Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Around the Campfire: 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 152  
Prev  |  Next
MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 10/19/21 12:25pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

If I may add a suffix to the list of phase 4 clinical studies of interest...

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05057182

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 10/20/21 10:07am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Here is a small study that may be of interest as we are moving towards EAUs of vaccines for children.

Reduced seroconversion in children compared to adults with mild COVID-19
MedRxiv Preprint 18 Oct 2021


108 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive participants that were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms (i.e. coryza, 116 headaches, nausea, fever, cough, sore throat, malaise and/or muscle aches) were recruited for assessing antibody levels and B & T cell levels at 7-14days, 41days, and 94days after the positive PCR tests. There were 57 children (median age: 67 4, IQR 2-10) and 51 adults (median age: 37, IQR 34-45) in this study. Fewer SARS-CoV-2-infected children (40.4-40.7%) produced antibodies as compared to adults (61.4-73.7%); all tested using 3 different antibody assays. The researchers invested likely causes for SAR-CoV-2 infections not leading to antibody production and the differences between the number of children vs adults producing antibodies.

Quote:

Individuals were more likely to be seropositive with higher viral loads and longer viral clearance time (based on those with multiple swabs collected), but there were no differences in these parameters between children and adults who were seronegative or seropositive.


Quote:

When examining the relationship between symptomatic infection and antibody response, a higher proportion of seronegative adults were asymptomatic compared to seropositive adults (4/10, 40% vs. 2/32, 6.3%; p=0.02) (Fig. 2H). Symptomatic adults on average had three times more antibodies than asymptomatic adults (median 227.5 IU/mL, IQR 133.7-521.6 vs. median 75.3 IU/mL, IQR 36.9-113.6) and higher viral load (not statistically significant) than asymptomatic adults, although the number of adults who were asymptomatic and seropositive was small (Fig. 2I-J). In contrast, a higher proportion of seropositive children were asymptomatic compared to seronegative children (although not statistically significant) (Fig. 2H), and similar levels of antibodies and viral load were observed in children regardless of whether they had any symptoms (Fig 2I-J). Notably, viral load correlated with antibody levels (Fig. 2K) but not age (Fig. 2L) in both children and adults.


Asymptomatic adults were more likely to not produce antibodies than adults that had symptoms; in children the reverse was true (but by a minimal margin).

The researchers found that there was evidence of cellular immunity in adults who seroconverted but not in children who seroconverted.

This small study suggests that COVID-19 infected children (asymptomatic or mild symptoms) may not develop natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Online
Posted: 10/21/21 01:29pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Hi All,

I bumped into this last night. Scares the pants off me.

http://view.e.newscientist.com/?qs=16eaa........26d3d286fa22e4d702fc62ef4007259e457c7036


Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, soon to have SiO2 batteries, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 10/21/21 04:59pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I have encountered too many articles that wildly claim extreme COVID19 data minus corrobarative links. Mutant strains, multiple infections, you name it. This is why I ignore them. Beside Johns Hopkins and Lancet there are New England Journal of Medicine and Merck including the Merck Manual. Double Blind studies with peer reviewed corroboration weed out spurious claims that seldom lead to solid evidence. Social Media attempts emotional superlatives to gain a purely political objective.

The facts are bald faced Pianotuna, immunizations have saved millions of lives. They are not foolproof just like automobile and aircraft travel are not foolproof. But the process has been mired so deep in political mud, reality has been obscured.

This has evolved into the "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" age. Personally I have hardened my stance to protect and insulate ME against politically oriented agendas. If a legitimate flaw in national posture regarding COVID19 was discovered a hurricane of outrage would ensue, not clusters of dissent.
Stiff upper lip sir. Enduring hyperbole builds character.

pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Online
Posted: 10/21/21 06:50pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Mex,

That was the whole thrust of the article--that vaccination is more effective than an apparently impossible herd immunity due to catching the virus. I really hope I'm wrong about this.

MEXICOWANDERER

las peñas, michoacan, mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 06/01/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 10/21/21 07:17pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Without citing links the preponderance of the evidence is pointing toward full immunization followed by asymptomatic infection as giving the best immunity. The key being asymptomatic.

