On 2021-02-24 22:16:27, user Long Nguyen wrote:

Hello. This paper has been published at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih... <br /> Thank you!

On 2021-02-25 11:19:58, user Manuel Riegner wrote:

Have the participants of the control group been symptomatic or asymptomatic ?<br /> What kind of symptoms did they include in their study ? ( The Oxford study with Astra Zeneca did not include gastrointestinal symptoms neither fatigue, muscle pain, headache or any psychological symptoms ).

On 2021-02-25 15:12:43, user jubel wrote:

"It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms." – do these 80% refer only to infected people who were hospitalized, or are mild cases (no hospitalization) included? That would be very important to know.

On 2021-02-27 22:24:10, user ABO FAN wrote:

The latest version, version 3, seems to have the wrong reference number. For example, in the text, No. 11 is supposed to be a GTTC document that started in July 2020, but the corresponding MHLW page is from April 2020.<br /> Also, I do not think it is appropriate to use regression analysis to examine the effect of Emergency status. This is because even if an Emergency status is declared "after" the mobility and R(t) start to decrease, it will still be statistically significant. Figure 4 suggests that this is the case.

On 2021-03-01 19:34:43, user Alexander Buell wrote:

Dear authors,

my students and I have studied your paper in our course at DTU (Quantitive analysis and modelling in protein science). We have reproduced some of your analysis and we have noticed something that we wanted to hear your views on. In the methods section you mention that "For the MAAP measurements, varying fractions of human plasma samples were added to a solution of the antigen of concentrations varying between 10 nM and 150 nM..." At the same time, if we look at the red and yellow binding curves in Figure 2 a) they cannot have been measured at a RBD concentration above 100 pM. Indeed, we were unable to fit the data with a concentration of RBD higher than 100 pM or so.<br /> This would mean that you have added 99% serum and 1% labeled protein at 10 nM. Is this the case? Is the instrument really sensitive enough to get good signal at sub-nM concentration?<br /> Thanks in advance for your clarification!<br /> Alexander Buell<br /> Professor of Protein Biophysics at DTU

On 2021-03-02 06:39:50, user Azad Ghulam wrote:

Where is the supplementary material?

On 2021-03-02 13:11:50, user Syarranur Zaim wrote:

Hello, I’ve read the article and your article on vaccination was very enlightening. If possible, can you provide the code for your mathematical model and also the source of datasets for my reference.

On 2021-03-03 00:47:52, user Bin Jiang wrote:

Dear readers,

I am the corresponding author of this article. Please kindly notice this article has been published in the Environment International Journal. Please check out the article at the following two webpages:

1. https://www.sciencedirect.c...

2. https://www.researchgate.ne...

Bin JIANG<br /> Ph.D., UIUC, USA<br /> Co-Chair, Research and Methods Track, Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture (USA)<br /> Founding Director, Virtual Reality Lab of Urban Environments and Human Health<br /> Associate Professor, Division of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture<br /> The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

On 2021-03-07 14:54:48, user Dr Ish Midha wrote:

Changing strains of SARS CoV -2 are pose big epidemiological and therapeutic challenge. Retinol has great impact on immunity and there is possible role of differences in retinol metabolism behind immune dysregulation that hallmarks severe Covid-19. During infections there is decreased mobilization of retinol stores as well as decreased conversion to active form ATRA.

Since there exist correlation between low circulating retinol level and severity of infections especially measles and supplementation of under 5 children with retinol is associated with decreased infection related mortality and morbidity.<br /> Thus, it may be interesting to assess serum retinol levels in patients with severe Covid-19 and study the impact retinol supplementation on outcome.<br /> If found favourable, supplementation at community level may augment circulating retinol level in population aborting the peak of on going peak of pandemic.<br /> Retinol supplementation being rapid acting and easy intervention may be of use during peak of pandemic.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley...

On 2021-03-09 21:18:20, user Antonio Beltrão Schütz wrote:

In this meta-analisis, the I2 is very rise to be accept and CI to recovery time is, also, very big to be accept. Therefore, the results of this meta-analisis are not confiable. Is possible that personal interpretation of Grade parameters has contribute to increase I2

On 2021-03-11 13:20:03, user Yan Gp wrote:

Even if it seems obvious, may I suggest to indicate in your abstract that you're talking of Soluble ACE2 ?

On 2021-03-15 13:44:09, user Daniel Mølager Christensen wrote:

Congrats on an important and well-written paper. I'm particularly interested in your eTable 4d. It's an important analysis as it in my opinion seems unreasonable to compare hospitalized patients to a matched general population when investigating clinical sequalae. Seems like there would be conditioning on the future if COVID-19 hospitalization status was determined after time zero of follow-up. If that was not the case; how did you in that analysis handle patients that were hospitalized with COVID-19 after start of follow-up?

On 2021-03-17 14:25:05, user John Smith wrote:

Hi<br /> I look forward to seeing what you come up with for Turkmenistan who have 'officially' recorded no cases of Covid but more than 1000 deaths have been unofficially noted including that of one senior government official and hundreds of medical staff.<br /> The country also has a rule implemented that all grave markers must be flat so as not to be seen from the air which indicates high mortality trying to be hidden.

On 2021-10-23 08:34:43, user Leslie Viljoen wrote:

Is there any way to be notified when a preprint completes peer review?

On 2021-06-23 23:58:28, user ID9192 wrote:

Psychological stress is known to bring about several changes in the brain, and it is possible that people who contracted covid-19 were really stressed out and this may explain the changes in the brain.

On 2021-03-21 23:57:56, user M K wrote:

Run a PCR for the moderna mRNA. Did that get transferred as well?

On 2021-03-23 14:35:54, user Malcolm Semple wrote:

Hi Folk, Your search strategy missed "Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj... (Published 22 May 2020). This paper describes predictors of mortality, and describes length of stay. Other papers missed include all global ISARIC reports in MedRxiv. These alone would give you an additional samples size of 300,000 cases.

On 2021-03-24 00:01:30, user Elle wrote:

I'm surprised the paper doesn't discuss weight as a factor. If you look at the last figure, you'll see that nearly all categories are overweight (both controls and long haulers), with many with a BMI >30 (obese).

On 2021-03-24 05:27:18, user Eik Dybboe Bjerre wrote:

Dear Authors, Please find a comment to your paper here. On page 31, line 608-609. You write:" None of the 78 published articles from the 31 trials were free from incomplete, 609 inconsistent, or selectively reported outcomes". As I can see in your review of trials, the trial I were responsible for (The FC Prostate Community trial) only fail on 1 criteria, the ability to present a "statistical analysis plan (SAP) ". As per ICH-GCP guidelines and the detailed guideline from Cochrane on assessing bias then a SAP should be in place before unblinded data was accessed. In the FC Prostate Community trial. The data collection was fully done by a web-based system and all data was keept logged and confined. As stated in publications of the results);the trial randomised 1.participant in June (15th)2015 an the SAP was published in Nov 2015 on clinicaltrials.gov. No participants had at that time complete the full 6 month intervention period. The data had not accessed from the database I only have detailed knowledge on the trial I was responsible and I acknowledge that it is difficult to evaluate if the SAP was in place in a timely matter. It is of course an important aspect but as it is not possible to assess without contacting authors/trialist I suggest the author group to consider the judge on this domain. Also if you look at the COMPare project, this do not evaluate the SAP. <br /> Best regards<br /> Eik Dybboe Bjerre

On 2021-03-25 20:16:01, user Peter Novák wrote:

Seems, that nothing has stopped the paper from publication.

On 2021-04-02 11:10:37, user Rudy Faelens wrote:

It's obvious why, in the first wave, GP's didn't get higher infection rates. The physical exam was replaced by a pure telephonic anamnesis, diagnosis, and therapy. Pure horror. Unethical. <br /> Definitely safe for the GP, but at a severe sometimes lethal cost of false diagnoses and wrong therapies.

On 2021-04-09 15:15:15, user Martin Bleichner wrote:

We read this preprint in our journal club and have collected some comments I would like to share. <br /> Overall, we liked the approach and the straightforward message of the paper. <br /> Comments regarding the paradigm<br /> • Do you control somehow for word length? In the given example, “swift” is shorter than “swrfeq”. <br /> • Are word combinations repeated? I.e., do participants see ‘swift horse’ as well as ‘swrfeg horse’? In that case, participants may remember that they saw a similar item before. Hence, memory could play a role<br /> Controls and Patients<br /> • The ACE-R scores overlap between the two groups (range controls 83 – 100, range MCIR (64-99). Isn’t it then surprising that the results in figure 8 show such a good separation?<br /> Signal Analysis<br /> • The ERP subtraction was only done for the cap. Based on those results, it was concluded that it does not make a difference, and hence this approach was not used for the cEEGrid data. Since the segmentation of the ERP components depends on the data quality that differs between the two devices, this transfer might not be valid.<br /> • It is stated that the lexical retrieval effect is absent in the MCI-group, but in figure 3, the alpha rebound, for example, seems to be present in both groups to some degree. Furthermore, in figure 4, the main difference between the conditions (bottom TRF) is between 600 and 800 msec), i.e., exactly before the alpha rebound kicks in (around 800 msec figure 3). <br /> Comparison Cap cEEGrid<br /> For Figures 7 and 8, individual electrodes were used. It would be interesting to know how variable that was across subjects and how often the different electrodes were chosen. Furthermore, given that the results of the individualized electrodes and standard electrodes are comparable, it would be interesting to see the spectra of all channels. <br /> • The electrodes used for referencing and re-referencing are not completely clear to us. Unfortunately, different people use different names for the electrodes A layout-plot of the cEEGrids with indications of gnd, ref, etc. would be helpful.

