HCQ.

    1. On 2020-12-03 18:13:15, user Nicholas Lewis wrote:

      In general the reasoning and modelling in the original (July<br /> 29, 2020) paper seemed sound to me., in fact I thought it was an excellent<br /> paper. The revised (October 29, 2020) version of this paper makes the argument about<br /> varying heterogeneity rather more clearly than did the original version,<br /> although I found the explanations rather too sketchy in some places.

      However, it appears to me that – if I understand it<br /> correctly – the revised version introduces some unsupported and unreasonable changes<br /> in assumption, which should be reversed.

      In particular, the argument that short term overdispersion has<br /> an effect on the overall epidemic dynamics is insufficiently explained and not substantiated.<br /> It is far from obvious why that should be the case, although superspreading<br /> events may affect its very early stages.

      Persistent heterogeneity is quantified by reference to the<br /> characteristics of contact networks, which "are remarkably robust"<br /> and set the value of nu at approximately<br /> 1, implying lambda = 3 (page 6 of the October 29 version). It is accordingly illogical to work on the basis that an individual's number of contacts changes significantly over time, which is what your Eq.[20] and related assumptions appear to imply. In the<br /> absence of such changes, the assumed original susceptibility gamma distribution<br /> will remain gamma distributed with unchanged CV (but lower mean) as the<br /> epidemic progresses [Montalban and Gomes arXiv:2008.00098v1]. No evidence is<br /> given that, by the time that there is sufficient data to model the evolution of<br /> the epidemic, any initial heterogeneity overdispersion will affect the inferred<br /> epidemiological parameters.

      One way the supposed 'short term overdispersion' effect could<br /> arise is if a person who is highly connected and, as a result, becomes infected<br /> early in the epidemic thereafter tends thereafter to have fewer contacts, so<br /> that his inability (after recovering) to infect others has less effect on<br /> slowing the future epidemic, while other (uninfected) people on average have<br /> more contacts than previously. However, such an assumption would seem<br /> unjustifiable, save perhaps to a small extent, given the robustness of contact<br /> networks.

      I accept that such an effect could perhaps arise from (say) week-to-week<br /> fluctuations in the number of contacts someone has, with their being more<br /> likely to be infected during a week with an unusually high number of contacts,<br /> and possibly being more likely to have more contacts in their following<br /> infectious period. I think that may be what the paper is arguing, although if<br /> so it is not very clearly explained. But, if so, surely that would apply<br /> throughout the epidemic wave rather than being time varying? In connection with<br /> this, you state (page 6) that delta-lambda(t') decreases with time, but it is<br /> not clear to me from Eq.[19] why it should do so, given that there is (and<br /> should be) no assumption that the delta-alpha_i values decrease over time.

      Further, the change to assuming zero, rather than modest,<br /> biological heterogeneity in susceptibility is unjustifiable and should be<br /> reversed. Given that individuals vary as to their immune system memory and general<br /> effectiveness, due to differences in age, genetic factors, health status and<br /> life history, they are bound to vary in their ability to resist infection by<br /> SARS-CoV-2, as stated in the July 29 version. The assumed level of biological heterogeneity in susceptibility in the July 29 version, of lamba_b = 1.3, was – as stated<br /> there – a conservative level. It should be reverted to.

    1. On 2020-12-11 10:13:56, user Marina Pollán wrote:

      Please, notice that a new version of this paper, including additional information, has been accepted and published in the British Medical Journal:<br /> doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4509<br /> Prof. Marina Pollán in the name of all the authors

    1. On 2020-12-15 10:58:41, user NK wrote:

      Re: article pre-published at https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

      There are several methodological problems in this study.

      1. Findings that suggest increased ORs among primary school teachers, child care workers and secondary education teachers are not properly presented and discussed

      The summary states: "Teachers had no or only moderately increased odds of COVID-19". This finding is mentioned several places in the text of the article. Teachers are repeatedly referred to as having a low risk, even when the results for teachers show a significant increase in admissions and borderline significant increase in infection rates. Quotes: «First, our findings give no reason to believe that teachers are at higher risk of infection», and in the conclusion: “Teachers had no increased risk to only a moderate increased risk of COVID-19”. We wonder why the authors find it important to repeatedly mention this<br /> result for teachers when the result for the last period does not exclude a substantial increased risk for teachers, whereas occupational groups with lower risk than teachers are not mentioned in the summary.

      The part of “Supplementary table 1” does not provide a basis for such a conclusion that teachers are a low risk group.

      The OR (95% CI) for 1) primary school teachers 2), child care workers and 3) secondary education teachers were 1.142 (0.99-1.32), 1.145 (1.02-1.29) and 1.095 (0.82-1.47) respectively. The upper confidence limits does not exclude 29 % to 47 % increased ORs, which represent substantial increases.

      Concerning the results on the risk of admission, it is stated: «None of the included occupations had any particularly increased risk of severe COVID-19, indicated by hospitalization, when compared with all infected in their working age (Figure 3, S-table 2), apart from dentists, who had 7 ( 2-18) times increased odds ratio, and pre-school teachers, child care workers and taxi, bus and tram drivers who had 1-2 times increased odds ratio”.

      This finding is not discussed or mentioned in the summary, even if the findings were statistically significant for pre-school teachers as well as for child care workers.

