Your welcome. And sorry to see your influenced by some type of political
bias. But that doesn’t mean you have to be one.
Now here is, maybe is one of those web sites that you refer to in your informational postings. You might be of service and contact them and see if they can review those numbers # on China. I think they might have left out a decimal point. But hay it’s on the internet right? So it must be correct??
Now you take care. I will be off to the rest of my day. We’ll text latter.
Thanks, Grimm. I’m sure you read a lot. Please continue to post frequently and share your wealth of knowledge for all the imbeciles that you think may need your posts. Why would anyone on this thread think there is a difference between a negative sense single stranded RNA influenza virus and a positive sense single stranded RNA corona virus? 
I’m sure you’ve absorbed and enjoyed reading all my posts, including the one below from March 1. 
Thanks again for your informative comments.
Here’s something to read if you are bored this weekend and would like a little additional information. Let’s keep in mind that this thread is to discuss Global Health Effects on Markets and Mining Stock. Let’s keep it on subject by presenting useful intelligible information. In discussions it is normal to present differing views on subject matter in a courteous and responsible manner.
The thread has presented a tremendous amount of information on the virus. Keep in mind that the Covid19 virus was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. That’s a rather long time ago. The intitial scare of a novel virus was overwhelming. It can’t be overemphasized that as much as we are learning about the nature of this virus and how to deal with it, there is still much we don’t know. An epidemic is termed a pandemic when it is no longer localized and has spread over a very large geographic area that is also affecting a large proportion of the population. This pandemic has spread globally and has shown itself to be deadly. As disheartening as it may be, there are many direct deaths associated with this particular coronavirus. It must be dealt with.
This forum has mostly presented information and ideas on how best to deal with minimizing the spread of the virus while minimizing the number of deaths. The original goal of the mandated lockdowns was to prevent overwhelming the hospital and healthcare systems from becoming completely paralyzed by an overload of patients. After 5 months, the far reaching problems of prolonged lockdowns are beginning to take a toll on the country and the world in unacceptable ways. In the months ahead, I’m quite sure there will be discussions on not just the health effects, but also the global effects this virus is having on Markets and Mining Stocks. Michael Oliver had another dry but informative interview on Palisade radio yesterday titled “Silver Will Crush Gold”; he discusses much of his earlier work on his analysis methods in the 1st half of this 40 minute interview. About the half-way mark he discusses his view of what to expect in the short and longer term time frame for the commodities. It is a good look at what to expect in the gold and silver miners this year and next.
Switching gears a bit, this is a rather long. but well written article on India’s attempt to deal with the pandemic:
Lift lockdowns, protect the vulnerable, treat Covid like a health issue and not a disaster
24 July, 2020 8:00 am IST
Serological studies have shown that 10 times more Indians have had Covid than reported, and the death rate is 0.1%. So let’s not exaggerate, say experts.
India presents a unique opportunity for a science-based approach for handling the Covid-19 pandemic in light of new scientific evidence. The availability of excellent serological evidence based on sample surveys of large populations provides crucial information for a rational path to managing the epidemic without undue fear or panic.
A serological survey measures the fraction of the population that has Covid-specific antibodies in their blood. This provides good evidence of prior infection. Recently, the ICMR has conducted a large-scale seroprevalence study in India, which estimated that tens of millions (crores) of Indians have already had the Covid-19 infection. This finding has been verified by a serological study conducted by Thyrocare and other private labs.
This may sound like bad news, but it’s actually good news. The vast number of these infected people experienced few symptoms from the infection and did not die. The vast majority are no longer infected and are not infectious.
Since there are so many previously infected people, the Covid-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) in India implied by ICMR’s previous study is around 0.1 per cent or lower — one death per thousand infections. This is much lower than the widely reported fatality rate estimate of 2.5 per cent, which ignores the large number of unreported and uncounted cases found by the serological studies. Unreported cases must then be also counted in the denominator to estimate the true danger from the Covid-19 infection.
Lockdowns are futile
Serological surveillance is a better and more reliable technique for assessing the progress of the disease rather than crude ‘increase in number of cases’ (or ‘doubling rate’) based on case counts. Increase in the number of cases is proportional to testing intensity in a population.
Likewise, reporting crude ‘recovery rate’ is unscientific, and adds to fear psychosis by falsely exaggerating the risk perception. Both of these statistics ignore the large number of unreported cases. In a widespread disease with a proven infection fatality rate below 0.1 per cent, like Covid-19 in India, it is unscientific and futile to impose lockdowns in a bid to limit the increase in case counts.
Lockdown measures cannot permanently control the spread of the virus, as is evident from the widespread prevalence of the disease in India despite the lockdown. At best, lockdowns delay the onset of the disease to after the lockdown is lifted, rather than preventing disease altogether. Lockdowns themselves cause severe damage to both lives and livelihoods, as people delay required healthcare and lose their jobs.
Widespread pandemic is good news
As there is substantial global data and experience now available, the progress of the disease is known more clearly. It is clear that India has reached a stage where in many cities, the prevalence is in double digits (more than 10 per cent) while the countryside is relatively less exposed.
However, the best part is that the number of deaths in India due to Covid-19 infection is quite low relative to the experience of other countries. In the end, Covid-19 infections will have a relatively small effect on India’s annual death count of nearly ten million.
India’s daily burden of ischemic heart disease alone is approximately 4,000 deaths. If the lockdown is continued, it is possible that more people will die from neglected treatment of other diseases than from Covid-19 itself.
The lockdown encourages mismanagement of medical services by delaying or eliminating needed care for patients with other conditions that are not specifically Covid-19. It is a wrong and self-defeating policy to count deaths only due to Covid-19 on a day-to-day basis, while ignoring deaths and other malign outcomes from other diseases as a result of lockdowns. The daily death and health incidence data should be published for all causes and not just Covid-19, to put things into perspective.