Figures<br /> • The figures are difficult to compare to each other (different units [% signal change for the cap, but t-values for the cEEGrid] in same-colored color bar, different time axis, etc.) E.g., in figure 6 Top TRF x-axis is from 0 to 1.4, Bottom TRFs from 0 to 1. Figures are differently scaled along the x-axis.<br /> • Please indicate in the figures the important time points (word off-set, onset, etc.)<br /> • Explain the ROC-curve in detail. What data goes in exactly? Should be added to the method section.

On page 20 the is a space missing between “The” and “current”.

On 2021-04-13 09:35:53, user Economy Decoded wrote:

There are also claims that there have been cases of vaccine wastage and shortage in production funds. Massive exports have also been cited as one of the reasons for vaccine scarcity. India has exported 64 million doses of vaccines to 85 countries in the form of “gifts,” commercial agreements signed between the vaccine makers and the recipient nations, and under the Covax scheme, led by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The experts have pointed out that vaccine shortages have become a problem in some parts of India due to supply bottlenecks. They claimed that vaccine makers had oversold their capacities while taking orders from all over the world. The steadily rising cases of COVID-19 and the issues related to “vaccine scarcity” are significant challenges to making India free from COVID-19. There is an urgent need to plan and prioritize providing vaccinations to achieve the target of inoculating 400 million vaccine doses by July, as stated by the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs. This piece has also taken a look at the current shortage of vaccines India is facing: We Analysed Whether The COVID-19 Vaccine Shortfall Is Due To Exports Or High Domestic Consumption https://edtimes.in/we-analy...

On 2021-04-23 10:30:29, user Paul-Olivier Dehaye wrote:

Following criticism that the results announced do not match the data (for instance at<br /> https://pdehaye.medium.com/...<br /> or<br /> https://lasec.epfl.ch/peopl... )

the main author seems to now (2021.04.21) acknowledge problems.

From https://www.youtube.com/wat... :

“What I also need to mention here is... We do see this time advantage [but] this is also early[?] days. We have not been able to dissect each and every secondary survey. This is still ongoing, but what is kind of confusing is that about 8 of those 43 specifically mentioned that they received the exposure notification before they were called up by manual contact tracing. So there is an accumulation of those people in those groups but then you still have a few [sic, given it’s 35/43!?] where manual contact tracing was first and then exposure notification was second. So the picture is still a bit blurry, but overall I think we are getting closer and we are doing additional analysis”.

Note that, in accordance to the "Data/Code" section presented on medrxiv ("We are open to sharing individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification upon reasonable requests to the corresponding author. Data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement."), the author of this comment has requested access to the data, but his request has not been acknowledged.

On 2021-05-02 07:00:13, user Peter McIntyre wrote:

This is an interesting and detailed analysis. One metric not provided is whether any identified infections arose from persons who had no travel history outside Australia. Such persons from NZ have not been required to quarantine on arrival in Australia so comparison of this metric would be helpful for policy assessment. A long and extensive list of potential interventions and/or policy changes to reduce or eliminate infections in MIQ is provided but their relative cost/ time to implement or difficulty not discussed. Vaccination is listed as only of value if transmission is eliminated - while this is the case if the target is no instances of infection in the context of a population unprotected by Immunization, once vulnerable populations are protected and risk of adverse outcomes from infection greatly reduced, this will have a major impact on the cost-effectiveness of a continued zero infection target and therefore on cost-effectiveness of listed interventions. <br /> Although this retrospective review is valuable, forward thinking is now needed to estimate future cost effectiveness

On 2021-05-04 17:36:43, user Patrick Boyle wrote:

This article is now accepted for publication by eLife: https://elifesciences.org/a...

On 2021-05-28 07:23:17, user Roger Morrison wrote:

If masks were effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and Covid-19 the CDC would have recommended it years ago.

From the CDC "surgical masks won't stop the wearer from inhaling small particles which can cause infection. The CDC recommends a surgical mask ONLY for people who already show symptoms of coronavirus and must go outside since wearing a mask can ONLY help prevent spreading the virus by protecting others." [1.]

A study in November 2020 out of Denmark showed that masks do not stop the spread of Covid-19. "The researchers found no statistically significant difference between mask wearers and bare-faced participants." and "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers." [2.]

On March 5, 2021 the CDC put out a report which recommends wearing masks, however, the report also says "Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were not statistically different from the reference period." Then why the recommendation? [3.]

1. Center For Disease Control and Prevention - Time magazine 2020

2. Annals of Internal Medicine - Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers<br /> https://www.acpjournals.org...

3. Center For Disease Control and Prevention - Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–December 31, 2020 | MMWR<br /> https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/vo...

On 2021-05-29 00:24:49, user Bill Kelly wrote:

This is great information. While this is only a preliminary paper that has been submitted but not reviewed and accepted, the study looks solid. I might quibble with how cases are counted, but we're not going to get perfect counting because the counting was handled poorly. This study is consistent with many others that show that the masks are not effective at stopping the transmission of viral diseases.

On 2021-06-13 01:37:36, user Fisher Wright wrote:

The study shows that there is a negligible differential effect size of masks when not-very-large, different proportions of mask use (e.g. 65% vs. 75%) between populations occur. What the study doesn't show is there is no effect size from mask use. You would have to compare no use to use (e.g. 0% vs. 75%) between populations to do that.

Secondly, I have some skepticism concerning the main result since it didn't seem like they controlled for confounders. States with greater mask use may share other differences (e.g. denser urban areas with crowded housing) compared to states with lesser mask use. Did they simply assume these confounders would cancel out?

On 2021-06-03 12:03:42, user Sahan Laboratory wrote:

I think use of HCQ with Glychrryzin will be best for recovery of COVID patient. <br /> This type of study should be combined with other form which will provide best result for upcoming trials. <br /> Suggestion - Use of HCQ with Glychrryzin in treatment of Ventilated COVID19 patient.

On 2021-06-11 13:50:33, user Jay Alan Erdman wrote:

My apologies, I didn't see the full text so some of my criticism can be refuted. Nonetheless it is a chart review with not a very large N. And again, most importantly, it says nothing about current treatment.

On 2021-06-11 18:28:35, user lee_r wrote:

I see no indication of how many patients received the high doses of hydroxychloroquine and zinc, so it is impossible to tell how meaningful the results are. If 78.2% of the 255 patients died, that leaves only 55 or 56 who survived. Is the increased survival rate a function of the small number phenomenon, the drug regimen, both, neither?

On 2021-06-13 20:13:06, user Christopher Knittel wrote:

I would like to receive the underlying data and code for this paper. The paper states a CSV is available, but there are no contact details for the authors listed. Please let me know an email address that I can use to get access to the data. Thank you.

On 2021-06-05 13:34:28, user Gowtham Kumar wrote:

We were trying to access the scans available in Oasis-1 dataset but we were unable to open the scans because the extensions of the files are .nifti.img , if you have any idea to open this please help us.

On 2021-06-06 07:02:22, user Ju-Sheng Zheng wrote:

This work is now published in the Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2021.04.002

On 2021-06-07 07:55:12, user David Curtis wrote:

The confounding effects of ancestry on genetic risk prediction are well established. See for example:

Polygenic risk score for schizophrenia is more strongly associated with ancestry than with schizophrenia. <br /> https://journals.lww.com/ps...

On 2021-06-08 03:28:15, user mengmeng Wang wrote:

one standard deviation (SD) is equal to ? natural log transformed random glucose mmol/L?

On 2021-06-08 18:41:47, user Keith Flippen wrote:

Was there tracking of HIV viral load and T cell count during the infection and are numbers known prior to COVID?

On 2021-06-09 16:25:27, user Aliya Amirova wrote:

The peer-reviewed paper is here: https://openheart.bmj.com/c...

On 2021-06-10 17:58:43, user Aliya Amirova wrote:

A blog post: https://aliyaamirova.medium...

On 2021-06-09 17:03:22, user Squid Tractor wrote:

Were all participants exposed to the live virus to ensure infection would have happened?

On 2021-06-09 22:00:05, user Dr Chad wrote:

This would coincide with virtually all other RNA respiratory viruses studied. I am surprised that the initial instinct seems to be resistant to recognizing that natural immunity would be inferior to induced immunity when we have no precedent to suggest that would be the case.