      1. The study periods include periods when the schools were closed and include no period with high infection rate among children and youths.

      It is not to be expected that teachers have higher infection rates than the average working population in periods when school are closed and when the infection rates are low in the age groups 0 - 9 and 10 -19 years. This problem is not discussed in the paper. Schools were closed from 12 March to 27 April. For a majority of the schools, holiday started from Friday 19 June.

      The first study period lasted from February 27 to July 17. Thus, schools were closed for over 70 days of the first study period of 139 days. The infection rates in children at school age in the first study period were rather low (3.6 per 100 000 children per week between in the age group 10 -19 in week 19, 1.1 per 100 0000 children per week in week 25). In the last study period, the infection rates varied between 7 to 17 per 100 000 per week in the age group 10 - 19. Even if these rates are much lower than later weeks that were no studied (after week 42), the results from this second part of the study suggest an increased risk for teachers.

      Thus, the infection rates among children started to increase from week 43, after the end of the study period. By not including this period, the study design excludes the possibility to detect if these high rates among pupils could be related to increase infection rates among teachers.

      It is a problem that the results from this pre-published study has been quoted in the media and referred to as if teachers have no excess risk, or even possibly a reduced risk at the time that several municipalities were to decide what type of restrictions at schools should be introduced to reduce the risk of transmission among school children, see https://www.barnehage.no/korona/ny-forskning-nei-barnehagelaerere-har-ikke-okt-risiko-for -smitte/211143

    1. On 2020-12-21 18:08:41, user Michael Schrader wrote:

      Very helpful study.<br /> Just a short comment on table: With 35 patients, precision is not better than +- one patient, corresponding to +-2.9 %. It is thus confusing to claim percentages with 4 digits like 97.12 %.

    1. On 2020-12-24 07:31:39, user K Cornwell wrote:

      Well done on your study. It is because of doctors who go the extra mile in the fight against this terrible virus. That we find that some of our medicines which may have been around for many years are having a significant impact on the treatment and recovery times. Let hope that the vaccines are enough to create some immunity across the countries and the treatment algorithms improve with better research.

    1. On 2020-12-25 16:40:49, user Mukesh Bairwa wrote:

      A novel topic chosen for systematic review and meta-analysis have medical implication for developing countries. The research question and search strategy is very clear and understandable. The results are quite impressive that M health intervention is helpful to improve the maternal and child health indicators in developing countries. The methodology is crisp and concise and readable. The work included the important parameters related to maternal and child health indicators. However, I suggest authors to include many other relevant parameters in future work.

    1. On 2021-01-03 22:32:54, user Rodger Kram wrote:

      Overall, I find this analysis to be interesting and well-conducted.

      I would add Hunter et al. to the list of papers reporting improved running economy with neoteric Nikes. <br /> https://www.tandfonline.com...

      Iain's treadmill was a bit slippery in the Vaporflys and I bet that accounts for their slightly lower savings.

      minor points: <br /> Line 26 tongue in cheek: I know Joyner is prescient but how did he know in 1985 that he would be fascinated in 2019? Likewise for Hoogkamer 2017.

      Line 42 (13) is a great paper but an odd reference here, Tung et al. would make more sense.<br /> Line 53 "led to" assumes cause-effect, horse before cart<br /> Line 82 doesn't really matter here but such directional hypotheses make 1-tailed tests legit. I am a proponent of directional hypoths<br /> Line 177 "moderated" seems like the wrong word here. plus "strongly moderated" seems like an oxymoron. like "mildly enthusiastic"<br /> Line 188-189 "average" but then "median" values are given.<br /> Line 209 cold temps too!<br /> Line 281 where does 1.5% come from? I thought the mean was 2%?<br /> Line 284 I would have provided (X%) in addition to the 4minutes since previous sentence was about %,

      Line 301 I list my consulting to Nike on relevant papers, it would seem AJ should do so on this paper.

      Ref (11) is 2020 not 1985

    1. On 2021-01-06 12:33:57, user C'est la même wrote:

      The authors state that there were 25 cases of GBS in London during the sampling period, which would lead to an estimated occurrence rate of 0.82 GBS cases per 1000 COVID-19<br /> infections.<br /> Yet they discount this by citing a claim that 17.5% of individuals London had been infected by that time. We now know that estimate was wildly inaccurate.<br /> Serological survey data collected by the ONS found that prevalence in London was just under 0.4% around that date (https://www.medrxiv.org/con... "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.06.20147348v1)")

      Which works out to around 36,000 people in comparison to the 26,784 PCR confirmed cases. <br /> This would lead to an estimated occurrence rate of ~0.6 GBS cases per 1000 COVID-19 infections which certainly seems suggestive of an association.

      The authors also performed genomic analyses to rule out molecular mimicry due to epitope similarities.

      I'd like to draw attention to the fact that many of the known viral triggers of GBS also do not have evidence of molecular mimic epitopes, instead suggesting other mechanisms of generating autoimmunity including the co-capture hypothesis, (http://www.pnas.org/content... "http://www.pnas.org/content/114/4/734)"), given that spike protein interactions with gangliosides have already been characterised in a substantial number of publications to date.