Publicising only reported Covid-19 cases and deaths is a form of misinformation, inducing fear in the population, including in the medical community. The reported case counts present a false picture of the epidemic, greatly underestimating its true spread. In fact, the actual number of cases is tens of times higher if unreported cases are also counted.
Remember, a widespread epidemic is good news, since it implies a low infection fatality rate. So, it is better to recognize and publicize the vast number of cases that recover on their own, to rightly project the relative lethality of Covid-19 and address the disproportionate scare from the early days of the epidemic.
The approach India should take
In view of the above evidence, a liberalised Swedish approach is the best course for India. This simply means emphasising public education, individual risk-taking and responsibility. The desirable, and, perhaps, unavoidable, outcome will be slow or natural exposure of the not-so-vulnerable segment of the population, while the capacity to handle severe cases is built up.
The more vulnerable (say persons of age 60-plus and with comorbid conditions) should receive special protection, including testing, close monitoring, and perhaps isolation.
The strategy of testing and tracing all asymptomatic or mild cases in order to isolate them will now be impossible, given the widespread nature of the epidemic. Waiting in lockdown for a vaccine is also risky, as the harms from the lockdown multiply. A heroic level of ‘trace, test and isolate’ will only further stigmatise the disease as it has already done, clog institutional capacity, and increase viral load all around, including on the medical personnel and on the asymptomatic or mild cases. This will make institutions hotbeds of avoidable nosocomial viral load (i.e. hospital-acquired infections) and result in more deaths.
By contrast, a decentralised approach involving all levels of primary, secondary and tertiary medical infrastructure, like any other communicable disease, will be more suited to manage the pandemic.
The ‘trace, test and isolate’ doctrine raises significant human rights issues in terms of unequal treatment and freedom of the individual, as the tested asymptomatic or mild patients are forcibly exposed to additional viral loads on not only themselves but all around, leading to more deaths, while those untested (and hence not quarantined), develop natural immunity and live.
To sum up, disease projection models should be updated to account for the serological evidence of widespread disease prevalence and low infection fatality rates. Wherever the revised projection suggests that hospitals will not be overwhelmed, lockdowns must be lifted, boldly and confidently, but with special provisions to protect the vulnerable.
It is important to handle the epidemic as a public health issue and not a disaster or law and order issue. Police forces must be taken off completely, the Disaster Management Act should be lifted, and constitutional liberties fully restored. There must be a transparent disclosure of the widespread nature but very low true mortality of this disease, quite like many other diseases we live with in our day-to-day lives.
Dr Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University, USA.
Sanjiv Agarwal is the founder of the Good Governance India Foundation, Mumbai. The GGIF is launching Rational Health Response to Covid-19, RHRC-19.com, for a collaborative response with medical practitioners in India.
This is an updated version of the letter written to PM Narendra Modi last month in response to his invitation for suggestions for Unlock 2.0.
Lift lockdowns, protect the vulnerable, treat Covid like a health issue and not a disaster
What a hack job!
WOW! That’s interesting:
Weekly hospitalization rates among all ages first peaked during the week ending April 18 (MMWR week 16) at 10.1 per 100,000 population, followed by a second peak during the week ending July 18 (MMWR week 29) at 8.1 per 100,000 population. Data for the most recent weeks may change as additional admissions occurring during those weeks are reported.
Thus far, peak hospitalizations originated from data in only 3-4 states early in the pandemic. After several months the virus was not contained and spread throughout the country. With all 50 states reporting now, serious confirmed cases resulting in hospitalizations currently continue in a downtrend.
In other words, in your own words, this isn’t a valid data set and is subject to increase.
Nice job posting invalid data, I guess it’s just that “easy” to do!
Invalid? Please explain. If you are making a point I don’t see what data you are referring to. Who is drawing faulty conclusions? I know a lot of countries were led down the wrong path to dealing with this pandemic. Cases are not necessarily indicitive of impending deaths if proper precautions and policies are followed. Maybe it would help to understand the “old” news from May. The original modeling upon which the governments around the world based their lockdown and containment actions. All data in the previous graph is current as of last week. I can only hope the trend continues in it’s downward path.
‘Professor Lockdown’ Modeler Resigns in Disgrace
By JOHN FUND
May 6, 2020 4:52 PMNeil Ferguson is the British academic who created the infamous Imperial College model that warned Boris Johnson that, without an immediate lockdown, the coronavirus would cause 500,000 deaths and swamp the National Health Service.
Johnson’s government promptly abandoned its Sweden-like “social distancing” approach, and Ferguson’s model also influenced the U.S. to make lockdown moves with its shocking prediction of over two million Americans dead.
Johan Giesecke, the former chief scientist for the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has called Ferguson’s model “the most influential scientific paper” in memory. He also says it was, sadly, “one of the most wrong.”
With all of his influence, it’s not surprising British media are making a great deal about Ferguson being forced to resign from the government’s virus advisory board yesterday after revelations he had violated lockdown rules he had championed in order to conduct an affair with a married woman. Ferguson admits he made an “error of judgement and took the wrong course of action.”
Ferguson’s hypocritical violation of his beloved lockdown was the least of his errors in judgment. His incompetence and insistence on doomsday models is far worse.
Elon Musk calls Ferguson an “utter tool” who does “absurdly fake science.” Jay Schnitzer, an expert in vascular biology and a former scientific direct of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego, tells me: “I’m normally reluctant to say this about a scientist, but he dances on the edge of being a publicity-seeking charlatan.”
Indeed, Ferguson’s Imperial College model has been proven wildly inaccurate. To cite just one example, it saw Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago. As Fraser Nelson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, notes: “Imperial College’s model is wrong by an order of magnitude.”
