Covid-19 / SARS-Cov2 - naučne/medicinske informacije i analize

[...]

9 hours ago, I, Ja Sam Laki said:

hmmmu pocetku je isla vest da se ne uzima Aspirin, vec da je bolji Paracetamol. Ispast ce da je bolje uzimati Aspirin jer on razredjuje krv

 

Nije aspirin nego ibuprofen. Ne pratis Slavisa, koncentriraj se malo. 

[zoran59]

Zanimljivo do kraja:

 

The Risks - Know Them - Avoid Them

link: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200511&instance_id=18384&nl=the-morning&regi_id=123178100&segment_id=27239&te=1&user_id=493be6d9a1eb307c1a0f07487bbd9b17

[Arsenije Pesic]

Tridesetak minuta vrlo korisnih informacija i objašnjenja. I posle dužeg vremena, objašnjenja koja bar meni, laički i zdravorazumski, imaju smisla. Jer, priznajem, vremenom mi je sve oko ovog virusa postajalo manje jasno, iako je valjda trebalo da bude obrnuto.

 

 

 

[Tomiprunet]

Jako korisne informacije. Hvala na linku.

[NMX]

4 hours ago, Arsenije Pesic said:

Tridesetak minuta vrlo korisnih informacija i objašnjenja. I posle dužeg vremena, objašnjenja koja bar meni, laički i zdravorazumski, imaju smisla. Jer, priznajem, vremenom mi je sve oko ovog virusa postajalo manje jasno, iako je valjda trebalo da bude obrnuto.

 

 

 

 

Jutros pogledao. Žena, kao i uvek, deluje jako umirujuće i baš je prijatno slušati je. I verujem joj manje više sve, nema razloga da laže. Samo ne kapiram taj deo za drugi talas, kako se od njega branimo tj. kako do njega ne dolazi kada je izloženost stanovništva virusu na nivou do 5%.

[Arsenije Pesic]

Koliko sam razumeo, ona misli da će kombinacija kolektivnog imuniteta i onoga što smo sada naučili o virusu dovesti do toga da bude zaraženih, bude "džepova" kako ih zove, ali ni blizu ovog nivoa.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Arsenije Pesic

[Don Juan]

4 minutes ago, Arsenije Pesic said:

onoga što smo sada naučili o virusu

Ništa naše pučanstvo nije naučilo o virusu, sem: 1. Za virus je kriv 5G; 2. Bil Gejts hoće da nas čipuje (iz nekog razloga) preko vakcine: 3. Virus nekada postoji, nekada ne postoji,  u zavisnosti od  aktuelne političke situacije; 4. bilo koja nebuloza koju je izgovorio Nestorović; 5. Srbe čuva genetika (i ko zna šta još); 6. Bezbedno je jesti ili piti iz ište kašike, ako si u crkvi;  7. Drži se propisanih mera, tako što se nećeš držati propisanih mera (što veći oldlazak u parkove, kafane, kafiće, kladionice, teretane, obavezne političke manifestacije); 8. Zaštitu koristiti što je moguće manje (pri tome ne mislim na kondome), itd, itd, itd

 

Šta može da pođe po zlu?

[Arsenije Pesic]

Mislim da je virus sasvim dovoljno bio ovde da ukapira neke stvari, neće se taj vraćati više.

[ciao]

To sto prica Ana Gligic je takoreci identicno onome sto prica Dr Raoult - zajednicno im je sto su stariji i imaju iskustvo. Videcemo da li su u pravu

[wwww]

Spoiler

Quote

Korinna Hennig: Breathing too?