On 2021-06-14 00:01:49, user Lemarque wrote:

Hello, <br /> I have a doubt, it was not clear for me when the serological test was done. Looking for AZ numbers, its clear that the antibodies start to rise at week 3 or more, >15 days after vaccination with lower numbers in the timeframe 7 to 14 days (less than 50% had antibodies in this timeframe). The serological tests was made at the end of the timeframe or sorted during the timeframe (eg: 7 to 14 it was done on day 14, and 15 to 21 it was done on day 21)?

On 2021-06-14 23:51:06, user Mark Czeisler wrote:

Note from the authors:

This paper was published in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences on 14 June 2021 following peer review. Below is a link to the article, along with the PubMed citation.

https://www.cambridge.org/c...

Czeisler MÉ, Wiley JF, Czeisler CA, Rajaratnam SMW, Howard ME. Uncovering survivorship bias in longitudinal mental health surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2021 May 26;30:e45. doi: 10.1017/S204579602100038X. PMID: 34036933.

On 2021-06-17 16:40:52, user S Venkata Mohan wrote:

This pre-print has been peer-reviewed and published in ‘Environmental Technology & Innovation’, doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.....

On 2021-06-22 14:30:04, user ibamvidivici wrote:

2 more questions:

you count the number of SARS-Covid-19 from the danish data base. Are in this database only symptomatic cases? Because if there are also asymptomatic cases (as it is in Germany), this has a high impact on the result. A Virus who is infecting a human cannot see, if this human is vaccinated or not, so the infection happens, whatever the human vaccination status is. Then the PCR test resluts should be nearly the same, however the vaccination status of the case/control group.

Table 2 shows the numbers for unvacc. and vacc. people. The time period for the unvacc. people is 54 days (=study time period). But the time period for the vacc. People is different, depends on the date when they got their vaccination. Is the different time period included in the Adjusted-VE calculations?

On 2021-06-26 16:12:33, user Daisy wrote:

Why on earth wouldn’t they include all age groups? Or at least those 60 and up, who have lower immune response.

On 2021-06-30 13:49:14, user Toksyuryel wrote:

Conclusion is poorly-worded. This study only looked into the potential for re-infection and the conclusion should reflect that. There are other studied benefits to vaccinating previously infected individuals and you should not imply to invalidate those with a study that looked into none of those benefits.

On 2021-07-01 17:46:23, user mehuldpatel wrote:

The published version is available at: https://jamanetwork.com/jou...

On 2021-07-03 05:01:14, user Covid wrote:

Is this pre-print going to be published on real peer reviewed journals?

On 2021-07-06 10:59:10, user Princess Aakuti wrote:

Great Read, first vaccine reporting clinical efficacy on detla

On 2021-07-07 22:42:55, user Leo G. wrote:

That confirms that mass vaccination with spike-only antigen streamlines the coronavirus evolution.

On 2021-08-15 14:53:19, user Johannes Hambura wrote:

The study authors found that the prevalence of mutations is higher in B cell epitopes than in T cell epitopes. They infer that vaccines that rely primarily on T cell immunity should confer protection more durable against the worrisome variants of SARS-CoV-2.<br /> It would be logical and consistent to assess this T cell immunity in unvaccinated and recovered Covid-19 patients, in order to better coordinate the strategy towards collective immunity.

The authors report, based only on 47 cases studied, that unvaccinated patients share significantly more genomic mutational similarities with the variants of concern than patients with a breakthrough infection.<br /> This finding is interesting, but it requires statistically significant evaluation and verification.<br /> Especially since<br /> - in vitro, the selection pressure imposed by the antibodies, induced by the vaccines, has led to the emergence of new variants of SARS-CovV-2 (1);<br /> - in vivo, the case of a severe and prolonged form of infection by SARS-CoV-2, treated with antibodies taken from convalescents, favored the appearance of a variant. The variants decreased when the treatment with the injected antibodies was stopped and reappeared with new doses of the injected antibodies. In the absence of the antibodies, the wild strains again became the majority (2).

In addition, the following findings by the authors tend to favor selective pressure exerted by vaccinations:<br /> - the diversity of SARS-CoV-2 lines decreases at country level with an increased rate of mass vaccination (negatively correlated with the increase in the rate of mass vaccination in the countries analyzed);<br /> - The decline in lineage diversity is coupled with the increased dominance of variants of concern;<br /> - vaccine breakthrough patients harbor viruses with significantly lower diversity compared to unvaccinated COVID-19 patients.

The question still remains open, whether vaccination should not be limited to only vulnerable people in the world population, in analogy with a risk calculator for the population proposed by American scientists (3).

1. Wang, Z., Schmidt, F., Weisblum, Y. et al. mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants. Nature 592, 616–622 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41...
2. Kemp, S.A., Collier, D.A., Datir, R.P. et al. SARS-CoV-2 evolution during treatment of chronic infection. Nature 592, 277–282 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41...<br /> (3) Jin, J., Agarwala, N., Kundu, P. et al. Individual and community-level risk for COVID-19 mortality in the United States. Nat Med 27, 264–269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41...

On 2021-07-09 01:05:25, user Steven Scullion wrote:

Is this study connected in any way to the research being done by Cedars-Sinai: https://link.springer.com/a...

On 2021-07-16 09:48:28, user Šafo wrote:

Question: Do patients who have overcome the disease have the mentioned S-protein S1 in the body? Or only vaccinated people have S-protein in their body!

On 2021-07-17 15:00:07, user pfwag wrote:

The VAERS reported death toll is now almost 11,000.

In 2010 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded a million-dollar grant to the Harvard Medical School to investigate the accuracy of the reporting. Their report concluded that “Fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported by the VAERS System.

https://digital.ahrq.gov/si...

As of July 16, according to VAERS, more people have died from the Covid-19 vaccinations than from all other vaccines in the previous 25 years combined. I wonder how many people have to die before the AEs become "serious"?

On 2021-08-10 22:41:16, user Ashley Derrick wrote:

I had covid in May of 2020. I had many long covid issues for months after - but the biggest issue was chest (heart and lung) pain. The symptoms included shortness of breath, burning sensation in the chest, difficulty getting a deep breath and feeling as if I was having a heart attack when more active (exercising). I went to both a heart specialist and a pulmonary specialist and nothing ever was found to be "wrong". The heart doctor was convinced it was inflammation in and around my lungs and heart that caused this. After 9 months, it went away (shortly before my first vaccine). I felt "normal" for about 4.5 months, but two weeks ago, the chest and heart issues came back. Same feelings. I am a fit 49 year old woman. Wondering if there are any studies that see symptoms going away and then months later coming back. Thanks -

On 2021-08-12 06:11:36, user Gabriele Pizzino wrote:

The study brings up relevant insights.<br /> I agree with Richard, uniformity of testing frequency is a potential confounding factor that should be taken into account.

Also, you may have a selection bias generated by vaccination policies, and timeline.<br /> I’m gonna use Italy to give you the idea: Pfizer was rolled out earlier, and in a much more massive way, than Moderna. The same was true for the AstraZeneca one.<br /> The Italian government gave priority to high-risk workers (especially health workers, and whoever was working into medical facilities or nursing homes), and to high-risk individuals (so elderly people, and/or people with severe underlying conditions).<br /> At the time, the choice was between Pfizer and AstraZeneca; considering Pfizer showed a better efficacy, and it was better perceived in terms of safety profile by the public, the very very large majority of those high-risk categories received the Pfizer shots.

That is a textbook-level selection bias, which could potentially affect the results in a significant way.<br /> I live in Italy, so I followed the vaccination process here much more closely; I don’t know if the same dynamics I described stand true also for the US, but I think it is worth to take a look and check it.

On 2021-08-12 19:49:26, user Steven Ramirez wrote:

From the preprint:

"Date of vaccination (bucketed). For a given individual in the mRNA-1273 cohort who<br /> received their first vaccine dose on a given date, only individuals in the BNT162b2<br /> cohort who were vaccinated on the same date or within two weeks after that date were<br /> considered for matching. This match helps to ensure that matched individuals reach their<br /> date of full vaccination (14 days after the second dose) on approximately the same date."

This seemingly addresses my point and effectively controls for diminution over time.

Perhaps an explicit sentence in the preprint would help clarify this point.

On 2021-08-12 17:18:46, user Iñigo Ximeno wrote:

Although the observation is very interesting, it does not lead to the conclusion that it is the most prudent thing to continue with indiscriminate vaccination in the middle of a pandemic when the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the pathogen.

It is not relevant how many mutations are detected but the importance of them. It is obvious that among people with some immunity the mutations for which the antibodies can neutralize the virus will not be spreaded and therefore those will not be detected. However the mutations that can evade the immunity, even if they are few, will be more virulent and letal.

On 2021-08-12 20:58:05, user Raul Sanchez-Lopez wrote:

This article is now "in press" in Frontiers in Neuroscience:<br /> https://www.frontiersin.org...

On 2021-08-13 11:07:32, user BO Dong wrote:

This paper has been published elsewhere!!!<br /> https://celljournal.org/jou...