Indeed, Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him “The Master of Disaster.”Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
This later commentary from June is equally critical of an unnecessary initial response as it affected Canada. When will the US wake up to what the rest of the world is doing? This is a global pandemic that is being responded to in the press of other countries. The US press needs to catch up.
The Flawed COVID-19 Model That Locked Down Canada
June 4, 2020 - PETER ST. ONGE GAËL CAMPANEconomic Note showing that Canada and other countries may have adopted overly drastic measures due to a single bad projection
Restrictions continue to be gradually eased in Canada, but as there is talk of a second wave, it is more important than ever to question the case for lockdown. This MEI publication provides a critique of Professor Neil Ferguson’s epidemiological model, which led to lockdown in this country.
This Economic Note was prepared by Peter St. Onge, Senior Fellow at the MEI, with the collaboration of Gaël Campan, Senior Economist at the MEI. The MEI’s Health Policy Series aims to examine the extent to which freedom of choice and entrepreneurship lead to improvements in the quality and efficiency of health care services for all patients.
Before mid-March, most Canadians saw COVID-19 as an overseas problem. The emphasis was on returning Canadians stuck in China, and there had been a single COVID-19 death in Canada, a BC man in his 80s with underlying health issues.
Then, suddenly, the world changed. Within two weeks, practically the entire Canadian economy was locked down. Gatherings were banned, schools and daycares closed, and nearly every business deemed “non-essential” shut down in a bid to slow the virus. Historic job losses followed, 500,000 in the first week alone. By April 13, nearly 6 million Canadians had applied for emergency benefits.(1)
What happened? On March 16, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London released an epidemiological model that took the world by storm.(2) The report warned that tens of millions would die in a pandemic that was compared to the Spanish flu, the deadliest epidemic in modern times.
The only option, warned the report, would be radical physical distancing of the entire population, potentially for 18 months, until a vaccine was available. The paper advised that less restrictive methods such as isolation of suspected cases and physical distancing of the elderly and at-risk would merely reduce deaths by half. Instead, what was needed was total isolation. Two days later, the US-Canada border closed to non-essential travel, and one week after that, Prime Minister Trudeau announced an $82 billion aid bill to address the massive job losses expected from the lockdowns.
Now, two months later, experts have uncovered serious flaws in the original Imperial College paper. Furthermore, evidence has emerged that Professor Ferguson himself has a long history of overpredicting deaths by a wide margin—a concern confirmed by data from countries that never locked down in the present crisis. It follows that Canada and other countries may have vastly overreacted to a single bad projection.
The Predictions Behind the Lockdown
In his March 16 paper, Professor Ferguson predicted that COVID-19 would kill 510,000 in the UK and 2.2 million in the US in 2020. Ten days later, his team gave revised estimates for many countries, including Canada, and they were grim. Ferguson projected that, unmitigated, COVID-19 would kill 326,000 in Canada this year (see Table 1). With a “75% reduction in interpersonal contact rates,” however, he predicted deaths would fall to under 46,000 in Canada. Worldwide, he predicted that in the “unmitigated” absence of interventions, COVID-19 could infect 7 billion, resulting in 40 million deaths.(3)The World Health Organization (WHO), which had just months earlier stated that mass quarantines are not effective for infectious diseases, quickly changed its tune, promoting the package of coercive measures China had enacted, including mandatory quarantine, contact tracing by authorities, and ultimately, lockdowns.(4)
Professor Ferguson’s paper had an enormous impact on lockdown debates. He himself was quickly dubbed “Professor Lockdown” in the media.(5) Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist for the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has called his model “the most influential scientific paper” in memory, and also “one of the most wrong.”(6)
Why was Professor Ferguson so influential? Mark Landler and Stephen Castle wrote in The New York Times, “It wasn’t so much the numbers themselves, frightening though they were, as who reported them: Imperial College London.” With the professor’s ties to the WHO, the authors noted, Imperial was “treated as a sort of gold standard, its mathematical models feeding directly into government policies.” The title of the Times article said that Ferguson’s report had “jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to action,” as Britain shelved its original strategy of allowing herd immunity to spread in favour of a strict lockdown.(7)
The panic quickly spread to Canada. The medical director of critical care at a Toronto hospital warned that Ontario’s health system could face “total collapse,” writing, “It’s World War Three. This could be an unmitigated disaster. This is the time to overreact.”(8)
Predictions vs. Reality
Today, the world looks very different. Far from “World War Three,” hospitals are actually turning off the lights in some formerly busy corridors. In Ontario, “almost 78 per cent of the province’s expanded ventilator capacity remained free” in early April as “patient volume was well under the ‘best case’ scenario depicted in Ontario-government epidemic modeling.” At the end of April, Ontario’s chief medical officer announced dozens of deaths from cardiac patients avoiding hospitals for fear of COVID-19.(9)
Moreover, the pandemic has had far worse effects in Quebec, especially Montreal, despite one of the most aggressive lockdowns in Canada. Given over 82% of Canadian COVID-19 deaths have been in long-term care facilities, it is possible that senior centre policies may have been far more important than lockdowns.(10)
Meanwhile, epidemiological models have been revised dramatically downward from Professor Ferguson’s extremes. On April 9, Canada revised estimated deaths to between 11,000 and 22,000, compared with his range of 8,000 to 326,000 deaths. On April 14, the UK revised their estimate down to 23,000, compared to his range of 22,000 to 602,000 deaths. The US, partly open throughout COVID-19, on May 4 revised estimates to 134,000 (double the 2017 US flu season), compared to his range of 84,000 to 2,654,000 deaths.(11)
Few countries locked down precisely on Professor Ferguson’s recommended triggers, making comparisons difficult. In fact, Canada shut down after just four deaths, far earlier than even his earliest trigger of 750 deaths.(12)
A cleaner comparison, then, comes from countries that never shut down at all, including, famously, Sweden, and also Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. These countries were essentially Professor Ferguson’s “unmitigated” scenario; restaurants and bars remained open, governments merely requested people social distance, a recommendation that was widely ignored even in Japan, where neighbourhood bars and diners remain packed into the night.(13)
While the epidemic isn’t over, the difference is already staggering. Ferguson predicted 1.4 million deaths in Japan, when the actual number as of May 12 was 657. In Korea, he predicted 381,000 deaths, compared to 258 on May 12. In Taiwan, he predicted 212,000 deaths, when the actual number of dead was seven. Even in hard-hit Sweden, he predicted 85,000 deaths, compared to the actual number on May 12 of 3,313.(14)
Here in Canada, so far COVID-19 is tracking slightly above a bad seasonal flu, with 5,169 COVID-19 deaths as of May 12 compared to 3,500 the Ontario Ministry of Health estimates across Canada in a typical flu season.(15) The situation is not resolved, to be sure, and if the typical bell-curve pattern of influenza is a guide, we could see deaths double or more. But we would never dream of throwing 6 million Canadians onto public assistance to head off even a very bad flu season.