The stumbling block is inhibited immunity due to age or other comorbidities.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 10/24/21 08:54am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Here is a study where the prevalence of Covid antibodies was measured in rural Peru after one of the waves to estimate how many were infected.

High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in rural Peru, 2021; a cross-sectional population-based study
MedRxiv preprint 23Oct2021

Quote:

The study enrolled 563 persons from 288 houses across 10 provinces, reaching 0.19% of the total rural population of San Martin. Screening for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was done using a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and reactive sera were confirmed using a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT).


The survey found
Quote:

An overall 59.0% seroprevalence (95% CI: 55-63%) corroborated intense SARS-CoV-2 spread in San Martin. Seroprevalence rates between the 10 provinces varied from 41.3-74.0% (95% CI: 30-84). Higher seroprevalence was neither associated with population size, population density, surface area, mean altitude or poverty index in spearman correlations.


The reason I posted this study is because it highlighted why one needs to know what antibody tests measure in order to know what the results mean.

Quote:

Validation using pre-pandemic sera from two regions of Peru showed false-positive results in the CLIA (23/84 sera; 27%), but not in the sVNT….

This particular antibody test yielded positive results for seasonal coronavirus that cause common colds. The researchers evaluated this test for cross reactivity to those antibodies and used another test (surrogate virus neutralization test) to correct for the false positive results in this antibody test.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 10/25/21 06:38am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure: a test-negative design case-control study
MeRxiv preprint 23Oct2021

This study assessed the effects of various precautions that were taken during a high-risk exposure (exposure to a suspected or confirmed case of Covid-19) on preventing infection.

Quote:

Between February 24 and September 26, 2021, we enrolled 2541 participants, including 1279 cases and 1262 controls. In total, 847 participants, including 643 cases (50% of 1279) and 204 controls (16% of 1262), reported high-risk exposure within 14 days before testing, including 694 (82% of 847) with confirmed and 153 (18% of 847) with suspected exposure (Table 1; Table S2). Most participants reported their high-risk exposure occurred within a household (55% of 847) or workplace (14% of 847) (Table S3). A majority of these participants (69%, 582/847) listed high-risk exposure as a motivation for testing; additionally, 280 (33% of 847) participants sought testing due to symptoms (Table S4).

The majority (82%, 694/847) of participants who had high-risk exposure reported both they and their contact did not wear a mask during the interaction (Table 3). Most participants were unvaccinated (70%, 591/847) at the time of testing; 9% (72/847) and 19% (158/847) were partially or fully vaccinated, respectively.

Note that this study occurred while Delta was becoming the dominate variant.

These results are not unexpected due to duration of time in an environment containing airborne virus. The difference between household vs non-household contacts is likely the duration and proximity of the exposure to the virus.
  • 2.94-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.66-5.25) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts)
  • 2.06-fold (1.03-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. not indoors)
  • 2.58-fold (1.50-4.49) higher when exposures lasted <= three hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals

Vaccination reduced the odds of becoming infected by 68% (32-84%) and 77% (59-87%) for partially- and fully-vaccinated participants compared to being unvaccinated. Mask usage by participants or their contacts during high-risk exposures reduced the odds of becoming infected by 48% (8-72%).
Quote:

Benefits of mask usage were greatest when exposures lasted <= three hours, occurred indoors, or involved non-household contacts.
In other words, masks are not 100% effective at blocking the virus; they reduce the amount of virus released into the environment by an infected person and/or reduce the amount of virus inhaled from the environment. The longer one is in a virus containing environment or in environment where the amount of airborne virus is high, the less effective masks are at preventing one from inhaling enough virus to cause an infection.

Moderator

Tennessee

Moderator

Joined: 01/19/2004

View Profile



Posted: 10/25/21 06:45am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Thank you for dispelling some of the rumors that masks are of little/no help in containing the spread.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 10/25/21 07:01am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

IMO, you are being optimistic thinking these types of studies will have much effect at dispelling rumors on the lack of effectiveness of masks. But one can hope.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 152  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire  >  General Topics

 > 2019–2022 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC POSTINGS
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2021 CWI, Inc. © 2021 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.