      As such, while the lower population incidence during the observed period is compelling, that data alone is not enough to rule out the association of GBS with SARS-CoV-2, given the impact of lockdown measures on other infectious causes that happen to have lower infectivity (basic reproduction number) than SARS-CoV-2.

    1. On 2021-01-09 09:39:25, user Dr. Sebastian Boegel wrote:

      This is a wonderful study. Congratulations. I am very honoured that you used my tool, seq2HLA. As seq2HLA also output HLA gene (and allele) expression (normalized to RPKM and the coounts), i am wondering why you additionally used AltHapAlignR for obtaining read counts for HLA genes. Did you experience any issues with seq2HLA? If yes, i am happy to help. <br /> All the best for you and keep up the great work,

      Sebastian

    1. On 2021-01-10 10:09:41, user Disqus wrote:

      Gandini S et al. updated their previous preprint without, however, resolving the<br /> methodological problems, that is the errors already highlighted and the<br /> arbitrariness of most of the conclusions (see comments for the previous version<br /> here https://www.medrxiv.org/con... "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.16.20248134v1)").<br /> In particular in this second version the sample of public institutions increase from 81.6% to 97% of total, for a total of 7,376,698 students, thus it is not clear how on such large numbers one can hope to obtain significantly different or significantly more reliable results from such an update.

      On the other hand Gandini et al. seem to have realized how their analyses suffer from the biases of an ecological study (page 13) though it is incomprehensible how the proposed additional analysis for the Veneto region only can significantly relieve the problem.

      There are still also some gross errors here and there, e.g. although the authors have updated Table 8 by adding the (useless) absolute range of the number of tests per institution, the problem of standard deviations remains, certainly the result of a calculation error being compatible with negative values in the number of tests (e.g. 9-13 = -4 which would represent the lower limit for 1 standard deviation for the number of tests, see Student index case – Kindergarten row)

      Finally, once again in spite of the medRxiv warning, Gandini et al. seem to consider it as a sort of personal press agency, a springboard to relaunch their studies without having to wait for the peer review, so much so that on the fb page of the first author (Gandini S.) a link to the article promptly appeared, the day after it was published on medRxiv

    1. On 2021-01-15 20:36:01, user Yves Muscat Baron wrote:

      Could changes in the airborne pollutant particulate matter acting as a viral vector have exerted selective pressure to cause COVID-19 evolution? Medical Hypotheses DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110401Reference:YMEHY

    1. On 2021-01-17 17:03:45, user kdrl nakle wrote:

      Extremely important result. Shows aerosolization of the virus when it can be cultured from less than 0.5 micron particles, these are definitely aerosol size.

    1. On 2021-01-19 15:51:45, user Alter Ego wrote:

      In the text it is written: "LamPORE reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 to 20 copies/ml of sample. SARS-CoV-2 reads were detected in the 0.2 copies/ml sample but this was below the threshold for calling as positive sample in LamPORE but were not detected via RT-qPCR (Table 1, Figure 3)." - I assume that with "sample" the original saliva or NP sample is meant. If this is true the assay would be amazing .... my question: ins't there an error and it should be written 20 copies/microliter ... and also 0.2 copies/microliter. This would better fit to the rather low sensitivity of the assay in Figure 4 and an overall performance that is rather on the lower side of other LAMP reports where generally a cut of of approx CT=30 has ben reported (corresponding to approx 20'000copes/millilitre. This Figure is otherwise consistent with the idea that the N2 priers are much better than the E1 and ORF1ab primers....

    1. On 2021-01-27 10:19:32, user Fred wrote:

      I am not convinced of the data. Eg for Germany it is presumed that only about 1 of 10 infections is detected. The data I know from Germany say this number ist only 2-4 . So the IFR for Germany would not be O.2% but at least o.4 or even near to 1 %

    1. On 2021-01-31 18:53:06, user Timotheus123 wrote:

      This is clearly not a serious study. No apparant controls for age or comorbidity, no random assignment of treatment or control, an "inverse probability of treatment" adjustment.. etc etc.

      And yet a strong conclusion debunking ivermectin?

      This is NOT science.

    1. On 2021-02-10 17:50:30, user Humanitarian wrote:

      This is a wonderful application of science for common good, I love it. One question is the mass spectrometer affordable and portable to be useful in a surgical environment? It may be early, how much it would cost a surgery department to buy?

    1. On 2021-03-03 01:17:29, user Dawn Christine Khan wrote:

      I am a covid survivor, and said the same. 95 symptoms was incomplete. <br /> I had 150. This is the most comprehensive Long Haul research I have seen. I recommended it for CDC/NIH publication. Community NEEDS this!! May I receive a text or spreadsheet list of symptoms and categorization used? for more information http://www.linkedin.com/in/...

    1. On 2020-10-31 00:01:20, user Joe Feist wrote:

      It is funny that the CDC has issued a statement that wearing masks to filter smoke particles around the california fires isn't recommended because the smoke particles are too small. Yet the particles are at least twice the size of the covid 19 virus particles. Can you offer any explanation?

      Also what do you mean exactly when you say ultra-fine particles? What size ranges?

    1. On 2020-11-06 09:08:27, user Maksim wrote:

      This is a nice point. “ plasma levels of total catechins are at submicromolar level, which is below the effective dose in many in vitro studies, tissue dispositions could be much higher “ (DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.74190). Besides, in the throat (during tea consumption) catechins levels could be much higher, though for a short period of time. (The latter is just a speculative idea to think about).