What went wrong? Shockingly, the code that generated Professor Ferguson’s doomsday prediction was neither public nor peer reviewed. He himself admitted the computer code has thousands of lines of “undocumented” code, which makes it impossible to verify. A senior software engineer from Google found the code has amateurish errors, including giving different answers depending on the number of CPUs in the specific computer running the model. This makes the results unverifiable, and therefore meaningless.(16)
Picking Up the Pieces
First of all, the challenge is how to get out of this economic catastrophe. This involves weighing not only the health threat, but the well-established reality that mass unemployment and poverty kill, from suicide to substance abuse to malnutrition among the vulnerable.(18)
This trade-off requires involving economic experts as well as epidemiologists, lest narrow groupthink dominate our response. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have already implemented measured re-openings,(19) and now certain Canadian provinces are starting to as well. If other Canadian policymakers don’t move quickly, we run the very real risk of making the cure far worse than even the disease.
Second, COVID-19 has shown us how little margin of error we have in health care capacity. After years of deep concern about overburdened hospitals and waiting lists,(20) it is time to dramatically expand Canada’s health capacity so that we are not perpetually sitting on a knife’s edge.
Liberalization would include private-sector options that relieve the burden from the public sector even in normal times, but especially in a crisis. And it would include regulatory modernizations for both health care providers and manufacturers, including easing the long path to the development and introduction of new medicines and, indeed, new vaccines.
Third, we need proper scrutiny of the scientific models policy-makers rely on. Academics do not even regularly audit code in models, which would be unacceptably amateurish in, for example, car insurance. This issue is already intensely debated in the US, as skeptics accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of using “secret science” relying on hidden data or opaque modeling assumptions to enact green activists’ wish-lists.(21)
Anonymized data and computer code should be open to public scrutiny as the minimum requirement for any study that is used to justify public policy, from lockdowns to carbon taxes. Furthermore, these studies must be based on verified facts and use code that actually does what it says it does, and the ensuing decision-making process must be transparent and open to the public.
One former Indian bureaucrat put it well: “Emergency situations like this pandemic should require a far higher—and not lower—level of scrutiny” since policy choices have such tremendous impact. “This suggests a need for democracies to strengthen their critical thinking capacity by creating an independent ‘Black Hat’ institution whose purpose would be to question any technical foundations of government decisions.”(22)
As for the present crisis, any continuing or future lockdowns and restrictions must be based on transparent and verifiable science. We emphatically have a right to expect that any policy that threatens millions of Canadians’ livelihoods and civil liberties is based on the very highest level of scientific rigour.
If you think the hall monitor has left the building your wrong, if you have contradictory information post…
Otherwise this is not a bashing forum…
GC.
The bashing days of yore bring back memories for sure! 
Only thing to add is that I categorically reject any notion that COVID-19 is anything but a horrible disease as depicted by epidemiologists and it’s clear that there are indeed organized attempts to put out carefully crafted misleading information to the public that is politically motivated.
I predict yet another phase of increasing infection rates as we head into Fall speared headed by the opening of schools then followed by more favorable virus weather and people spending more time indoors especially in the northern states.
Note that it appears that the FDA may approve a vaccine prior to Phase 3 trials being completed that is politically motivated and not driven by sound science. You would be wise NOT take any vaccine that hasn’t safety made it through Phase 3 trials as history is wrought with examples of proto-vaccines or other drugs that go awry and not discovered on just how bad until the completion of Phase 3. (It’s particularly concerning with general rush to get a vaccine out and the corners that are being cut to do just that.)
We all saw our covid19 testing get off to a very slow start. CDC let the country down in so many ways. It’s worse than we imagined what caused the delays. Does anyone here remember hearing what initially went wrong at the CDC? It was reported widely in a NYT article back in April and updated several weeks later. We should realize the tremendous progress made after the private sector became involved. Now we know it was largely due to the entrenched bureaucracy of the scientists that have shown an unbelievable level of incompetency and overconfidence. Three strikes and the private labs had to become engaged to set the testing programs back on track. I’m so glad that a concerted effort by the commercial labs and private enterprise have worked for solutions. It was only after the HPC Consortium was formed, which is really a world effort, that things began to move swiftly. How many were aware of the effort to put this together:
“The COVID-19 High Performance Computing (HPC) Consortium is a unique private-public effort spearheaded by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the U.S. Department of Energy and IBM to bring together federal government, industry, and academic leaders who are volunteering free compute time and resources on their world-class machines.”