Christian Drosten: Simply by exhaling, but also by speaking and coughing. There is a range of sizes in these liquid droplets that make that up. These are droplets and aerosol particles are also there. And now there are findings, for example about aerosol transmission in a restaurant in China. It is well published. I know this study. There are also findings on many other infectious diseases that require this - if you know that there is an aerosol component, that you also take this into account. And we now know that. This has progressed so far that we not only have several original papers that prove that there is an aerosol component. We have already discussed some of them in the podcast. There's also a statement from the American National Academy of Sciences that says, that's the way it is. This infection has an important aerosol transmission component. Here we start with estimates. Here, as an expert, you have to start to appreciate and orient yourself on individual studies. There is a study from the group of Christophe Fraser, who also models this, saying that aerosol transmission is probably clearly important.

 

According to my assessment, not only according to this study, but also based on what I sum up and what I see: How much aerosol is produced in excretion studies? If I summarize all of this, then my gut feeling is: almost half of the transmission is aerosol, almost the other half of the transmission is droplets and maybe ten percent of the transmission is smear infection or contact infection. When you say something sticks to your hands. And on the other hand, you have to make everyday recommendations.

 

For example, I feel that constantly pointing out hand washing and disinfectant sprays that are sprayed on surfaces is totally exaggerated. So I think that you can't do that much by washing your hands and disinfecting a lot - and, conversely, you can't say that we're opening everything here now, because we spray a lot of disinfectants and we always have a nice time Wash your hands. When people sit close together in a room, I think it's dangerous. But there is also a good message: If you can acknowledge it that way, if perhaps other experts can agree on such an assessment - and I believe that even experienced hygienists would assess it similarly - then you can do something about it again . You do not have to say that all restaurants have to remain closed, but you can also say that it is summer and the outdoor area has to be classified as a relatively safe zone. So restaurants that have patio areas and outdoor areas should be encouraged to use these areas. I would also go so far as to say that a two-meter distance outside is probably not necessary at all, because the virus, which is spread via aerosol transmission, blows away when you're outside. I would go so far as to say that one does not have to pay so much attention to this distance regulation on terrace areas.

 

One should perhaps also say inside: open windows, especially in summer, then you can probably also sit inside. But inside you should work with a distance rule. And on bad, cold days, maybe now, since we still don't know exactly what to expect with all the openings of new infections, that fewer guests can be entertained. But when it gets warmer: the outside area is okay, you can also work with blankets on colder days. You also do this in off-peak times, in autumn and spring. One should also think - at least in my opinion - under the proviso that the restaurateurs actually had to accept losses in sales and that they also have to be recognized and that they also have to help: Why not allow restaurants to use the sidewalks as well? It is not a question of cementing it forever, but of simply saying: In these times, you can sometimes make exceptions to the municipalities and say: The pubs can now put tables on the sidewalk, as long as it does not disturb bothers and passersby endangered, who then have to switch to a busy road.

 

 

 

studija: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6491/eabb6936

 

govori o prenosenju virusa i implikacijama na svakodnevni zivot i otvaranje restorana itd.
 

Spoiler

 

Quote

Korinna Hennig: Again asked for the area inside with a lay mind. They said that ventilation can bring a lot. But can't that blow the aerosol from one table to the next within the room?

Christian Drosten: Yes, sure. But an air turnover that happens is always accompanied by a dilution effect. You can also find good creative solutions there. I had already mentioned this for schools: Open the window and place a large fan in the window that blows the air outside so that a discreet airflow is created inside. This is a good way to generate some revenue. Many pubs also have ceiling fans. You can also do this slowly, not so that your hat blows away, but turn it on slowly so that a certain air turnover happens and air is drawn outside.

 

Somewhere you just have to say that not everything can be regulated by the authorities, not by the health department, not by the RKI. At some point you have to think a little bit about it. There are simply appeals to the common sense of the individual - also coming from the Chancellor. That is exactly what it means, that we think along and switch on our common sense. But then we need the right working hypotheses. An expert then has to say: It's aerosol and it's droplets. Lubrication and forgotten hand washing are less likely to do that. Then you have to follow these experts and not attack them in the daily newspaper.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

Spoiler

Quote

Korinna Hennig: One of the big questions that we continue to address based on the question of relaxation, for example restaurant visits, is: What happens now? Is there already a significant increase in the number of new infections with the effects of summer? How does the relaxation work? You can see that listeners have asked us, in the figures of the Robert Koch Institute, that the number of reproductions has risen again slightly. So the calculation size, which indicates how many others an infected person is potentially infected. Is that a reason for increased nervousness? Or do we have to look at the actually reported number of cases, because the value is only a statistical one, strictly speaking only one on paper?