    1. On 2020-11-17 00:14:37, user Laurence Renshaw wrote:

      Apart from one sentence, this paper does not discuss deaths that are not directly attributable to the disease - for example, it does not appear to consider future deaths caused by the massive economic downturn as a result of people staying at home and businesses failing or downsizing.<br /> So how can it predict that people born in 2020 will expect to live 1 year less? People born in 2020 will certainly not die from Covid19, and the paper does not discuss anything else that could affect their life expectancy.<br /> Even for the over-65 group, how can a 0.1% population fatality rate (let's say that's 0.3 or 0.4% over over-65's) bring down their future life expectancy by several percent?<br /> This paper is very short on methods and data, and very long on conclusions.<br /> It also dismisses the impact of what it refers to as 'harvesting', and claims that few of the Covid19 deaths would have died soon - this contradicts all other studies that I have seen.<br /> It may well be that life expectancy, for those not killed by Covid19, will be reduced for decades to come, due to the economic and social impacts of the virus and our reactions to it (lockdowns and other restrictions), but deaths from the virus itself (a one-time loss of 0.1% of the population, with the vast majority over 70) can only have a tiny impact on life expectancy.

    1. On 2020-11-17 21:24:47, user George wrote:

      The two leading comorbidities associated with COVID-19 mortality, SCD and kidney disease, are mechanistic causes of selenium deficiency. Selenium deficiency is associated with hemolysis in SCD and has been strongly associated with mortality and other outcomes in 4 COVID-19 studies so far. High-dose sodium selenite infusion is safe and well-tolerated in dialysis patients.<br /> Vitamin D and dexamethasone both alter selenoprotein expression, and thus may be ineffective if selenium is deficient.

    1. On 2020-04-03 12:58:04, user Kate wrote:

      How can you find a correlation in an observational study? I'm not even touching on the issue of not controlling for any confounding variable

    2. On 2020-04-04 12:23:52, user Jess wrote:

      Hi...I am a Malaysian & in Malaysia, all newborns hv been vaccinated with BCG since 1961.

      However, you can see fr the statistics that Malaysia is still struggling with Covid.

      I am sorry to inform that this hypothesis needs to be re-evaluated so as not to be over zealous over this.

    3. On 2020-04-04 14:52:54, user jwcross wrote:

      BCG is also used as intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (BC). Since BC is more common among the elderly, it would be interesting to know if BC patients and survivors treated with BCG have a higher survival than age-matched peers and BC patients and survivors who had been given alternative therapies.

    4. On 2020-04-04 19:54:04, user Paul Constantine wrote:

      The first published study on this subject was made by Dr.Mihai Netea. The distinguished researcher is an authority in citokyne storm and he based his research on a correlation of the clinical evolution of SARS 19 in countries where the BCG vaccination is compulsory, i.e. Romania, Germany, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Japan.

    5. On 2020-04-05 21:45:02, user Tom Johnstone wrote:

      There’s a multitude-centre RCT to test the protective effects of the vaccine against Covid-19 in healthcare workers in Australia. https://www1.racgp.org.au/n...

      In the mean time, it would be prudent to remove the causal language from the article and abstract (“reduced”), as any results are purely associations.

    6. On 2020-04-12 00:48:21, user Oleg Gasul wrote:

      I am not sure about data correctness from the countries Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, but all of them have very small number of cases (event zero in Turkmenistan).

      But if we take a look on the map http://www.bcgatlas.org/ there is information that all of them have "Multiple BCG". That I understood the BCG vaccination is carried out several times (After birth, 6-7 yrs and 15 yrs).

    7. On 2020-03-31 05:51:15, user Dmitry Shiryapov wrote:

      Very interesting and promising speculations are reflected in the article. Definitely, some amendments should be done later, in conjunction with the pandemic development in Russian Federation, as a successor of Soviet Union. In any case, the authors have revealed a fertile soil for a number of publications in the future.

    1. On 2020-04-04 03:15:45, user Charles Baker wrote:

      Why are some states peaking in the model almost 30 days behind all the states around them? If you look at virginia and then all the states around them they peak almost a month after. How or why would that be?

    2. On 2020-04-07 14:53:16, user Quinctius Cincinnatus wrote:

      I was glad to see the Imperial College estimate. I'm equally glad to see this work in progress. What happens if only 20% of the population is susceptible to the disease? Diamond Princess had a max of 20% (and no one did a "heat map" of the ship which boggles my mind), Italian hospital workers have a rate of 20% (assuming they have been equally exposed to the virus). We know that the Black Death didn't strike everyone, and it didn't kill everyone it struck. What was the asymptomatic rate used in this study? Did Page four doesn't relay. In Diamond Princess and the Italian village Vo, it appeared to be almost 50%. finally, did anyone look at the potential impact of weather? I suspect Wuhan had more cases than Hong Kong - one reason was the warmer climate. So, as this work in progress continues - it would be good to see those assumptions and look at those variables. .