It’s amazing to see what details were revised out of the NYT article from the original, but it still captures the gist of what went on. There was much greater transparency in the original article.We are all looking for daylight past this virus when we can be with friends, return to work, and school and just return to a better semblance of normalcy. There is no doubt at all this is a terrible disease that has much greater harm than the immediate health effects. It is a relief that hospitals are not going to become over crowded beyond capacity. It is also a relief that those needing continuity of care for various health conditions or non-urgent service such as implant surgeries and back repair can obtain those services. The medical community is much better equipped to handle this disease without paralyzing the country with fear. The challenge is up to each individual and a responsible government to take the necessary precautions for their own situation and those in their immediate communities. I feel optimistic of the progress being made and the path forward to conquer all the consequences of this virus.
C.D.C. Labs Were Contaminated, Delaying Coronavirus Testing, Officials Say
By Sheila Kaplan
Published April 18, 2020
Updated May 7, 2020
Fallout from the agency’s failed rollout of national coronavirus kits two months ago continues to haunt U.S. efforts to combat the spread of the highly infectious virus.
Sloppy laboratory practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention caused contamination that rendered the nation’s first coronavirus tests ineffective, federal officials confirmed on Saturday.
Two of the three C.D.C. laboratories in Atlanta that created the coronavirus test kits violated their own manufacturing standards, resulting in the agency sending tests that did not work to nearly all of the 100 state and local public health labs, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
Early on, the F.D.A., which oversees laboratory tests, sent Dr. Timothy Stenzel, chief of in vitro diagnostics and radiological health, to the C.D.C. labs to assess the problem, several officials said. He found an astonishing lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing and learned that nobody was in charge of the entire process, they said.
Problems ranged from researchers entering and exiting the coronavirus laboratories without changing their coats, to test ingredients being assembled in the same room where researchers were working on positive coronavirus samples, officials said. Those practices made the tests sent to public health labs unusable because they were contaminated with the coronavirus, and produced some inconclusive results.
In a statement on Saturday, a spokeswoman for the F.D.A., Stephanie Caccomo, said, “C.D.C. did not manufacture its test consistent with its own protocol.”
The F.D.A. confirmed its conclusions late this week after several media outlets requested public disclosure of its inquiry, which assuredly is part of a larger federal investigation into the C.D.C. lab irregularities by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Forced to suspend the launch of a nationwide detection program for the coronavirus for a month, the C.D.C. lost credibility as the nation’s leading public health agency and the country lost ground in ways that continue to haunt grieving families, the sick and the worried well from one state to the next.
To this day, the C.D.C.’s singular failure symbolizes how unprepared the federal government was in the early days to combat a fast-spreading outbreak of a new virus and it also highlights the glaring inability at the onset to establish a systematic testing policy that would have revealed the still unknown rates of infection in many regions of the country. The blunders are posing new problems as some states with few cases agitate to reopen and others remain in virtual lockdown with cases and deaths still climbing.
While President Trump and other members of his administration assert almost daily that the U.S. testing capacity is greater than anywhere else in the world, many public health officials and epidemiologists have lamented the lack of consistent, reliable testing across the country that would reflect the true prevalence of the infection and perhaps enable a return to some semblance of normal life.
Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the director of the C.D.C., and other health experts have long suggested that contamination in the labs might have been the culprit. But even as several officials at the F.D.A. late this week cited contamination as the cause, a spokesman for the C.D.C., Benjamin Haynes, asserted that it was still just a possibility and that the agency was still awaiting the formal findings of H.H.S.
In a statement, however, he acknowledged that the agency’s quality control measures were insufficient during the coronavirus test development. Since then, he said, “C.D.C. implemented enhanced quality control to address the issue and will be assessing the issue moving forward.”
Initially, the C.D.C. was responsible for creating a coronavirus test that state and local public health agencies could use to diagnose Covid-19 in people, and then isolate them to prevent the spread of the disease.
“It was just tragic,” said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “All that time when we were sitting there waiting, I really felt like, here we were at one of the most critical junctures in public health history, and the biggest tool in our toolbox was missing.”
Mr. Becker said that public health laboratories started receiving the C.D.C. kits on Feb. 7, and by the next day members were already calling him to report that the test was not working accurately. He alerted both the C.D.C. and the F.D.A., which regulates medical devices, including laboratory tests.
“This is consistent with what we said was plausible when we found the problem at the beginning,” Mr. Becker said. “When we found the problem, it seemed to our community that it was a contamination issue that would cause a problem to this extent.”
The F.D.A. concluded that C.D.C. manufacturing issues were to blame and pushed the agency to shift production to an outside firm. That company, I.D.T., accelerated production of the C.D.C. test and says no more issues were reported.
Meanwhile, the F.D.A. also came under fire for not initially allowing commercial labs like Quest and LabCorp and others to begin ramping up production of their own tests.
More than two months later, nearly 700,000 Americans have become infected and close to 40,000 have died. Testing is still rationed in some states and uneven in others, and it can take days before doctors and patients receive results. Many infectious disease and public health experts say testing is nowhere near widespread enough to reopen the country or return to some semblance of normal.
I look for daylight past this virus when we can be with friends, return to work, and school and just return to a better semblance of normalcy. There is no doubt at all this is a terrible disease that has much greater harm factor than the immediate health effects here in the US and globally. It is a relief that hospitals are not going to become over crowded beyond capacity. It is also a relief that those needing continuity of care for various health conditions or non-urgent services such as implant surgeries and back repair can now obtain them. The medical community is much better equipped to handle this disease without paralyzing the country with fear. The challenge is up to each individual, and a responsible government, to take the necessary precautions for their own situation and those in their immediate communities. I feel optimistic of the progress being made and the path forward to conquer all the harms this virus is causing.
ABC news published a more complete reporting on the internal HHS investigation follow-up June 19. The bulk of this investigation was actually in the original (not revised version) NYT report.