Christian Drosten: We are in a situation in Germany that we still have relatively little new incidence that has been reported. We should also rely on the statements of the Robert Koch Institute. The Robert Koch Institute says: The R0 has increased. But because of the low underlying incidence that we have in Germany - because we have already slowed down the whole thing very well - there is a high statistical uncertainty in the R value that is being determined. It may be that it goes all by itself again under one. But it may also be that it now stays above one, it is now slightly above one. But you also have to know that if we have little infection activity in the population, then there are few consequences, whereas with a high infection activity a value of one is intolerable - even if it is one - because this high number of infections then remains the same. You have to get that out of the way, because otherwise the cases will accumulate again in the intensive care units because there are additional effects, such as the infection migrating into older age groups.

 

There is a very difficult basic situation in the USA, where this opening is also being discussed. Many states are now open in the United States. They are in the same situation as in Germany and in Germany we managed to bring down the incidence so well that we can now even manage to afford to hack in public at institutions like the Robert Koch Institute. This is also becoming a sport. I can't understand that at all. In one of the next podcasts, we should perhaps go through the daily situation report of the Robert Koch Institute together to clarify what is being done and what the current figures are delivered every day. And it doesn't matter whether the reporting system causes the numbers to be three days old or whether they really are from the previous day, as it appears to have been gathered from the media by Johns Hopkins University. The depth of resolution and the level of information that the Robert Koch Institute delivers every day, including Sundays and public holidays, is so high - you won't find this quality in any other country in Europe. But it doesn't matter, you still chop around at the Robert Koch Institute, because in the end we have a luxury problem in Germany. The intensive care units are empty and so the whole problem doesn't seem to exist.

Korinna Hennig: Maybe we will actually take it on, especially as a reading aid.

Christian Drosten: Maybe we should do that.

Korinna Hennig: Because there are many terms in it, for example Nowcast is a term that not every listener can immediately interpret correctly.

You had just hinted at the situation in the United States, so what did the loosening do? And there Columbia University presented a modeling study that calculates this at the regional level. It is always a little difficult to look at the model in the long term because it doesn’t include how people behave. That is changing. But they look at the changes in the near future at relatively short notice.

Christian Drosten: Exactly, such a short month. In the United States, 25 states relaxed the exit restrictions in late April and early May, the contact restrictions. And you asked yourself: What does that mean in a month's time? What effects can be expected there? You have to make certain assumptions, such as what if you had a ten percent higher contact frequency in the general population? And what if you add that shops are visited more often, for example? You can make assumptions about how the contact and transmission rates will change. Again, existing other data that are constant can be used as a basis. Here, for example, a very differentiated model about the infection mortality rate was used - differentiated according to age groups. And there are two assumptions here, two scenarios that are calculated. In the somewhat milder scenario, it is expected that by June 1st, which is very soon, over 43,000 new cases and over 1,800 deaths will be reported across the United States every day. In the somewhat stricter scenario, over 63,000 cases and nearly 2,500 deaths a day by June 1. And one of the main messages of this study is a reminder of a phenomenon that we simply cannot notice the activity in a broad population like in the United States - because reporting alone is almost as slow as the progression of the disease and the whole runs completely hidden, until suddenly a huge number of deceased and many complicated cases occur, which are then in the intensive care units.