On 2021-08-14 05:50:28, user Brad Mellen wrote:

I assume the 167 infected people tracked in the study were previously vaccinated. Is it possible that antibody mitigated viral enhancement played a role in the increased viral loads? A study done by Wen Shi Lee et al in the Nature Microbiology volume 5, pages 1185–1191 (2020) noted the potential dangers of Covid 19 vaccinations could increase viral loads and ultimately increase the spread of Covid 19.

On 2021-08-18 16:51:05, user Diane Krall wrote:

We need data for severe COVID patients and reactogenicity. These patients had high dose steroids during their illness, which may be a confounding factor.

On 2021-08-18 17:39:03, user John Baron wrote:

The first sentence states that this is a study of individuals who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, presumably (though not stated) during the study period. Unless there was population testing surveillance in place, there must have been selection factors (e.g. COVID exposure or symptoms) prompting testing. This would bias estimates of infection rates upward, though the bias is unlikely to differ between vaccine groups and may not differ much between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Tthe relative infection measures might be OK.

In the "final" paper, it would be important to account for the usual cohort issues: censoring, movement out of the health care system, etc. Also, the first paragraph of the Methods section should include unvaccinated individuals.

On 2021-08-19 02:48:38, user Sheila Halpenny wrote:

I assume everyone responding here will use the same “logic” to apply to every other poll taken.

On 2021-08-09 21:26:26, user CdSS wrote:

Where can I get the reasons why PhDs answered "probaly not/definitely not"?

On 2021-08-21 17:14:03, user Alan wrote:

How will increased vaccination make a difference if the efficacy is as is being reported less than 50%? Once one is infected it does not appear to reduce one's odds of being hospitalized. So if the efficacy approaches zero, there would be zero benefit to being vaccinated, with the currently available vaccines.

On 2021-08-23 13:04:39, user Eyal Oren wrote:

I don't see any mention of vaccination status. Were these patients vaccinated or unvaccinated? Also the study would be stronger if comparison done to other patients in your catchment area vs CDC data (I believe that dataset is across US and not limited to Georgia?).

On 2021-08-25 16:22:39, user Sajjad Nasiri wrote:

I am wondering if you considered manually sniffing nasal saline irrigation?

On 2021-08-24 09:17:07, user Martin Steppan wrote:

A fundamental methodological caveat of this article is the date / season of sample collection. Breakthrough infection samples were collected in the sprjng-summer period of 2021 only (apr-jul), whereas unvaccinated samples seem to be predominantly from fall / winter 2020 (apr-dec). It has been shown in many studies that sars-cov-2 virions are temperature-sensitive and less active / infectious in warm environments. Hence, the results of this manuscript may reflect a seasonal pattern in infectivity. The authors may want to control for this statistically by either (1) using a matched design of samples from similar dates; (2) include historical temperature data for the Netherlands as a covariate / proxy for this likely bias. Due to this reason, the analyses in their current form do not rule out this bias, which casts doubt on the authors' implicit hypothesis that vaccination status moderates the link between viral load and infectiousness.

On 2021-08-26 11:54:58, user Gubbedefekt wrote:

Can someone confirm: what difference did it make if the natural immunity was acquired from a delta variant infection compared with one from another variant? Did the study look at this?

In any case the comparison looks devastating for Pfizer and other vaccine producers.

On 2021-08-26 18:20:25, user thestreetlawyer1 wrote:

Love to see this peer reviewed. Been really trying to determine what is the best move for me. Hard to put all the dogma and peer pressure aside (from both sides). I'm curious how this data reckons with u.s data on hospitalizations, seems most of our hosp cases are unvaccinated.

On 2021-08-28 19:52:31, user Catriona wrote:

“ individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

I’m confused. Didn’t your study show no significant difference for symptomatic infections in previously infected individuals with or without a single vaccination dose? Or did I get that wrong? The table says the previously infected and vaccinated odds ratio for symptomatic infection is 0.65 but confidence intervals were 0.34-1.25 and P value was 0.194.

In which case, exactly what were they protected against? Is there some sort of clinical significance regarding a positive PCR in the absence of any symptoms? Or are you implying that individuals can have atypical symptoms that can cause them health problems but aren’t recorded as symptoms? The study didn’t look at infectivity.

Are you claiming the vaccinated individuals were healthier in some way because they had fewer positive PCRs? Or are you claiming they did not pass on the Delta variant as often? Or was there something else that you meant by “additional protection against the Delta variant?”

Would love some clarification on these issues.

On 2021-08-27 11:08:39, user Lakesha Scout wrote:

Most people do not understand how their immune system works, and fall back upon the inept press as their inept narratives. Antibodies do not continue long term, as such a condition would in fact prove disastrous.

Long term immunity relies upon the creation of memory .. specifically memory B and T cells. These are the cells which identify later reemergence of a pathogen (such as SARS-CoV-2) in the body and mount a successful and rapid response to its demise.

There are two pathways to "Active" immunity (infection, and inoculation) <br /> Also there is "Passive" immunity which occurs through such things as a blood plasma infusion from a prior infected person who has existing antibodies. <br /> Any of these three paths, can provide immunity to a pathogen.

The false narrative being pumped by the media is that the only way to overcome a pathogen is through inoculation (vaccination).... that quite simply is not true, neither in medical sense nor in scientific sense. As a mater of medical fact, some inoculations (specifically mRNA) have been proven to enhance a pathogens capability to infect. This condition is known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement or (ADE).

On 2021-08-27 17:26:33, user Mohammad Ali wrote:

Please find the published article at BMJ Open here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/con...

On 2021-08-03 22:35:32, user Gemma Hollie wrote:

Can you advise how many pregnant women / live births / still births there was during this period. Also, for moderate to severe disease, you report 45% for the delta variant. Can you advise, is this of the total 3371 women or the 1137 admitted due to symptoms of covid? <br /> Vaccine safety for pregnant women has not been well filtered down to health care professionals, therefore the uptake of women getting the vaccine has not high. Now more women are having the vaccine, i wonder if future results of women getting moderate to severe disease will continue to support recommending the vaccine. Will you be doing another study in the near futute to update the findings? Thank you

On 2021-08-04 16:08:46, user Sam Chico wrote:

They compare raw Ct values which are meaningless in qPCR testing and must be correlated with something, e.g. a dilutions series of positive control COVID RNA at the very least. Should really be related back to viral counts using plates and plaques.

This is very lazy research that only shows that vaccinated people can harbor detectable amounts of viral RNA, its quite a reach to say that implications of this data is to say that vaccinated people are infectious. The only way to do that without clearly and reproducibly demonstrating it is looking at the population level data.

Its irresponsible and borderline unethical to publish data like this, the MIQE guidelines made clear what publishable qPCR data should look like. These sorts of publications undermine the impact of properly performed studies with truly actionable data. The authors should know better.

On 2021-08-05 17:53:16, user Ultrafiltered wrote:

Not even peered reviewed and yet the authors and local news stations in Dane County are promoting and reporting on this paper. That sends a dangerous message to the public that anyone can write anything and its believable/credible. Seeing the other comments here on the fallibility of the PCR test, as CDC has called out and published authoritatively along with other FDA withdrawals of rapid assay test procedures, indicates mine and their comments are just as good as this paper. The authors should remember that information is like a match, it can burn a whole lot of people if left unchecked/ unqualified / uncontrolled.

On 2021-08-05 16:37:19, user circleofmamas wrote:

So by not being vaccinated, I am reducing my relative risk of a 'severe adverse event' by 74%. And my absolute risk to become a "case" is less than 4%, and severe COVID is 0.1%.

On 2021-08-09 18:06:43, user MJ wrote:

".....assuming that baseline mitigation measures of simple ventilation and handwashing reduce the second+ary attack rate by 40%".

Congress gave billions of dollars to upgrade schools, to properly fit them with the necessary equipment for proper ventilation/air purification. Schools have had a year to do it, yet it hasn't been done. Schools are going to be reopened in the next few weeks without proper mitigation strategies for airflow.. Schools will be a breeding ground for this virus, even scarier now that the transmission rate is triple what it was a year ago. Speaking as someone who was infected via classroom exposure, and still suffering effects from the virus, more needs to be done to protect and reduce the risk to the children and staff

On 2020-11-19 18:22:04, user Ivan Ivanov wrote:

Impressive work. It is probably misunderstanding but the authors use 10mM KCl/10mM NH4SO4 in the buffer for Bst 2.0 and they call it 1x Isothermal Buffer which infact is the commonly known ThermoPol buffer (optimal for Bst LF, not for Bst 2.0). NEB sells Bst 2.0 with Isothermal buffer containng 50mM KCl/10mM NH4SO4.

On 2020-11-20 02:26:46, user Prasad Kasibhatla wrote:

Interesting.. scaling reported median risk (2e-6) for individual touches by average touches per day (336), gives a transmission risk by fomites of 10-12% over a 6 month period (roughly length of pandemic ). Seems high .. so my scaling must not be appropriate. Any thoughts?

On 2020-11-23 23:12:54, user Louis Rossouw wrote:

Why does this paper compare mortality July 2019 to June 2020 to try and determine the impact "after" COVID-19 when the pandemic started in Feb-March 2020? So the "after COVID-19" of the title of the paper includes more time before COVID-19 than after the epidemic started?

