Search This Blog

Sunday, July 5, 2020

British consortium ends after making over 13,000 ventilators

A British consortium formed by a group of aerospace, automotive and engineering firms to build ventilators for the country’s health service said on Sunday it would end after delivering over 13,000 devices.
VentilatorChallengeUK said its production had more than doubled the stock of ventilators available for use in the National Health Service.
The consortium, which was formed on a not-for-profit basis by the likes of Ford, McLaren, Rolls-Royce and Airbus, said in May it was ramping up production in case of a second peak in infections.
But Dick Elsy, Chairman of VentilatorChallengeUK, said the NHS was now well-placed for the future.
“We have helped ensure the NHS has always had access to the number of ventilators it needs, and we’re pleased to have also contributed to building a resilient stock should ventilators be required in the UK in the future,” he said.
Britain sought to “protect the NHS” during its coronavirus lockdown by working to flatten the curve of infections so the health service was not overwhelmed.
The availability of ventilators in the NHS had been a hot political topic as the epidemic started, but the demand for the machines never got close to the 30,000 figures initially estimated as being required.
The government has said that everyone who needed a ventilator during the pandemic has had access to one.
“The Ventilator Challenge has been a great success,” Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said.
“I would like to thank every manufacturer and designer, and their incredible workforces, for the huge part they’ve played in the national effort to protect our NHS and save lives.”

Scientists say coronavirus is airborne, ask WHO to revise recommendations

Hundreds of scientists say there is evidence that novel coronavirus in smaller particles in the air can infect people and are calling for the World Health Organization to revise recommendations, the New York Times reported on Saturday.
The WHO has said the coronavirus disease spreads primarily from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth, which are expelled when a person with COVID-19 coughs, sneezes or speaks.
In an open letter to the agency, which the researchers plan to publish in a scientific journal next week, 239 scientists in 32 countries outlined the evidence showing smaller particles can infect people, the NYT said nyti.ms/2VIxp67.
The WHO did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
Whether carried by large droplets that zoom through the air after a sneeze, or by much smaller exhaled droplets that may glide the length of a room, the coronavirus is borne through air and can infect people when inhaled, the scientists said, according to the NYT.
However, the health agency said the evidence for the virus being airborne was not convincing, according to the NYT.
“Especially in the last couple of months, we have been stating several times that we consider airborne transmission as possible but certainly not supported by solid or even clear evidence,” Dr. Benedetta Allegranzi, the WHO’s technical lead of infection prevention and control, was quoted as saying by the NYT.


Remdesivir being surged to coronavirus hot spots – FDA commissioner

The US government is sending a “surge” supply of coronavirus drug remdesivir to areas that need it most, the FDA commissioner said Sunday.
Dr. Stephen Hahn told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Department of Health and Human Services will hand out the medication “to the areas that most need it.”
“We have been in touch with the states and the localities to surge remdesivir to the areas that most need it,” Hahn said.
“And we are receiving that feedback and then shipping remdesivir, so that it’s available for people who need it.”
Researchers have found the drug can speed recovery in COVID-19 patients.
Some Sun Belt states, including Florida and Texas, have recently seen an increase in coronavirus cases, which Hahn called “a concerning trend.”
“This virus is still with us,” Hahn said, adding that “this is why the public health message about how to protect yourself and others is so important.”
But, he said, the US is in a “fundamentally different place” than it was in March or April, in part thanks to drugs like remdesivir.
“We have new therapeutics that we didn’t have at the time, so treatments, remdesivir, steroids, and this plasma program, where over 28,000 people have been treated,” he said.
“So, those are the sort of things that are different,” he continued. “More testing capacity, more therapeutics and those things are, so fundamentally different, but still a concerning trend.”
He added that: “Really, we can stop this by following the guidelines.”


Ex-FDA head urges U.S. to build up COVID antibody reserves

Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb said the U.S. should be piling up supplies of therapeutic antibodies even before any approval or emergency use authorization to treat COVID-19.
“We need a more coordinated national strategy around this,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” today.
The government should be working with companies ahead of their actual approval to ensure that sufficient supplies are available, he said. “We missed the window to do it on remdesivir,” he said, speaking about Gilead Science’s drug that received emergency use authorization in May.
Companies that are developing antibody treatments from the blood of COVID-19 patients include Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY), Regeneron (NASDAQ:REGN), closely held AbCellera Biologics, AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN), and Vir Biotechnology (NASDAQ:VIR).
The U.S. had about 45.3K new cases of COVID-19 yesterday, bringing the cumulative number of confirmed cases in the country to 2.85M, according to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center.