Lot of good information here on what may happen as we enter the vaccine stage of the pandemic. As you will see, our problems are far from over. (https://bartonview.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-peculiar-case-of-covid19-vaccine.html)
Disclaimer: This article is my personal understanding of current medical literature. None of it should be interpreted as medical advice. Talk to a medical professional before you make any medical decision.
TL,DR:
More and more COVID vaccine candidates are now entering Phase III trials, and some have been prematurely used in general population. A lot can be said about these vaccines, but I want to focus on a few actionable aspects that are most impactful (and perhaps surprising).
Nearly all vaccines being developed are inject-ables. As a result, the immune response is mostly in the form of IgG, an immunoglobulin that circulates in the blood. Since IgG is mostly in the blood, it should be able to protect one from having high viral load through blood circulation, which causes severe COVID (multi-organ inflammation, as well as clotting issues). The infection would be limited to the respiratory tract, and the pneumonia (if any) should be mild.
However, it is well known that strong IgA response (a different immunoglobulin) is needed to prevent virus to replicate in nose/throat (upper respiratory tract). You can read this book chapter if you have time. A strong IgA response requires a mucosal vaccine in the form of an intranasal spray.
[image]
(from link)
What’s described above is what typically would happen for a vaccine of respiratory virus. And this paper from a couple of weeks ago corroborated such conclusions in mice models: only intranasal vaccine can prevent upper respiratory tract infection.
[image]
(figure from link)
Kids (0-18yo) : severe cases are already exceptionally rare without a vaccine. COVID19 vaccine turning a severe case rate of 0.2% to 0.02% with the same adverse reaction rate means that cost-benefit analysis would suggest skipping vaccination for this group all together. Without sterilizing capability, vaccine makes little difference in reducing the spread of COVID in schools.
Adults (19-64yo): The older one gets, the more benefits COVID19 vaccine would offer, since the fatality rate of COVID19 in people without SARS-CoV2 antibody rises steeply with age. The most dangerous time for uninoculated people (either lack of access or for whatever reason) would be when 50% of the population have been vaccinated (Jan-March 2021) and full reopening is implemented.
For those vaccinated, COVID19 is now a mild cold. But for those uninoculated, COVID19 is still somewhat deadly and now easier to catch than ever (because tons of asymptomatic people around you are now spewing viral particles without any sign of being sick).
At this point, we pretty much have no choice: either getting vaccinated or getting infected. If one chose the latter, one is taking the same old genetic lottery that we have seen throughout 2020 COVID pandemic. In other words, there will be no free-rider for anti-vaxxers.
Seniors (65+yo): Since the spread of COVID will become easier after vaccines are made available, seniors are likely to benefit the most from the vaccine. More over, they would benefit from proactive and periodic monitoring of their IgG levels, and get booster shots as soon as their IgG level becomes too low (likely every 4-6 months). The only known ADE cases for coronaviruses so far are caused by IgG levels falling a bit too low (worse than having no IgG at all). Consequently, the most dangerous time would be 9-12 months after their first vaccination (Oct-Dec 2021): a time when their IgG levels are likely to fall into the low range that could solicit ADE, while they think they are still protected by the vaccine from last year and engage in high-risk activities. So they would probably need to remember to get a booster shot or at least check their IgG levels.
In summary, COVID vaccine is best served to those who are most likely to die from it, not to those who are mostly likely to spread it (school kids, university students).
And in January 2021, those who have not got the vaccine will have to choose among getting vaccinated asap, getting infected and rolling your dice with the genetic lottery, or keeping being a hermit.
If vaccines can be quickly rolled out in your area, expect a swift recovery in travel, vacation, restaurant, entertainment and most service industries.
Since the vaccines are not going to reduce the spread, vaccination certification/immunization passport will be of little use for international travel . Expect the same tedious airport screening and potential quarantine requirements.
The Oct-Dec 2021 wave of COVID among the seniors could create another round of denial, cover-up, panic, law-suits, and mass cancellation for the cruise line industry. This could be a good setup for some nice trades at that point.
Several vaccine candidates have been shown to evoke robust T-cell response. But T-cell response alone has never been shown to be sufficient to provide sterilizing immunity for any respiratory virus, including all other human coronaviruses. It is very unlikely SARS-CoV2 would be any different.
A very interesting article concerning the effects of the virus
Sturgis Bike rally may have resulted in 250,000 cases of COVID already and wrought $12 billion in damages. South Dakota is now a new COVID hot spot as well. This super spreader event was responsible for 20% of all Covid cases in the U.S for the month of August. Would have been better if the government just offered everyone who planned to attend a new free chopper if they stayed home instead.
I believe this was the only vaccine candidate that could have been approved for use in the U.S. prior to election day. It caused an inflamed spinal cord.
I don’t think any of the vaccines are as important as many are being led to believe. We should not be waiting to “open up” the economy and start returning to “normal” as quickly as possible based on when a vaccine is available. There are far too many reasons to believe why lockdowns are far more destructive than effective strategies during a pandemic such as this one, IMO. Total lockdowns are very effective in the initial stages in preventing healthcare systems from completely being overwhelmed and shut down. We are way past that stage. That was the original purpose and met a long time ago. “Unless you have a perfect vaccine, which very few are, you’ll always have people who end up getting sick. …With or without a vaccine, we’re going to need other treatments.” Dr. Fauci
Limiting the virus’s spread in the population at large is one strategy for protecting the infection for at-risk people, such as caregivers or essential workers, in particular, and those with co-morbidities. Therapies that prevent the newly infected from getting worse is increasingly becoming more effective an intervention for the sickest hospitalized patients. The vast majority of confirmed “cases” are treated at home or asymptomatic. Lockdowns should be used to control spike and localized outbreaks. Providing that the most at risk in the population are adequately protected, asymptomatic cases should not be used to widely scare those in the population at the lowest risk of serious outcomes. All other reasonably implemented methods and measures should be routinely employed by individuals to protect the individual and limit the spread to others. IMO
Both Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines must be stored at subzero temperatures—Moderna’s at four degrees below zero, Pfizer’s at ninety-four below. Distributing and administering them at your local CVS will likely not be easy. Other vaccines or prophylactic measures are likely to be used until the coronavirus is as controllable as the common seasonal flu. IMO
By HELEN BRANSWELL @HelenBranswell
A large , United Kingdom-based Phase 2/3 study testing a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca has been restarted, according to a statement from the company. News that the trial is resuming comes four days after the disclosure that it had been paused because of a suspected serious adverse reaction in a participant.