The authors also do not allow for any changes in age distribution / popualtion mix that may be affecting observed mortality trends.

On 2020-11-25 07:42:20, user Carol Shadford wrote:

When you say 'continual sensation of having had a “nasal douche”' are you referring to a feeling that the sinuses have been cleared out and are now empty or is that referring to the rushing feeling you get when chlorinated water accidentally goes up your nose -- a wasabi-like feeling?

On 2020-11-26 05:48:46, user Community Medicine with velz wrote:

Re-infection can be defined only by viral genome sequencing. The implication of these results can be mis-leading as re-infection has been defined by RT-PCR in this study.

On 2020-11-27 19:21:54, user Jackie A wrote:

This work is useful because it is the first modeling paper reckoning IFN role in the disease - and an early administration of it could be beneficial, which is consistent with recent RTC for IFN-beta. However, it is built on rodents and the extrapolation to humans is not clear and not validated by tissue data extracted from humans. The authors assume that tissue viral loads correlate with organ failure which has not been demonstrated.

On 2020-11-27 21:02:26, user Robert Brown wrote:

Vitamin D, Magnesium, Steroids, PPI and COVID-19; Interactions and Outcomes - Response to ‘Effect of Vitamin D3 Supplementation vs Placebo on Hospital Length of Stay in Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial’ [Preprint] [1]

Thank you and congratulations on your important and significant paper. This is only the fourth[2] [3] [4] reported RCT examining vitamin D supplementation as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19. Biology provides multiple pathways by which vitamin D hydroxylated-derivatives[5] may impact Covid-19 risks [including via; ACE2 receptors; airway-epithelial-cell tight-junction-function, immune responses [affecting lymphocytes, macrophages T cells, T helper cells, Th1, -17; Tregs; cytokine secretion IL-1, -2, -4, -5, -6 -10,-12; IFN-beta, TNF-alpha; defensins and cathelicidin, and receptors HLA-DR, CD4, CD8, CD14, CD38. Vitamin D also regulates; mitochondrial respiratory, inflammatory, oxidative and other functions; RXR and other receptor links between steroids, retinoids, hormonal vitamin D, thyroid hormone, oxidised lipids and peroxisomal pathway immune responses.][6]

Significant evidence [40+ patient-papers[7]] suggests higher Vitamin D status [serum/plasma 25(OH)D concentration] is associated with diminished COVID-19 infection rates,and reduced severity [including ICU admission and mortality].[2 3 4]

Thus, it is crucial, to consider if the preprint’s broad-based conclusion “Vitamin D3 supplementation does not confer therapeutic benefits among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19”, [time to discharge as well as lack of observed ICU and mortality rate benefits], stands scrutiny when any one, or combination of, the following factors are considered: -

Delay in vitamin D administration after severe symptoms onset

Patients presented “10.2 days after symptoms”, thus were already verging on serious outcomes at admission; “89.6% required supplemental oxygen at baseline [183 oxygen therapy; 32 non-invasive ventilation] and 59.6% had computed tomography<br /> scan findings suggestive of COVID-19.” [Days to dyspnoea from overt infection average 7-8, and acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome [ARDS] develops after median 2.5 days.[8]]

Further, the timing of vitamin D supplementation, at or after <br /> hospitalisation, was not specified, despite timing clearly being an important factor, given the advanced stage of illness at admission.

Baseline vitamin D status [serum 25(OH)D concentrations] were relatively ‘good’

Baseline 25(OH)D values averaged 21.0ng/ml and 20.6ng/ml in the treatment and control groups respectively, i.e. they were relatively ‘good’, and above levels reported as being associated with the greatest COVID-19 risks.[9] [10]Sub-analysis of patients < 10ngml +/-Dexamethasone would be instructive. Further, deficiencies such as magnesium (an essential ‘D’ enzyme co-factor) might factor more in the lack of observed benefits for Covid-19 severity, than vitamin D status itself.

Corticosteroids

COVID-19 related corticosteroid vitamin ‘D’ interactions require<br /> investigation. 64.2%(Treatment) and 60.8%(Control) group patients respectively, were treated with Corticosteroids (Dexamethasone?), and mortality was somewhat higher in the Treatment than Control arm. Interactions between vitamin D and steroids including dexamethasone are observed[11], including “decreased synthesis of active vitamin D, and impairment of biological action at tissue level.”[12] However these potential effects have not been investigated in COVID-19 patients treated with both vitamin D and dexamethasone.

It would be most useful to know therefore, at what stage corticosteroid treatment began, and at what dosages, what other treatments were given [and at what dosage], and when such treatments were stopped, so that potential interactions between vitamin D, corticosteroids and other treatments for COVID-19<br /> patients could be elucidated.

In particular, any negative or neutralising effect of corticosteroids on<br /> ‘D’-derivatives and pathways, could account for the lack of reduction in risks of ICU and mortality outcomes, including slightly higher mortality, in those given vitamin D, a matter of importance, since dexamethasone, given before onset of serious ARDS, was reported in Oxford[13] to increase, not reduce, mortality.

Proton pump inhibitors.

PPI are known to lower serum magnesium,[14] an essential ‘D’ hydroxylase-enzyme co-factor. 47/120-(39%)[Treatment] and 49/120-40%[Control] used PPI, compared to 9.2% population usage in USA.[15] PPI-induced related serum magnesium reduction, +/- dietary insufficiency, is a reported COVID-19 risk factor,[16] thus possibly helping account, for D3 treatment, failing to reduce Brazilian Covid-19 mortality. Thought-provokingly a Brazilian paper reported “There is chronic latent magnesium deficiency in apparently healthy university students”, which deficiency is potentially more widespread.[17]

Conversely, RCT administration of magnesium with vitamin D reduced COVID-19 in-patient mortality.2

Rate of increase of Serum 25(OH)D

It is unclear when blood was sampled for determination of serum 25(OH)D concentrations, or if this was standardised for all patients.

A large bolus will increase 25(OH)D values in the healthy, “Oral D2 and D3 (100,000 to 600,000 IU) significantly increased serum 25(OH)D from baseline in all reviewed studies” . . . “peak levels were measured at 3 days (34) and 7 days following dosing,”[18]

However, timing matters, because hepatic hydroxylation5 to form 25(OH)D (Calcifediol) is likely reduced by; severe illness, as well as by obesity diabetes, and possibly hypertension,[19] conditions already recognised as risk factors for covid-19 severity.[20]

The Cordoba study[3] suggests that 25(OH)D [Calcifediol, that could be given together with vitamin D3, cholecalciferol], may be key to effective treatment of severe COVID-19 illness. There is no suggestion Cordoba patients were treated with corticosteroids. Cordoba patients were administered calcifediol on admission-day, but the period between overt infection and hospital admission <br /> was not reported.

Risk-factor Differentials in Patient Groups

A skew in risk factors favouring the control?

Control-Placebo to Treatment-D3:

Increased risk factors - Overweight (31/37, 0,84); Obesity (58/63, 0,92); Hypertension (58/68, 0,74); Diabetes II 35/49, 0,71); COPD (5/7,0,71); Asthma (7/8, 0,88); Chronic Kidney Disease (0/2, 0,0); Rheumatic Disease (10/13, 0,77)[21]; Black (14/20) Male 965/70).

Decreased factors - White (79/62) Female (55-50)

Improved oxygen parameters are not reflected in conclusion

“Despite the D3 group being at a greater risk, including due to hypertension, COPD and diabetes, known risk factors, significant differences in oxygen supplementation favour the D3 treatment group“.21

Oxygen supplementation (%) Placebo No. (%) D3 <br /> No oxygen therapy 9 (7.5) 16 (13.3)<br /> Oxygen therapy 97 (80.8) 86 (71.7)<br /> Non-invasive ventilation 14 (11.7) 18 (15.0)

Conclusion requires Caveats?

Thus, the un-caveated conclusion “Vitamin D3 supplementation does not confer therapeutic benefits among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19”, likely requires caveats about possible effects of the several factors discussed above.

Further, the reported finding cannot be extrapolated to care of all Covid-19 patients, since the above- mentioned-potential interactions require further investigation, including; as to effects of; magnesium

status; treatment with PPI inhibitors, impact of corticosteroids in severe Covid-19 illness on vitamin D biology and outcomes, and consideration of pre-existing vitamin D status.

Further public health policy directed at reducing vitamin D, and other nutrient deficiencies for mitigation of COVID-19 risks at population levels, should not be conflated with clinical optimisation of vitamin D and metabolites for treatment of severe COVID-19 illness.