    1. On 2020-04-04 10:47:57, user Lorenzo Sabatelli wrote:

      Hi Laura, very interesting, thanks for sharing. One thing that may be useful to account for is the differential impact of social distancing on age group mixing, e.g. that could be done by taking into account household demographic structure in Seattle and perhaps finding additional data (or making some assumptions) on the proportion of mixing between age-groups happening at the household level vs. external world. Another thing one could add is a separate group of adults with higher risk of infection and transmission accounting for health workers and other essential workers exposed to the public, e.g. apparently in Italy about 10% of currently diagnosed cases are among healthworkers, and explore the impact of transmission due to healthcare and/or other essential services (e.g. supermarkets, drugstores, etc)

      Lo.

    1. On 2020-04-06 16:17:40, user Maxim Sheinin wrote:

      Given that people dying from Covid-19 are primarily the elderly (60+), and BCG vaccine is given only in childhood, does it make sense to look at the correlation using current status of BCG vaccination? It would seem that status 60+ years ago will be more relevant. This will likely complicate the picture, as many European countries that do not mandate BCG today used to have it in the past, and conversely some other countries have introduce BCG not that long ago (http://www.bcgatlas.org/) "http://www.bcgatlas.org/)").

    1. On 2020-04-07 13:48:42, user Erin Beaver, MS, LCGC wrote:

      I am a genetic counselor. I have been following the ABO COVID19 outcome correlation. I know many are discounting the data because they can’t fathom how ABO is associated with susceptibility to a respiratory pathogen. As a genetic counselor, I started thinking in a genetic linkage type of way and looked to see what was located near ABO blood group genes on chromosome 9. It turns out there is a gene, GBGT1 that sits next to ABO blood group and so this is a relatively conserved haplotype for polymorphisms in those genes. GBGT1 encodes a glycolipid called Forssman glycolic is which is thought in humans to be a major attachment site for pathogen binding to cells. This gene is highly active in lung tissues. I find all of this interesting a something worth investigating, but as a clinical genetic counselor with no access to a research lab, I don’t have the means to investigate my theory that perhaps GBGT1 aka FS glycolipid plays a role in infection from COVID19. Thoughts? Anyone that can look at this relationship?

    2. On 2020-03-26 02:27:01, user Cristian Orrego wrote:

      Its a small sample, right, but it doesnt seem to unvalidate the study. The only thing that i think in this case (if i read it right) that could be wrongly interpreted would be the conclusion. Because the sample of the sick people was obtained in the hospitals, so maybe the O type doesnt have less chance to get the virus, but insted it has less probabilities of develop synthoms that get people into the hospitals. So maybe the virus attack them (O type) with less severity. New studies should get infected people from random tested people among the general population to confirm if the O type gets lower rates of infection or the O type gets lower rates of worsening sympthoms once infected.

    1. On 2020-04-08 03:48:43, user iBonus iBonus wrote:

      The biggest reason why Coronavirus is so easy to spread in the community is that infected persons have an incubation period of about 14 days, and there are no obvious surface symptoms. Many people do not know if they have been in contact with incubators.

      The most effective way to implement the mathematical model is to use the smartphone registration app and also to install dedicated terminals in public places such as a library, cinema, school, and gym to record where and when the citizens have visited.<br /> When a person is reported as virus-infected by medical authorities, the system immediately puts all persons who appear in the same place at the same time as the confirmed patient in the past 14 days into an Alert list and transmits it to all terminals.

      • 10% public participation of our program, will reduce COVID19 spread by 40% <br /> • 30% public participation of our program, will reduce COVID19 spread by 80%

      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

      https://covid2019system.com/

    1. On 2020-04-08 15:02:17, user Dr. Noc wrote:

      I think that we have to be careful to not interpret these results the wrong way. We know that older patients are at higher risk of mortality. By selecting for patients who have recovered from disease, the patient group may be biased toward those who had stronger production of nAbs (especially in the most at-risk group).

      That is to say that, although it may appear that higher titers of nAbs are correlated with the groups that tend to have more severe disease outcomes, that doesn't necessarily mean that nAbs are contributing to the severity of outcomes, but rather that they may reflect a "survivorship" type of bias.

    1. On 2020-03-19 09:12:47, user ReviewNinja wrote:

      ddPCR is a great technique, and can be of value and is less dependent of PCR-effciencies.<br /> However, if you have a qPCR slope -6.3 or -6.5, that means that there is a problem with your qPCR efficiency (<50%!!!).... So, a better primer set, optimized assay conditions, ... are necessary here. <br /> Furthermore, a one-step qPCR is compared with a two-step ddPCR. RT is a very variable factor. So if you want to compare qPCR with ddPCR, almost all factors need to be kept constant (and definitely RT), which is not the case here.

    1. On 2020-03-20 00:15:32, user RKM wrote:

      The second paragraph in bold blue in this article says it all, "yet to be evaluated."

      Is it 2 days, 9 days, do you really know?

      The CDC is telling us this:<br /> https://www.cdc.gov/coronav...

      But research tells us something completely different:<br /> https://www.news-medical.ne...<br /> If you have problems with the following link, then click on the link above and scroll down to the link that says, “The Journal of Hospital Infection.” <br /> https://www.journalofhospit...