As the coronavirus spread, two social media communities drifted apart


As the coronavirus spread, two social media communities drifted apart
On Feb. 11, 2020, the World Health Organization put a name to the mysterious respiratory disease spreading with alarming speed around the globe: COVID-19.
Around the same time, two of the internet’s most popular communities for discussing this unfolding crisis began to drift apart—with one increasingly embracing racist language and conspiracy theories, while the other tended to avoid those topics.
Now, researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder are exploring this tale of two : the r/Coronavirus and r/China_flu discussion boards on the social media site Reddit.
In a new study posted online, the CU Boulder group discovered that some content moderation may go a long way.
After the r/Coronavirus subreddit began to enforce a set of rules around what users could and couldn’t post, some more radical Redditors seemed to drift to r/China_flu—where false information about the virus and anti-Asian sentiment became more common.
“We saw these two communities go in different directions,” said Jason Shuo Zhang, a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and lead author of the new study.
The study, which is currently under peer review, comes at a time when many are struggling to crack down on hate speech. On June 29, 2020, Reddit banned thousands of communities from its site, including one of the biggest platforms for supporters of President Donald Trump, r/The_Donald—a in how have become what study coauthor Brian Keegan calls “laboratories for democracy.”
“You’re seeing these online communities explore what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to different ways of doing governance,” said Keegan, an assistant professor in the Department of Information Science.
The pandemic’s path
Keegan’s previous research has delved into how online communities reflect events in the world, including the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami. He also coauthored a study examining the content used in 16 million comments on r/The_Donald.
“These breaking news events are opportunities to see how emergent social interactions coalesce into coherent and stable social structures,” he said.
He and his colleagues turned to Reddit to follow that process in real time. The site hosts more than 100,000 “subreddits” that give users a chance to post memes and news about their favorite topics from NBA teams to the collapse of human civilization.
As the coronavirus spread, two social media communities drifted apart
As of June, two of Reddit’s most popular communities for discussing COVID-19 were r/Coronavirus, which boasted 2.2 million members, and r/China_flu, which had 112,000. In all, the group analyzed the language used in 312,000 posts and 7 million comments written in English on both sites from January through May 2020.
At the start of the outbreak, Zhang said, the content on the two subreddits didn’t differ much. Then on Feb. 17, that changed.
On that day, Reddit made r/Coronavirus the site’s official platform for all COVID-19 talk. Moderators on the platform also began to more carefully scrub information deemed to violate community rules, including potentially misleading public health guidance. r/China_flu moderators, in contrast, took a less hands-on approach to comments.
“We observed this shift in policy when the platform decided to make r/Coronavirus the official subreddit, while more relaxed discussions could take place in r/China_flu,” Zhang said.
As of May 18, only 5% of active members on r/Coronavirus also posted content to r/China_flu, down from more than 30% in mid-February.
Word usage followed suit. At the end of March, r/Coronavirus members disproportionately used more neutral terms like “groceries” or “tests” in their comments. r/China_flu users, in contrast, more heavily relied on words like “communist,” “bat” and “lab”—perhaps a reference to a common conspiracy theory that the coronavirus had been designed in a lab in Wuhan, China.
“When we go deep and compare their language usage, we find that r/China_flu users pay much more attention to China-related topics and have higher overlaps with other extreme communities on the Reddit platform,” Zhang said.
Online and offline
The case of the two subreddits shows how people’s offline life can spill into the online world—and vice-versa, said study coauthor Chenhao Tan, an assistant professor of computer science at CU Boulder. The team found, for example, that the user activity on subreddits related to sports and travel plummeted in spring 2020.
“Far from being only online, social media has become deeply connected with everything we do offline,” Tan said.
He and Keegan also recently conducted a study examining how Wikipedia editors responded to the pandemic. Wikipedia employs more aggressive strategies than Reddit to limit the participation of users engaged in bad behavior—and those strategies were reflected in the site’s largely accurate and timely health content.
Tan added that it’s too early to say whether strong content moderation should become the norm for the internet during times of crisis—when falsehoods can run rampant on social media. But the study provides a deep look at a unique time in the history of human social interactions.
“I think social media and Reddit provide a window into this period where people had to be in front of a computer or on their cellphones,” he said.