A spokesperson for AstraZeneca told STAT that at this point, only the trial in the U.K. has been resumed. The company is also conducting Phase 2/3 or Phase 3 trials in the U.S., Brazil, and South Africa.
“The Company will continue to work with health authorities across the world and be guided as to when other clinical trials can resume to provide the vaccine broadly, equitably and at no profit during this pandemic,” the spokesperson, Michele Meixell, wrote in an email.
Saturday’s statement from AstraZeneca said the independent U.K. investigation into the event has concluded and it advised the Medicines Health Regulatory Authority, Britain’s equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration, that it was safe to resume the trial. The MHRA concurred and gave the green light for the trial to restart.
Related: (STAT's Covid-19 Drugs and Vaccines Tracker)
The illness that triggered the international pause, which occurred in a woman who was in the vaccine arm of the U.K. trial, has not been officially disclosed, though AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot told a group of investors on Wednesday that her symptoms were consistent with transverse myelitis, a serious condition involving inflammation of the spinal cord that can cause muscle weakness, paralysis, pain and bladder problems.
The AstraZeneca statement said information about the illness the woman suffered cannot be disclosed. Oxford University, where the vaccine was developed, said in a separate statement that the nature of the illness cannot be revealed “for reasons of participant confidentiality.”
As part of the review process, independent boards overseeing trials of a number of other Covid-19 vaccines were analyzing their own data, looking for cases. There are at least 35 vaccines in clinical trials around the world, nine of which are in Phase 3, the final stage of testing.
It’s not uncommon for clinical trials to be paused. This is the second known hold of studies of the AstraZeneca vaccine. A woman in the U.K. trial was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in July, but that event, which triggered the first pause, was deemed not to be related to the vaccine.
An AstraZeneca spokesperson previously described the decision as a “routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness” in a trial. Still, the pause drew extraordinary attention because of the urgent need for progress on Covid-19 vaccines in the midst of the pandemic.
More copy & paste ignorance!
Maybe some here may have appreciated hearing that “AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine study is put on hold” in no longer applicable. I know I liked seeing the NR released yesterday that I posted from AZN. It is necessary to assess primary sources in order to form an opinion. Not having authoritative sources on which to form an opinion is ignorance.
That potential vaccine is no longer the front runner in the U.S. Pfizer’s vaccine candidate appears to have taken the lead per most news stories. It should be ready to start distribution by the end of the year. About this time next year, we will be a better place.
By
Dr. Dave Harrison
and
Sony Salzman
(Sony Salzman News Stories and Articles)
That’s because Pfizer’s vaccine can’t be stored in the refrigeration systems found at the typical doctor’s office. Instead, it requires special ultra-low-temperature freezers that can store medicine at approximately 94 degrees below zero.
The delivery system is complex, requiring the use of a custom-built “cool box” that can store 1,000 to 5,000 vaccines for up to 10 days at minus 94 degrees.
AstraZeneca Shows the Risk of Investing in Coronavirus Vaccine Stocks
Investors got a not-so-sweet reminder of the difficulties and risks of clinical trials.
AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN) has long been considered a leader in the COVID-19 vaccine race. The company is developing its candidate, AZD1222, in collaboration with the University of Oxford. The drugmaker was fast out of the gate, and was one of the first to start a phase 2/3 clinical trial for its experimental vaccine back in May. AstraZeneca has also penned deals with the U.S. government and the European Union (EU) to supply millions of doses of its vaccine, pending regulatory approval.
Few companies in this race have landed such agreements, which shows that these governments also view AZD1222 as one of the most promising candidates. However, AstraZeneca just hit a bit a roadblock in its quest to bring its COVID-19 program to completion. Its paused research serves as a warning sign and important reminder to investors looking to profit from coronavirus vaccine development efforts.
Word travels fast
On Sept. 8, news broke via online trade publication, STAT, that AstraZeneca’s phase 3 study in the U.K. for AZD1222 had to be put on hold. The reason? One of the participants in the study suffered from a severe adverse reaction. “Standard review process triggered a pause to vaccination to allow review of safety data,” according to a spokesperson for the company.
Investors do not have a totally complete picture of the participant’s medical status, but the person did display “serious neurological symptoms” following inoculation, according to STAT. Based on publicly available information, it is unknown whether AZD1222 directly caused the adverse reaction. But what little information we do have was enough to stir up a market reaction. AstraZeneca’s stock dropped by about 8% in after-hours trading on Sept. 8.
An important risk reminder
AstraZeneca’s stock rebounded relatively swiftly on Sept. 9, as it became clear that the initial news of a pause wasn’t as damaging to the entire program as it seemed. Matt Hancock, Health Minister of the U.K., said that the decision to halt the trial momentarily was not necessarily a setback. Given that the study features about 30,000 participants, it isn’t too surprising that one of them suffered from a serious illness during the investigation. Hitting the pause button to delve into the matter further is the standard course of action during clinical trials like this one, and it is not a certain signal that there is anything wrong with the vaccine.