    1. On 2020-03-23 03:36:38, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Main findings<br /> The authors performed single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) from 6 COVID-19 patients (n=3 mild cases, n=3 severe cases). Data was compared to previously generated scRNAseq data from healthy donor lung tissue.<br /> Clustering analysis of the 6 patients revealed distinct immune cell organization between mild and severe disease. Specifically they found that transcriptional clusters annotated as tissue resident alveolar macrophages were strongly reduced while monocytes-derived FCN1+SPP1+ inflammatory macrophages dominated the BAL of patients with severe COVID-19 diseases. They show that inflammatory macrophages upregulated interferon-signaling genes, monocytes recruiting chemokines including CCL2, CCL3, CCL4 as well as IL-6, TNF, IL-8 and profibrotic cytokine TGF-b, while alveolar macrophages expressed lipid metabolism genes, such as PPARG. <br /> The lymphoid compartment was overall enriched in lungs from patients. Clonally expanded CD8 T cells were enriched in mild cases suggesting that CD8 T cells contribute to viral clearance as in Flu infection, whereas proliferating T cells were enriched in severe cases.<br /> SARS-CoV-2 viral transcripts were detected in severe patients, but considered here as ambient contaminations.

      Limitations of the study<br /> These results are based on samples from 6 patients and should therefore be confirmed in the future in additional patients. Longitudinal monitoring of BAL during disease progression or resolution would have been most useful.<br /> The mechanisms underlying the skewing of the macrophage compartment in patients towards inflammatory macrophages should be investigated in future studies.<br /> Deeper characterization of the lymphoid subsets is required. The composition of the “proliferating” cluster and how these cells differ from conventional T cell clusters should be assessed. NK and CD8 T cell transcriptomic profile, in particular the expression of cytotoxic mediator and immune checkpoint transcripts, should be compared between healthy and diseased lesions.

      Relevance<br /> COVID-19 induces a robust inflammatory cytokine storm in patients that contributes to severe lung tissue damage and ARDS {1}. Accumulation of monocyte-derived inflammatory macrophages at the expense of Alveolar macrophages is known to play an anti-inflammatory role following respiratory viral infection, in part through the PPARg pathway {2,3} are likely contributing to lung tissue injuries. These data suggest that reduction of monocyte accumulation in the lung tissues could help modulate COVID-19-induced inflammation. Further analysis of lymphoid subsets is required to understand the contribution of adaptive immunity to disease outcome.

      References<br /> 1. Huang, C. et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The Lancet 395, 497–506 (2020).<br /> 2. Allard, B., Panariti, A. & Martin, J. G. Alveolar Macrophages in the Resolution of Inflammation, Tissue Repair, and Tolerance to Infection. Front. Immunol. 9, 1777 (2018).<br /> 3. Huang, S. et al. PPAR-? in Macrophages Limits Pulmonary Inflammation and Promotes Host Recovery following Respiratory Viral Infection. J Virol 93, e00030-19, /jvi/93/9/JVI.00030-19.atom (2019).

      Review by Bérengère Salomé and Assaf Magen as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn school of medicine, Mount Sinai.

    1. On 2020-03-23 18:10:30, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Summary:<br /> The authors of this study provide a comprehensive analysis of clinical laboratory assessments in 75 patients (median age 47 year old) hospitalized for Corona virus infection in China measuring differential blood counts including T-cell subsets (CD4, CD8), coagulation function, basic blood chemistry, of infection-related biomarkers including CRP, Procalcitonin (PCT) (Precursor of calcitonin that increases during bacterial infection or tissue injury), IL-6 and erythrocyte sedimentation rate as well as clinical parameters. Among the most common hematological changes they found increased neutrophils, reduced CD4 and CD8 lymphocytes, increased LDH, CRP and PCT

      When looking at patients with elevated IL-6, the authors describe significantly reduced CD4 and CD8 lymphocyte counts and elevated CRP and PCT levels were significantly increased in infected patients suggesting that increased IL-6 may correlate well with disease severity in COVID-19 infections

      Critical analysis:<br /> The authors performed an early assessment of clinical standard parameters in patients infected with COVID-19. Overall, the number of cases (75) is rather low and the snapshot approach does not inform about dynamics and thus potential relevance in the assessment of treatment options in this group of patients.

      Importance and implications of the findings in the context of the current epidemics:<br /> The article summarizes provides a good summary of some of the common changes in immune cells inflammatory cytokines in patients with a COVID-19 infection and. Understanding how these changes can help predict severity of disease and guide therapy including IL-6 cytokine receptor blockade using Tocilizumab or Sarilumab will be important to explore.

    1. On 2020-03-23 19:01:15, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Summary:

      Study on blood biomarkers with 80 COVID19 patients (69 severe and 11 non-severe). Patients with severe symptoms at admission (baseline) showed obvious lymphocytopenia and significantly increased interleukin-6 (IL-6) and CRP, which was positively correlated with symptoms severity. IL-6 at baseline positively correlates with CRP, LDH, ferritin and D-Dimer abundance in blood. <br /> Longitudinal analysis of 30 patients (before and after treatment) showed significant reduction of IL-6 in remission cases.