[1] Murai,I., Fernandes, A., Sales, L., Pinto, A., Goessler, K., et. al. 17th November 2020). Effect of Vitamin D3 Supplementation vs placebo on Hospital Length of Stay in Patients with Severe COVID-19 A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial. medRxiv 2020.11.16.20232397; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101 /2020.11.16.20232397 Available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232397v1<br /> [2] Tan, C., Ho, L., Kalimuddin, S., Cherng, B., Teh, Y., et.al. (10th June 2020). A cohort study to evaluate the effect of combination Vitamin D, Magnesium and Vitamin B12 (DMB) on progression to severe outcome in older COVID-19 patients. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/202... Available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.20112334v2<br /> Now published in Nutrition doi:10.1016/j.nut.2020.111017 <br /> [3] Entrenas Castillo, M., Entrenas Costa, L., Vaquero Barrios, J., Alcalá Díaz, J., López Miranda, J., Bouillon, R., & Quesada Gomez, J. (29th August 2020). Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy versus best available therapy on intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical study. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology, 203, 105751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j... Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/<br /> [4] Rastogi, A., Bhansali, A., Khare, N., et. Al. (12th November 2020).<br /> Short term, high-dose vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 disease: a randomised, placebo-controlled, study (SHADE study). Postgraduate Medical Journal Published Online First:. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139065 Available at: https://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/12/postgradmedj-2020-139065<br /> [5] Bouillon, R., & Bikle, D. (2019). Vitamin D Metabolism Revised: Fall of Dogmas. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Nov;34(11):1985-1992. doi:<br /> 10.1002/jbmr.3884. Epub 2019 Oct 29. PMID: 31589774. Available at: https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.3884<br /> [6] Brown, R., Rhein, H., Alipio, M., Annweiler, C., Gnaiger, E., Holick M., Boucher, B., Duque, G., Feron, F., Kenny, R., Montero-Odasso, M., Minisola, M., Rhodes, J.,Haq., A, Bejerot, S., Reiss, L., Zgaga, L., Crawford, M., Fricker, R., Cobbold, P., Lahore, H., Humble, M., Sarkar, A., Karras, S., Iglesias-Gonzalez, J.,Gezen-Ak, D., Dursun E., Cooper, I., Grimes, D. & de Voil C. (April 20, 2020). COVID-19 ’ICU’ risk – 20-fold greater in the Vitamin D Deficient. BAME, African Americans, the Older, Institutionalised and Obese, are at greatest<br /> risk. Sun and ‘D’-supplementation – Game-changers? Research urgently required’: ‘Rapid response re: Is ethnicity linked to incidence or outcomes of COVID-19?’: BMJ, 369(m1548). DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1548. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content... (Accessed: 24 November2020. - Alipio study<br /> now in question – rest stands)<br /> [7] Brown R. (15 Oct 2020). Vitamin D Mitigates COVID-19, Say 40+ Patient Studies (listed below) – Yet BAME, Elderly, Care-homers, and Obese are still ‘D’ deficient, thus at greater COVID-19 risk - WHY? BMJ 2020;371:m3872 Available at https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3872/rr-5 (Retrieved 24 Nov 2020) <br /> [8] Cohen, P., Blau, J., Eds: Elmore, J., Kunins, L., & Bloom, A. (2020). MD disease 2019 (COVID-19): Outpatient evaluation and management in adults. Literature review. Wolters Kluwner. Available at: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-outpatient-evaluation-and-management-in-adults/print<br /> (retrieved 25th November 2020)<br /> [9] Jain, A., Chaurasia, R., Sengar, N., Singh, M., Mahor, S., & Narain, S. (19th Nov 2020). Analysis of vitamin D level among asymptomatic and critically ill COVID-19 patients and its correlation with inflammatory markers. Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 19;10(1):20191. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77093-z. PMID: 33214648; PMCID: PMC7677378. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7677378/<br /> [10] Radujkovic, A., Hippchen, T., Tiwari-Heckler, S., Dreher, S., Boxberger, M., & Merle, U. Vitamin D Deficiency and Outcome of COVID-19 Patients. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2757. Available at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/9/2757 <br /> [11] Hidalgo, A. A., Trump, D. L., & Johnson, C. S. (2010). Glucocorticoid regulation of the vitamin D receptor. The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology, 121(1-2), 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.j... Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907065/<br /> [12] Giustina, A., Bilezikian, J. (eds) (2018). Vitamin D and Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis. Vitamin D in Clinical Medicine. Front Horm Res. Basel, Karger, 2018, vol 50, pp 149-160 (DOI:10.1159/000486078) Available at https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/486078<br /> [13] The RECOVERY Collaborative Group. (17th July 2020). Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report. J New England Journal of Medicine R10.1056/NEJMoa2021436 https://www.nejm.org/doi/fu... Available at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436<br /> [13] FDA. (8th Apr 2017). FDA Drug Safety Communication: Low magnesium levels can be associated with long-term use of Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs (PPIs) https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-low-magnesium-levels-can-be-associated-long-term-use-proton-pump (Accessed 25th November 2020)<br /> [14] Hughes, J., Chiu, D., Kalra, P., & Green, D. (2018). Prevalence and outcomes of proton pump inhibitor associated hypomagnesemia in chronic kidney disease. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197400. https://doi.org/10.1371/jou... Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197400<br /> [15] Lee, S., Ha, E., Yeniova, A., et. al. (30th July 2020). Severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 associated with proton pump inhibitors: a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching. Gut Published Online First: 30 July 2020. doi: <br /> 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322248 Available at: <br /> https://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/30/gutjnl-2020-322248<br /> [17] Hermes Sales, C., Azevedo Nascimento, D., Queiroz Medeiros, A., Costa Lima, K., Campos Pedrosa, L., & Colli, C. (2014). There is chronic latent magnesium deficiency in apparently healthy university students. Nutr Hosp. 2014 Jul 1;30(1):200-4. doi: 10.3305/nh.2014.30.1.7510. PMID: 25137281. Available at: http://www.aulamedica.es/nh/pdf/7510.pdf<br /> [18] Kearns, M., Alvarez, J., & Tangpricha, V. (2014). Large, single-dose, oral vitamin D supplementation in adult populations: a systematic review. Endocrine practice: official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, 20(4), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP1... Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128480/<br /> [19] Kheiri,B., Abdalla, A., Osman, M. et al. (2018) Vitamin D deficiency and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a narrative review. Clin Hypertens 24, 9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186 /s40885-018-0094-4 Available at https://clinicalhypertension.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40885-018-0094-4 <br /> [20] Kruglikov, L,. Shah, M., Scherer, E. (Sept 2020). Obesity and diabetes as comorbidities for COVID-19: Underlying mechanisms and the role of viral-bacterial interactions. Elife. 2020 Sep 5;9:e61330. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61330. PMID: 32930095; PMCID: PMC7492082.<br /> [21] Borsche L. Private email 19.11.20

On 2020-12-01 21:23:17, user NubOfTheMatter wrote:

This trial appears to have been a wasted opportunity.

It is unclear why Vitamin D3 was orally administered to severely ill C-19 patients. It can take a fortnight to be metabolised into Calcifediol, the active, metabolised form required to trigger an immune response. A most unhelpful delay to the effective treatment of severely ill COVID-19 patients.

The RCT conducted at the teaching hospital in Cordoba used Calcifediol, with dramatic results. Compared to the untreated ‘control group’ there was a 96% reduction in the need for Intensive Care Unit admission, and a commensurate reduction in deaths.

One has to ask, therefore, why, in Sao Paulo, it was decided to administer un-metabolised Vitamin D3 rather than Calcifediol to severely ill C-19 patients for whom every day of non-treatment reduces the chance of a good outcome if not survival? Indeed, an experienced physician could have forecast the results obtained without the need for a trial.

On 2020-12-07 13:02:33, user Fernando wrote:

Good morning, I have some comments: I couldn’t find the final D level at 7 and 10 days (hospital discharge), this information is crucial to establish the effectiveness of the ministered dose. <br /> At a first glance, considering the patients were mostly deficient in vitamin D and obese (slow D absorption) the dose provided seamed too low to produce results in such a short time (7-10 days), specially as it was vitamin D in its over the counter form (not calcifediol).<br /> Also not clear how many days after testing positive did the patients take vitamin D. It seems that in Brazil people are only hospitalized after aggravation.<br /> Thank You!

On 2020-12-06 20:15:11, user Murilo Perrone wrote:

It appears to me that the 8 patients on the treatment group who did not make it where exactly the ones who failed to reach adequate levels of 25OHD (above 30 ng/mL). The chart indicates that 5 patients from the treatment group failed even to reach 20 ng/ml. Unfortunately, the study gives no clue about this possible correlation, but that's my best guess.

I noticed that ventilation machine requirement was reduced by more than 50% in treatment group, but all 8 patients from treatment group who required it didn't survive. There is an indication that their outcome was predictable. IMHO, their specific data should be analyzed.

On 2020-12-01 14:30:16, user Peter Griffiths wrote:

Published as: Griffiths, P., Saville, C., Ball, J., Culliford, D., Pattison, N., Monks, T., 2020. Performance of the Safer Nursing Care Tool to measure nurse staffing requirements in acute hospitals: a multicentre observational study. BMJ Open 10 (5), e035828.10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035828

On 2020-12-01 17:48:06, user Pandora wrote:

Interesting. Did you take into account regular medication taken for each group. Studies have been done on Ace2 inhibitors and blockers. There's also studies on proton-pump inhibitors and Sarscov2. They seem inconclusive too, but it may skew your results. Interestingly, a lot of these drugs and a diabetes drug are under recall for NDMA contamination at present.