But this is a reminder that clinical trials are rife with potential pitfalls, and running into one of these obstacles can sink a company’s stock. Note that AstraZeneca’s shares are up 7.7% year to date, which isn’t that much better than the 3.3% gains of the S&P 500 since the beginning of the year. Has the company’s stock been boosted purely by its COVID-19 program?
AstraZeneca’s stock has most definitely benefitted from its vaccine development, but before the pandemic, it was already a well-established pharma company with multiple products in its lineup that generated strong sales. Over the trailing-12-month period, the company racked up $25.7 billion in revenue and $2.15 billion in net income. The healthcare giant also has well over 100 programs in its pipeline. In other words, even if it fails to launch a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, AstraZeneca will survive. By contrast, companies such as Inovio Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:INO) and Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA) currently have no products on the market, and the success of their COVID-19 programs is, to a large extent, well-baked into their stock prices.
Inovio’s stock is up by 202.4% year to date, and the company boasts a market cap of $1.67 billion – up from a measly $325.37 million on Jan. 2. These gains have been almost entirely driven by its efforts to develop a vaccine for COVID-19. Any roadblock, be it real or perceived, could send its stock crashing down. Moderna is in the same boat; the company’s shares are up by 199.1% and its market cap is $23.11 billion, up from $6.47 billion on Jan. 2. Moderna’s market cap seems too high for a clinical-stage biotech company, which indicates that investors are betting big that the company will benefit from its COVID-19 program. If Moderna runs into a roadblock along the way, its stock could also fall off a cliff.
The key takeaway for coronavirus company investors
Inovio and Moderna could go on to successfully launch their respective vaccines on the market. But because of the uncertainties that plague clinical trials, and considering that neither has an approved and marketed product, both are high-risk, high-reward plays. For aggressive investors interested in either stock, it’d be best to initiate a small position and continuously monitor the progress of their coronavirus-related clinical trials. Risk-averse investors, on the other hand, will probably want to steer clear of both of these companies, and may feel that buying a few shares of a stalwart like AstraZeneca affords enough exposure to the coronavirus vaccine market without the serious possibility of the pharma stock’s plummet.
Good to see news on progress of new potential therapies continuously being added. The very last sentence in this article as noted by Bloomberg is what really caught my eye. This is a potential preventive treatment intended for use with the most vulnerable.
New antibody therapy may lower Covid hospitalisations, Eli Lilly says
Interim results from Lilly and AbCellera’s treatment trial found a 1.7% hospitalisation rate compared with a 6% rate among people on a placebo, a 72% reduction in risk and no deaths.
RILEY GRIFFIN and CRISTIN FLANAGAN 17 September, 2020 9:53 am IST
Washington: Eli Lilly and Co.’s experimental antibody treatment for Covid-19 reduced the rate at which symptomatic patients were hospitalized compared to a placebo, according to preliminary study results released by the company and its partner.
Indianapolis-based Lilly and AbCellera Biologics Inc., a closely held Canadian biotechnology company, are co-developing neutralizing antibodies derived from one of the earliest patients in the U.S. to contract Covid-19. They are among a handful of companies, including Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., AstraZeneca Plc., GlaxoSmithKline Plc and its partner Vir Biotechnology Inc. pursuing antibody therapies to combat the pandemic.
Interim results from a mid-stage trial that evaluated multiple dosages found that Lilly and AbCellera’s treatment, known as LY-Cov555, was associated with a 1.7% rate in hospitalizations and ER visits among those who took the treatment compared with a 6% rate among people on a placebo, a 72% reduction in risk. No patients in the study progressed to mechanical ventilation or died.
Lilly’s shares rose 0.9% to $151.48 at 10:29 a.m. in New York trading on Wednesday. The lack of a response at the highest dose and scant detail on the lower hospitalization rates drew Wall Street analyst scrutiny.
The results were “odd” Bloomberg Intelligence’s Sam Fazeli wrote in a note, adding “It’s not clear which dose drove the 72% reduction in hospitalizations. Very few patients were hospitalized, raising a risk that the effect is by chance. We need to see more data.”
The early results also showed that one of three doses of the antibody drug tested against Covid-19 lowered the amount of virus present 11 days after patients received the treatment compared to the placebo. A 2,800 milligram dose version of the drug reduced the viral load, though the 700 mg and 7,000 mg doses did not achieve that end point. Most patients, including those receiving the placebo, demonstrated near complete viral clearance by the eleventh day.
Lilly said it will soon publish the results of this interim analysis in a peer-reviewed journal and discuss appropriate next steps with regulators.
Regeneron is expected to report results of its own at the end of this month. Jefferies analyst Biren Amin was confident the biotech company’s antibody cocktail approach could prove more effective than Lilly’s, which relies on a single antibody…
Warp speed
On Tuesday, top officials at Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to expedite the development of an inoculation and treatment, identified antibody therapies as one of its foremost R&D priorities to counter Covid.
Moncef Slaoui, who is leading the Trump Administration’s Warp Speed initiative, wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine that the U.S. government plans to support manufacturing of the “most potent” monoclonal antibody products “so that hundreds of thousands of doses could be deployed this fall and winter.”
Slaoui touted the potential for monoclonal antibodies not just to serve as treatments for sick patients who’ve become infected, but as a preventive drug for those at high-risk.
In August, Lilly and AbCellera kick-started a trial of its antibody drug in nursing homes, suggesting it may have the potential protect vulnerable groups that vaccines may not cover. Slaoui said it will continued to be tested in nursing homes, as well as “meat-packing plants, and other settings” beginning in October.
The “true utility” of neutralizing antibody treatments will be in the preventing infections in unexposed people — not as a treatment of the virus, as seen in Wednesday’s results, Evercore ISI analyst Umer Raffat said in an email. – Bloomberg
Also read : AstraZeneca trial illness likely not linked to Covid vaccine, Oxford says