      Limitations:

      Limited sample size at baseline, especially for the non-severe leads to question on representativeness. The longitudinal study method is not described in detail and suffers from non-standardized treatment. Limited panel of pro-inflammatory cytokine was analyzed. Patients with severe disease show a wide range of altered blood composition and biomarkers of inflammation, as well as differences in disease course (53.6% were cured, about 10% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome). The authors comment on associations between IL-6 levels and outcomes, but these were not statistically significant (maybe due to the number of patients, non-standardized treatments, etc.) and data is not shown. Prognostic biomarkers could have been better explored. Study lacks multivariate analysis.

      Findings implications:

      IL-6 could be used as a pharmacodynamic marker of disease severity. Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) is a well-known side effect for CAR-T cancer therapy and there are several effective drugs to manage CRS. Drugs used to manage CRS could be tested to treat the most severe cases of COVID19.

      Review by Jaime Mateus-Tique as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn school of medicine, Mount Sinai

    1. On 2020-03-26 05:18:54, user TreeHugginEnergyWonk wrote:

      This is thrilling! People who have already been infected and cleared the coronavirus could donate their blood plasma immune factors to help those suffering more extreme cases of the disease! People could get back to work!

    1. On 2020-03-26 18:01:31, user j2hess wrote:

      The point is controlled rate of spread. This on-again off-again proposal reminds me uncomfortably of the sawtooth dynamcs of a predator-prey relationship. (The rabbits breed, coyote population grows until there are too many for the food supply, so there's a population crash of rabbits first and coyotes next.) There are other ways.

      A British research group modeled the growth rate using graph theory. We're not a single uniformly-connected population; there are clusters of dense connections linked by fewer connections, and spread within is faster than spread without. The power law that results is a better fit than the standard exponential growth model.

      So perhaps rather than on/off, you open up retail service businesses - hairdressers, coffee shops. You don't open the big venues - concerts, major league sports, mega-conferences. This provides a somewhat controlled spread of the virus, a more stable social environment, and less economic stress.

    1. On 2020-03-27 20:03:16, user Brian Coyle wrote:

      Important and significant study. Should lead to policy. One question: (only) 1 of 347 asymptomatic infected people transmitted to someone. But study also says the rate of asymptomatic transmission is .0033%

    1. On 2020-03-28 01:06:18, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Summary: Analyzing the eGFR (effective glomerular flow rate) of 85 Covid-19 patients and characterizing tissue damage and viral presence in post-mortem kidney samples from 6 Covid-19 patients, the authors conclude that significant damage occurs to the kidney, following Covid-19 infection. This is in contrast to the SARS infection from the 2003 outbreak. They determine this damage to be more prevalent in patients older than 60 years old, as determined by analysis of eGFR. H&E and IHC analysis in 6 Covid-19 patients revealed that damage was in the tubules, not the glomeruli of the kidneys and suggested that macrophage accumulation and C5b-9 deposition are key to this process.

      Limitations: H&E and IHC samples were performed on post-mortem samples of unknown age, thus we cannot assess how/if age correlates with kidney damage, upon Covid-19 infection. Additionally, eGFR was the only in-vivo measurement. Blood urea nitrogen and proteinuria are amongst other measurements that could have been obtained from patient records. An immune panel of the blood was not performed to assess immune system activation. Additionally, patients are only from one hospital.

      Significance: This report makes clear that kidney damage is prevalent in Covid-19 patients and should be accounted for.

    1. On 2020-03-28 20:30:39, user adycousins wrote:

      In Table 1 the estimate for the UK peak daily Covid-19 fatalities is 260 and a peak date of 5th of April, however 260 people died in the last 24 hours in the UK. Events seem have overtaken this study before its even reached peer-review.

    2. On 2020-03-30 14:54:38, user Emma Cairn wrote:

      Data is not an object in itself. Data is sometimes profoundly affected by the political, social and economic environments.

      1.There are differing political criteria for selecting who is tested in different countries. Some select only those with severe symptoms and some sample test over their country. Some tests are inaccurate and sometimes not enough test kits are distributed. Some testing centres are inconvenient and sometimes multiple tests to the same person are negative until nucleic acid high enough.

      1. There is political variation in what constitutes a corona death. It is possible that some are only reporting it as corona if there is no underlying condition. Or in other words if some have a heart attack it is being listed as that rather than Corona. If some die out of hospital untested this is also not a Corona death.

      3<br /> I suggest that if people in countries knew the true number there would be widespread panic and disruption, economic turmoil and political unrest.

      Conclusion Unless standardisation of political, economic viewpoints there will be no standardisation of empirical data. Virus will only slow down when it has learnt how to live with us harmoniously.

    1. On 2020-03-29 12:55:46, user Rosemary TATE wrote:

      I'm about to submit a review for this - my first attempt on medrxiv although (as a medical statistician) I have vast experience. However, all I really needed to do was look at their Cherries checklist. It is very incomplete and missing many details of how the study was carried out. These checklists are very important and shouldn't be added as an afterthought.

    1. On 2020-03-29 22:38:51, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Key findings:<br /> This study investigated the profile of the acute antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 and provided proposals for serologic tests in clinical practice. Magnetic Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassay was used to evaluate IgM and IgG seroconversion in 285 hospital admitted patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and in 52 COVID-19 suspected patients that tested negative by RT-PCR. A follow up study with 63 patients was performed to investigate longitudinal effects. In addition, IgG and IgM titers were evaluated in a cohort of close contacts (164 persons) of an infected couple.