On 2020-10-30 18:25:19, user gatwood wrote:

I suspect there could be a strong corellation between vaccination status<br /> and following a strict adherence to all COVID anti-infection <br /> guidelines, PPE etc... Experienced and medically trained Drs and nurses<br /> more likely have been vaccinated and also are more likely to follow PPE<br /> wearing and careful anti-infection routines. Support staff (food <br /> service, assistants and claening staff) with less formal medical <br /> training and understanding of infection are probably less likely to be <br /> vacinnated and also may be less likely to carefully employ all technical<br /> anti-infection measures. Would this account for the vaccinated folks <br /> having less COVID infection?

On 2020-10-28 17:49:44, user Sam Wheeler wrote:

How often should a healthy 40-year-old person take the flu shot, for maximum protection? Every 2 months, until real covid-19 vaccine is available?

Does vaccine brand matter? Egg-free vaccines better? Egg-free flu vaccines are unavailable in most European countries, where could an European consumer buy them and how?

On 2020-12-03 15:34:00, user joetanic wrote:

Quite interesting data. I'm wondering whether anyone knows why France does not perform these tests?

Or the US? It seems a broad study, especially in France which seems to be bucking the trend, so to speak, would make clear what the future holds in many places.

On 2020-12-09 15:46:15, user Laura wrote:

This preprint has been published in The Journal of Immunology. You can read the latest version here: https://doi.org/10.4049/jim...

On 2020-12-11 16:21:41, user Fred wrote:

Disappointing study. I would not expect that antivirals are of any use if started when patients are already hospitalized. I would recommend to start with antivirals as soon as possible regardless wheter the patient has symptoms or not. But in this case we need studies comprising many more patients than in this small study

On 2020-12-11 18:07:58, user Thierry Grenet wrote:

Another discussion of the trajectories is given here : https://bmcmedresmethodol.b....

On 2020-12-12 17:48:59, user Patrick Karas wrote:

Congratulations on this excellent work. Molecular subtyping for meningioma is much needed to help develop future therapies, and your work pushes this forward. How do you think your subtypes A, B and C compare to the meningioma molecular types similarly labeled type A, B, and C published last year in PNAS by Patel et al (doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912858116)? It seems like there is a lot of overlap (group A with intact NF2; group B and C with NF2 loss; group C with increased FOXM1 expression and high copy number variation). This is a great step forward validating these subtypes through a different approach.

On 2020-12-12 23:20:04, user Omid Jahanian wrote:

This is an original manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine on 09 Nov 2020, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com....

On 2020-12-13 04:57:43, user Haitham kussaibi wrote:

Dear valuable readers,

The current manuscript has been peer reviewed and published by <br /> Karger, Acta cytologica<br /> DOI:10.1159/000509669<br /> Thank you for your interest.<br /> The Authors

On 2020-12-16 20:05:03, user Wolfgang Lins wrote:

the authors discuss "anterior nasal (AN)" swabs, and on page 4 refer to this as:

Participants first underwent collection of the AN-sample, using the specific nasal swab provided in the test kit of the manufacturer, according to the instructions for use, which also correspond to the U.S. CDC instructions [4]. Briefly, while tilting the patient’s head back 70 degrees, the swab was inserted about 2cm into each nostril, parallel to the palate until resistance was met at turbinates, then rotated 3-4 times against the nasal walls on each side

First, the collection procedure described here in act matches to one in that CDC manual [4], however not to the AN collection but to the collection of Nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) specimen. That is a floppy usage of the terms AN versus NMT, and should at least been detailled when defining AN in this paper.

Second, the paper refers to a "specific nasal swab provided in the test kit of the manufacturer" for AN collection. Three lines later they write "a separate NP-swab (provided in the manufacturer test kit) for the Ag-RDT". <br /> As of my knowledge, the "STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test" of SD Biosensor/Roche comes with a single kit - a NFS-1 from Noble Biosciences Inc., which is a swab for NP.

I think it would help this paper to identify the particular "specific nasal swab" used here to obtain the AN/NMT swab - since the conclusions of this paper make a claim that "using a professional AN-sampling kit is at least equal to....". Reference 5 with a link to a sdbiosensor IFU that refers to NP swab only does not put any more light into this.

Such a finding without properly identifying the particular kit unnecessarily reduces the value of this work.

On 2020-12-25 14:25:32, user muthu venkat wrote:

The Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis is interesting to read and need of the time to compile such an evidence particularly for middle and low income country. The authors have made sure that there is no bias in selection and reporting the evidences through use of appropriate software and methods.

On 2020-12-26 19:56:50, user Dr S K Maheshwari wrote:

This systematic review is focusing on measuring effectiveness of mHealth interventions on antenatal and postnatal care utilization in low and middle-income countries. A strong methodology was used along with wide inclusion of relevant studies from low and middle-income countries. The search strategy criteria were used very specific. I appreciate this work and recommend.

On 2020-12-25 16:08:55, user Deepak K. Gupta wrote:

Full paper now published in the Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements journal here: https://tremorjournal.org/a...

On 2020-12-26 04:49:01, user Peter Tomasi wrote:

Correction: If we assume a latency of 28 days, a substantial amount of samples REPRESENTING A POINT IN TIME WHEN THE level of the exposure in the environment was not yet as high as the one the authors draw their conclusions for, could have been collected.

On 2020-12-27 21:03:59, user CO2lover wrote:

I wonder if those samples are ever tested for influenza?

On 2021-01-01 12:19:30, user Ed wrote:

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

..and yet it is being used for exactly that, ref. Department of Health and Social Care Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation: advice on priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination, 30 December 2020 6th bullet-point of the introduction.

On 2021-01-05 07:56:40, user Rita Pizzi wrote:

previous researches

Ghate VS, Ng KS, Zhou W, Yang H, Khoo GH, Yoon WB, Yuk HG.

“Antibacterial effect of light emitting diodes of visible wavelengths on

selected foodborne pathogens at different illumination temperatures.”

International Journal of Food Microbiology. 166 (2013) 399.

Ghate VS, Leong AL, Kumar A, Bang WS, Zhou W, Yuk HG. “Enhancing the

antibacterial effect of 461 and 521 nm light emitting diodes on selected

foodborne pathogens in trypticase soy broth by acidic and alkaline pH

conditions” Food Microbiology. 48 (2015) 49.

Ghate, V, A Kumar, W Zhou and HG Yuk. 2015. Effect of organic acids

on the photodynamic inactivation of selected foodborne pathogens using

461 nm LEDs. Food Control 57:333–340.

Vaitonis and Ž. Lukšiene – Institute of Applied Research, Vilnius

University, Saul?etekio 10, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania “Led-based light

sources for decontamination of food: modelling photosensitization-based

inactivation of pathogenic bacteria” Lithuanian Journal of Physics,

Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 141–145 (2010)

http://www.lmaleidykla.lt/p...

Nicolai Ondrusch, Jürgen Kreft “Blue and Red Light Modulates

SigB-Dependent Gene Transcription, Swimming Motility and Invasiveness in

Listeria monocytogenes” Published: January 11, 2011DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0016151

http://journals.plos.org/pl...

On 2021-01-06 22:52:53, user Ana Laura Teodoro De Paula wrote:

Where's the funnel plot? The result can't be considered if you cite a funnel plot and don't show it.

On 2021-01-07 03:20:52, user Robin Whittle wrote:

The Mark Alipio article (43) is fake and was withdrawn in August. Please see https://researchveracity.in... for information on this article and two more by "Raharusun" et al. and "Glicio" et al.

On 2021-01-07 08:06:09, user Giuseppe novelli wrote:

Congratulations, the work confirms and extends the considerations reported by us in two published papers, which happy if the authors could quote in an updated version of the manuscript Thanks

Giuseppe Novelli

1. Novelli A, et al., Analysis of ACE2 genetic variants in 131 Italian SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Hum Genomics. 2020 Sep 11; 14 (1): 29. doi: 10.1186 / s40246-020-00279-z. PMID: 32917283

2. Latini A, et al., COVID-19 and Genetic Variants of Protein Involved in the SARS-CoV-2 Entry into the Host Cells. Genes (Basel). 2020 Aug 27; 11 (9): E1010. doi: 10.3390 / genes11091010. PMID: 32867305

On 2021-01-07 14:34:51, user Meerwind7 wrote:

Households with single parents are also considered as socially deprived in other contexts. For infection rates, it might be of benefit if there is no second adult that could bring infections to the family. It was a pity if the effect was not taken into account. I also do not know if the social deprivation was evaluated for each individual child and its infection risks, or just for the schools and the aggregat of their pupils overall.

On 2021-01-08 21:53:07, user Marek J wrote:

Your study says that methylglyoxal contained in honey cause immunostimulatory or pro-inflammatory action via stimulating the production of immunological mediators, also IL-1?. This study https://www.nature.com/arti...<br /> Shows that low levels of IL-1 are linked to lower mortality.<br /> Is it then safe to recommend using honey rich for MGO, e.g. Manuka honey?