Explore further

More information: A Tale of Two Communities: Characterizing Reddit Response to COVID-19 through /r/China_Flu and /r/Coronavirus. arXiv:2006.04816 [cs.SI] arxiv.org/abs/2006.04816

Could Threshold for COVID-19 Herd Immunity Be Lower Than Thought?

Could young people going out and partying be the key to limiting the spread of COVID-19?
Possibly, as a new mathematical model argues that herd immunity might be achieved with fewer people becoming immune through infection than was believed, if you take into account how the virus would spread among younger, more socially active folks.
The model estimates that herd immunity could occur after 43% of the population becomes immune to COVID-19 by passing the disease from person to person, far lower than the 60% to 70% figure that epidemiologists have held out as the gold standard.
This estimate is based on the argument that younger and more socially active people are the main spreaders of infectious disease, and therefore will contribute more to herd immunity after they’ve been infected and gotten over COVID-19, said lead researcher Tom Britton, a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University in Sweden.
Traditional estimates for herd immunity are based on vaccination, and assume that everyone in a community is equally likely to achieve immunity by getting inoculated.
But those estimates are flawed because they don’t take into account the herd immunity achieved from a disease spreading through a community, Britton and his researchers argued.
“When immunity instead comes from having been infected, then immunity is more spread among the outgoing people exposing themselves and others to the disease more,” Britton continued. “This latter immunity is hence distributed in a more efficient manner, which in turn implies that fewer are needed to reach herd immunity.
“Immunity coming from disease exposure is spread more among more socially active people, which makes the effect stronger than the corresponding immunity level when performing vaccination,” Britton summed up.
However, there are some problems with the reasoning behind the model when it comes to COVID-19, infectious disease experts note.
For one thing, scientists don’t yet know whether a cured COVID-19 patient will be immune from the virus for an extended period, said Dr. Waleed Javaid, director of infection prevention and control at Mount Sinai Downtown in New York City.
It’s also not yet known whether the COVID-19 coronavirus will be able to mutate in ways that get around a person’s immunity, he added.
“We’ll probably see a lot more models like this, but I think more practically we’ll have to wait a year or more to see studies that are actual,” based on hard data about human immunity to COVID-19, Javaid said.
The model offers a good argument that “if there is a certain segment of the population that is less likely to get infected naturally versus those who are more likely to get infected, this may alter the herd immunity threshold,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
But the model doesn’t take into account the effect on the health care system if a huge number of young partygoers become infected at the same time, Adalja added.
“Natural herd immunity with a virus like this is going to be hard to achieve without placing an enormous burden on hospitals, but the paper is a useful thought experiment that improves the way we think about the concept of herd immunity,” Adalja said.
It also would be “very selfish” for young, socially active people to go out and intentionally become infected with COVID-19, because of the potentially dire consequences to others in their lives, Javaid said.
“If I’m young and I get it, I might get over it, but the people I contact, if any of them are older, they might die because of the contact I had with them after I got the illness,” Javaid said, noting that the elderly and immune-compromised are much more likely to have a fatal case of COVID-19.
However, the researchers said their model does support the gradual lifting of lockdown restrictions related to COVID-19, so that hospitals do not become overwhelmed even as people are infected and gain immunity.
“The paper is not an argument to aim for herd immunity,” Britton said. “The result of the paper just says that herd immunity happens with fewer infected, and also that the effect of immunity when herd immunity is not reached is stronger than initially believed.”
The finding was published recently in the journal Science.
More information
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has more about COVID-19 and herd immunity.

SOURCES: Tom Britton, Ph.D., professor, mathematical statistics, Stockholm University, Sweden; Waleed Javaid, M.D., director, infection prevention and control, Mount Sinai Downtown, New York City; Amesh Adalja, M.D., senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore; Science, June 23, 2020