      The median day of seroconversion for both IgG and IgM was 13 days after symptom onset. Patients varied in the order of IgM/ IgG seroconversion and there was no apparent correlation of order with age, severity, or hospitalization time. This led the authors to conclude that for diagnosis IgM and IgG should be detected simultaneously at the early phase of infection.

      IgG titers, but not IgM titers were higher in severe patients compared to non-severe patients after controlling for days post-symptom onset. Importantly, 12% of COVID-19 patients (RT-PCR confirmed) did not meet the WHO serological diagnosis criterion of either seroconversion or > 4-fold increase in IgG titer in sequential samples. This suggests the current serological criteria may be too stringent for COVID-19 diagnosis.

      Of note, 4 patients from a group of 52 suspects (negative RT-PCR test) had anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgM and IgG. Similarly, 4.3% (7/162) of “close contacts” who had negative RT-PCR tests were positive for IgG and/or IgM. This highlights the usefulness of a serological assay to identify asymptomatic infections and/or infections that are missed by RT-PCR.

      Limitations:<br /> This group’s report generally confirms the findings of others that have evaluated the acute antibody response to SARS-Cov-2. However, these data would benefit from inclusion of data on whether the participants had a documented history of viral infection. Moreover, serum samples that were collected prior to SARS-Cov-2 outbreak from patients with other viral infections would serve as a useful negative control for their assay. Methodological limitations include that only one serum sample per case was tested as well as the heat inactivation of serum samples prior to testing. It has previously been reported that heat inactivation interferes with the level of antibodies to SARS-Cov-2 and their protocol may have resulted in diminished quantification of IgM, specifically (Xiumei Hu et al, https://www.medrxiv.org/con... "https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.12.20034231v1)").

      Relevance:<br /> Understanding the features of the antibody responses against SARS-CoV is useful in the development of a serological test for the diagnosis of COVID-19. This paper addresses the need for additional screening methods that can detect the presence of infection despite lower viral titers. Detecting the production of antibodies, especially IgM, which are produced rapidly after infection can be combined with PCR to enhance detection sensitivity and accuracy and map the full spread of infection in communities, Moreover, serologic assays would be useful to screen health care workers in order to identify those with immunity to care for patients with COVID19.

    1. On 2020-03-30 02:38:57, user Sinai Immunol Review Project wrote:

      Summary of Findings: <br /> -Transcriptomic analysis using systems-level meta-analysis and network analysis of existing literature to determine ACE2 regulation in patients who have frequent COVID-19 comorbidities [eg- cardiovascular diseases, familial pulmonary hypertension, cancer]. <br /> - Enrichment analyses indicated pathways associated with inflammation, metabolism, macrophage autophagy, and ER stress. <br /> - ACE2 higher in adenocarcinoma compared to adjacent normal lung; ACE2 higher in COPD patients compared to normal. <br /> - Co-expression analysis identified genes important to viral entry such as RAB1A, ADAM10, HMGBs, and TLR3 to be associated with ACE2 in diseased lungs.<br /> - ACE2 expression could be potentially regulated by enzymes that modify histones, including HAT1, HDAC2, and KDM5B.

      Limitations:<br /> - Not actual CoVID-19 patients with co-morbidities, so interpretations in this study need to be confirmed by analyzing upcoming transcriptomics from CoVID-19 patients having co-morbidity metadata. <br /> - As mentioned by authors, study does not look at diabetes and autoimmunity as risk factors in CoVID-19 patients due to lack of data; would be useful to extend such analyses to those datasets when available. <br /> - Co-expression analysis is perfunctory and needs validation-experiments especially in CoVID-19 lung samples to mean anything. <br /> - Epigenomic analyses are intriguing but incomplete, as existence of histone marks does not necessarily mean occupancy. Would be pertinent to check cell-line data (CCLE) or actual CoVID-19 patient samples to confirm ACE2 epigenetic control.

      Importance/Relevance:<br /> - Study implies vulnerable populations have ACE2 upregulation that could promote CoVID-19 severity. Shows important data-mining strategy to find gene-networks associated with ACE2 upregulation in co-morbid patients. <br /> - Several of the genes co-upregulated with ACE2 in diseased lung might play an important role in CoVID-19 and can be preliminary targets for therapeutics.<br /> - If in silico findings hold true, epigenetic control of ACE2 expression could be a new target for CoVID-19 therapy with strategies such as KDM5 demethylases.

      Review by Samarth Hegde as part of a project by students, postdocs and faculty at the Immunology Institute of the Icahn school of medicine, Mount Sinai.

    1. On 2020-03-30 11:14:51, user Mark Pepin, PhD wrote:

      The statement claiming "positive effects" of ARBs on morbitity/mortality is invalid given the nature of their study design. It should claim association only.

    1. On 2020-03-31 20:27:36, user Andrew Singer wrote:

      Can the authors please check the validity of the first reference that is cited. It does not report SARS-CoV-2 in stool. It is a paper on: "Elagolix for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in Women with Uterine Fibroids"

      A second comment is that you state: 17 patients (23.29%) remained positive in feces after viral RNA was undetectable in respiratory tract, however, there were only 39 patients that initially tested positive for viral RNA in the stool, so it should be 17/39 (43.58%). Yes?