On 2020-12-15 23:58:58, user Samantha Braun wrote:

What was used as the placebo?

On 2021-01-09 18:28:12, user Alex Backer wrote:

This study appears to have been used to Curative to justify their methodology, yet the false positive and false negative rates in the FDA report are incredibly high. Look at the numbers: https://www.linkedin.com/pu...

On 2021-01-10 12:16:07, user Hans Binder wrote:

The paper is published under<br /> https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4...

On 2021-01-10 19:47:40, user Wayne Griff wrote:

21 days after the 1st dose of the Pfizer Vaccine, patients have 1/5th the viral neutralizing power of Convalescent Plasma. In contrast, 7 days after the 2nd dose, patients have 2-4 times the neutralizing power of Convalescent Plasma. NEJM Also, the 47% effectiveness rate is only up to 3 weeks. It's definitely going to be less at 6, 9, or 12 weeks.<br /> Giving only 1 vaccination is a waste of a vaccination. It provides little, if any immunity.

On 2021-01-12 20:36:18, user Michael Meyer wrote:

Can someone tell me if this study has completed the peer-review process prior to publication in the Journal of Infectious Diseases? If not, is it currently in that process?

On 2021-01-13 13:34:01, user Tavpritesh Sethi wrote:

Great work. Please do have a look at our work from June, 2020 on similar lines using explainable models https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

On 2021-01-14 00:01:25, user Emmanuel Aluko wrote:

Will such a study be done on older cohorts to show the age-dependent efficacy of Ivermectin on reducing mortality, for mortality is seen mainly in older patients with associated co-morbidities? Days to negative tests on such cohorts would also provide a better basis for accepting Ivermectin as a worthy COVID-19 therapeutic.

On 2021-01-14 14:10:21, user Jeroen van Kampen wrote:

Finally peer-reviewed and online.<br /> See: https://www.nature.com/arti...

On 2021-01-15 12:19:29, user Kit Byatt wrote:

Given that:<br /> 1. Excess mortality for a year can't be known for several weeks into the following year <br /> 2. Especially in a year with Christmas & New Year's Day on Fridays, and a pandemic impeding the bureaucracy of collecting & collating mortality data - particularly in cases where the Coroner [or equivalent] is involved)<br /> 3. Different countries have exhibited different patterns (or none) of winter excess mortality peaks (as shown in Figure 1c)

a) Is it not premature to undertake a comparison before all the data are in (or alternatively, at least title as 'Preliminary observations on...'?

b) Might not the association end up significantly higher, the same, or lower, then?

On 2021-01-27 10:12:04, user Elias Hasle wrote:

some countries being hardly hit while others to date are almost unaffected

Readers will tend to read this as "barely hit", the opposite of the intended meaning. "hit hardly" would be less ambiguous.

On 2021-01-17 06:42:44, user Seri Ratu Putri Binti Baharom wrote:

Hi, where can I see the survey form?

On 2021-01-18 11:40:13, user Kit Byatt wrote:

Re Length of stay [LOS]

1. Was there a sex difference in LOS?

2. We know there are age differences in LOS (median & variance increasing with age). What were the LOSs for age brackets (e.g. each decade)?

3. Given the very skew LOS distributions in hospital in-patients usually, and especially here, mightn't it be helpful to put the inter-quartile range for the median LOS in 'Outcomes' para 2?

4. Could you calculate the 'decay' in in-patient numbers (i.e. the equation for the 'current number of inpatients' curve from time zero, for 1000 pts with the LOS distribution you know)? This could be invaluable for modelling bed occupancy.

Minor presentational points:

1. Figure 15 Middle (symptoms combination in ICU patients matrix) p 23

It is difficult to know the percentage figure for each bar in the symptom combinations and ICU admission matrix. Either putting the number over/in each column (as in Figure 15 Top), or at least showing minor tick marks at 0.01 intervals would greatly improve the clarity of this chart.

1. Is there a reason for presenting LOS data as a density plot and time from symptoms to admission as a Gamma distribution curve? They are essentially the same phenomena: time to an occurrence; why the different graphical representation?

On 2021-01-21 13:24:54, user Miroslava Stancíková wrote:

Testing was not voluntary, it was in conflict with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

On 2021-01-21 18:33:05, user Calogero wrote:

Slovak people were forced to participate to the testing under threat of losing their jobs. One months after testing we were and now still are among the countries with higher deaths rate pro capite in the world. People had to wait per hours outside in severe november weather to be tested and after that wait inside for the results risking to be infected. During the weeks after testing the number of daily pcr tests was significantly lowered, that is reason why there were less new covid cases after testing. And despite whole scientific and medical community is contrary to the wide-testing, it is to be repeated next week, same conditions, not tested not allowed to go to the work, risking unexcused absence standing on the words of minister of labour, without any financial compensation. Unbelievable but true. (sorry for my english)

On 2021-01-23 13:21:08, user Dušan wrote:

"All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest"

Have a look at Jarcuška's organisation Euromedpro which is sponsored by GSK and Pfizer.

On 2021-01-23 01:56:50, user Super Science wrote:

Interestingly similar Autoantibodies to beta-adrenergic and muscarinic cholinergic receptors in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis ‘Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’ (ME/CFS) patients were also found<br /> – A validation study in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid from two Swedish cohorts - ScienceDirect<br /> August 2020<br /> https://www.science direct.com/science/article/...

On 2021-01-25 15:10:24, user Chip Hughes wrote:

Thank you all for this great research. It will really help OSHA target enforcement to the highest risk sectors and job classifications so that we can hope to reduce deaths among frontline workers with the highest level of COVID19 exposures on the job. Chip Hughes, USDOL-OSHA DAS

On 2021-02-02 18:17:42, user Robert Enger wrote:

The #1 candidate is "cook". Frequently that person stands in proximity to the grill, which is a high air flow location, due to the high power exhaust fan system in the range-hood over the grill. This acts as a funnel, sucking air from the kitchen (and surrounding areas back to the various points of makeup-air ingress). The cook is thus "downstream" from numerous co-workers in the kitchen, and from persons in other locations between the makeup-air ingress points and the range hood (potentially all the restaurant patrons, if interior dining resumes).

This should sound familiar. Recall the studies of remote distance Covid transmission studied in Korea and China. In those studies, high air flow from air conditioner output ports carried virus from infected individuals to victims many feet removed from the infected party. In this case, the cook near the range-hood is "downstream" from potentially significant numbers of individuals (depending on the location of makeup-air ingress points, etc).

If this line of reasoning is found to be sound, then providing a direct ingress path for outside fresh air to enter into the kitchen "may" reduce the exposure of the cook (and nearby kitchen staff).

On 2021-01-26 01:45:47, user jsihje wrote:

Why is Ivermectin and Embelin not considered at all?

On 2021-01-26 01:57:03, user Steven David Stoffers wrote:

what about a model run where there wasn't any air travel at all, including private air travel, that needed to still be made let alone any actual air travel at all, as of January 30, 2020 thru to today? what does that model show?

On 2021-01-30 20:33:49, user Michael Höhle wrote:

Dear authors,

thanks for posting this very relevant manuscript! Please consider having a look at the statistical methodology of the two following papers, which are very closely related to your work, as they also use an imputation + nowcast + backprojection approach:

• Nowcasting the COVID-19 pandemic in Bavaria:<br /> https://onlinelibrary.wiley...

• Analysis of the early Covid-19 epidemic curve in Germany by<br /> regression models with change points:<br /> https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

Best regards,<br /> Michael Höhle

On 2021-02-04 19:21:10, user Eli Rosenberg wrote:

We note that the final form of this article was published in JAMA Network Open on February 3, 2021:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2775827

We thank the medRxiv community for your interest in our work.

Eli Rosenberg<br /> Associate Professor<br /> Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics<br /> University at Albany School of Public Health, State University of New York

On 2021-02-22 19:53:12, user Alexander Porter wrote:

What does: '8,041 individuals received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and were at risk for infection at least 36 days after their first dose.' mean? Were these individuals exposed to SARS-CoV-2 directly every day?

Were all PCR methods run with the same cycle threshold before and after administration?

On 2021-02-23 12:35:42, user Marek J wrote:

Great. We need more trials like this. There is huge potential: https://www.medrxiv.org/con...

On 2021-04-15 21:01:27, user CY Liu wrote:

Did you control batch effect, position effect, covariates in the data analysis? I could not see it in the paper.

On 2020-11-06 05:07:01, user Schneide Fu wrote:

Not sure they got the dosage correctly, as Nitazoxanide has a half life of 2.9 hrs. Should have been on divided doses, several times a day.

On 2020-11-06 14:33:43, user Dr. Thiagarajan wrote:

Timely need article and very interesting. We need to understand the challenges faced by dialysis professionals during this COVID 19. I congratulate Dr. Ravi Kumar for this timely article. Looking for this complete manuscript.

On 2020-11-12 12:47:34, user leesohyun19 wrote:

is it possible without masking image?