Some PA nursing homes cut Covid deaths on new state ‘CDC’ based definition

State says definition is based on CDC guideline; CDC says it has no such guideline
In the last month, several Pennsylvania nursing homes have reduced the number of COVID-19-related deaths they had previously reported after the state told them residents who died after testing positive for the disease did not have to be counted if they had “recovered” from the disease before they died.
Among the four nursing homes that reduced their COVID-19 death count in their self-reported data in the state’s June 23 report was Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center, the Beaver County nursing home that has had the worst outbreak of any nursing home in the state. In the June 23 report, Brighton reduced the number of deaths from 82 to 73.
That change allowed Brighton — which has had the most COVID-19-related deaths of any nursing home in the state since the state began releasing nursing home figures — to self-report that it had fewer COVID-19-related deaths than one other nursing home, Conestoga View in Lancaster, which now has 75.
Brighton’s management said in an emailed answer to questions that when the pandemic began “any resident who contracted COVID-19, regardless of their health status at the time of death, was counted as a COVID-19 death. As tracking practices evolved, the Department of Health clarified their guidance to count only those who have an active COVID-19 status at the time of passing.”
The state Department of Health said this new interpretation of who should and should not be considered a COVID-19-related death using the “recovered” definition — what Brighton refers to as “active COVID-19 status” — was based on guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But the CDC said Friday that it has never issued any guidance connecting its definition of “recovered” — which was created to help determine if a person should be removed from room isolation after testing positive — to any interpretation of whether that person later died of a COVID-19-related cause.
Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the CDC, said that the CDC’s existing definition of how to classify whether a person died of COVID-19 or not does not use any one factor in determining their cause of death, particularly a regimented definition of whether a person “recovered” from COVID-19.
She referenced a section of the CDC’s guidance from April  on certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that includes a section that says: “When reporting cause of death on a death certificate, use any information available, such as medical history, medical records, laboratory tests, an autopsy report, or other sources of relevant information. Similar to many other diagnoses, a cause-of-death statement is an informed medical opinion that should be based on sound medical judgment drawn from clinical training and experience, as well as knowledge of current disease states and local trends.”
The CDC definition of “recovered” that the state is telling nursing homes to follow was created by the CDC early in the pandemic, and updated May 2, to help healthcare facilities to determine when someone was well enough to be removed from isolation status, where they had been placed in hopes they would not infect anyone else.
That definition says that if a person tested positive for COVID-19, and showed symptoms, they were considered to be “recovered” and could be removed from isolation if at least three days had passed without a fever or with an improvement in any respiratory symptoms.
If they tested positive and did not show symptoms, they could be removed from isolation if at least 10 days had passed since their last test.
And both symptomatic and asymptomatic people could be removed from isolation if they had two negative COVID-19 tests in a row.
Experts say using one aspect of a person’s health — in this case whether or not they met a definition of “recovered” that was not intended to be used in determining the cause of death — could potentially skew data on COVID-19 deaths if used broadly to exclude people who did die after contracting COVID-19.
“There are going to be cases where they recovered [from COVID-19] and later died of a stroke that was because of COVID-19’s impact on their health,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a Pittsburgh-based infectious disease physician and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
“You want to make sure changes [to a cause of death] are based on the complete medical record,” he said. “You have to look at these on a case-by-case basis.”
State Department of Health spokesman Nate Wardle said in an emailed statement that the state is following the CDC’s definitions: “PA DOH uses the CDC definitions of a COVID-19 death. A death is considered a COVID-19 death if the medical certifier reported COVID-19 as the underlying cause or a significant contributor to the death. … If a patient is COVID-19 positive but recovers from their illness, and then later dies, that death would not be classified as a COVID-19 death unless the medical certifier believes that the previous COVID-19 infection significantly contributed to the death of the individual.”
Mr. Wardle could not provide any state document or guideline, nor any CDC documents or guidelines, that connect the definition of “recovered” to the definition of what constitutes a COVID-19-related death.
Instead, he wrote, that information was given to Brighton and other facilities by state Department of Health staff in phone conversations when they would call the state to ask questions about whose death could be considered COVID-19-related or not.
None of the other three Pennsylvania nursing homes that reduced their death counts would return phone messages left for them at their offices this past week. Three other nursing homes, whose data was reported by the state, not self-reported, also had their death counts reduced in what appear to be corrections to data by the state.
Even though Brighton in the state’s self-reported data now says it has 73 deaths, the state’s county-based nursing home data — which is based on reports of positive cases and deaths to the state’s infectious disease reporting system — still shows that Brighton has had 82 COVID-19-related deaths, based on a Post-Gazette analysis of that county data, which does not name the facilities.
Brighton has not yet tried to change any of the death certificates of the residents who died for whom COVID-19 is listed as a factor in their death. To do that would take a court order and the cooperation of Beaver County Coroner David Gabauer, who said he could not comment about that. No such cases have yet been filed in Beaver County court.
Brighton management said in an email that it also has not notified any of the nine families that, at least in its self-reported data, it has changed the cause of death because it “only reports the passing of loved ones to family members.”