 

Just to make it clear that the situation is like this in Germany, and it is not much different in the USA: we are getting infected today and will be sick next week. The mean incubation period is six days and until it is tested and the test result has been reported, another week passes on average. That means 14 days from infection to notice. And from the beginning of the illness to admission to the intensive care unit in severe cases, ten to 14 days. If you realize that, it takes three weeks from infection to intensive care admission. That is the projection period of this study.

This is an area that we have in Germany too, with the gradual introduction of relaxation to the point of noticing the effect on what you can really see, i.e. the difficult cases that can be counted in the hospital. Where you do not have to take into account an undetected number of diagnostics that you do not know and so on, but simply what is a problem in the hospital. So much time has passed and during this time, the number of cases of infection has continued to rise in the population, without you noticing that you can hardly catch up.

Korinna Hennig: So the gap during which you think everything is going well now until the numbers suddenly go up. But you just said that it is a worst-case scenario that is also modeled there.

Christian Drosten: Not necessarily. Two scenarios are modeled and there is no worst case scenario. In both cases, this is an effort for a realistic assessment, where one simply varies by one parameter, one contact parameter.

Korinna Hennig: That means that the more pessimistic assumption is still a realistic one, from which we can also derive something for Germany, in your opinion?

Christian Drosten: Well, qualitatively, we can derive something from the basic principle for Germany, namely this unrecognized dissemination. Fortunately, we are in a different starting situation in Germany. In Germany, we won't be ready within a month for the intensive care units to reach the border again. It won't be that way. But we have to make it clear that what is happening in the population of new infections these days is neither manifested - that is, the diseases have not even broken out - let alone it has been diagnosed and reported. We're just not that fast. We have to be prepared for the fact that new infections will increasingly occur in Germany these days. However, starting from a very low level, this leads to a specific deception effect that we will also have. You cannot say now that we start from a very low level and then open schools, for example. It just happened in Norway and they have had schools open for two weeks now and there has been no school outbreak yet. That's true. But you have to make clear how few inhabitants there are in Norway and how far the infection activity slowed down there. And then these are simply stochastic processes, the question really is: where does the first spark fly in, which school happens to be? This is something that cannot be said, two weeks have passed and nothing has happened, so nothing will happen again in the future. You have to be careful not to be mistaken in this low range.

With all sympathy with the United States, with what is happening now, this is a scenario that can be observed from Europe, from Germany, to see how it goes on. Because they don't have this low basic level there. They did not manage to slow down as far as in Germany and are now opening again.

 

 

studija: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/projections-suggest-potential-late-may-covid-19-rebound

 

govori dalje o otvaranju i posledicama

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

Spoiler

Quote

Korinna Hennig: The aspect of delayed perception is also one that plays into the question of whether the virus may not have been on the move longer than we previously knew. Recently there have been repeated reports of reports that the corona virus appeared in France much earlier. There is a publication after retrospectively examining frozen samples and therefore assuming that the virus was already there at the end of last year. In your opinion, is this plausible?

Christian Drosten: I saw this study, it has just been published, directly in the form of an accepted article in a specialist journal. I have my doubts as to whether this is true at all, this whole finding. There are several indications that you have to enjoy it with caution. This is about a patient who is a little over 40, I did not write down the number. He had an illness at the end of December, a relatively severe acute lung disease, and came to the hospital on December 27, right after Christmas. No diagnosis was made at the time and after two or three days it got better and the patient was subsequently discharged and is apparently well. And now there is a sample from this patient that was saved, that was one of about 50 samples that were saved in this hospital from December intensive care pneumonia. About half of these were re-tested with the PCR. And in one of these samples, that of this patient, a signal was found with the PCR. Now, however, no further testing has been carried out.

A PCR test, you have to realize, is to be regarded as doubtful at first, as long as it is not confirmed by further PCR tests that detect the virus in other target regions of the genome. Especially in such an important finding, if this is not normal routine operation in the laboratory, where you just want to know, this is a standard diagnostic case: Is it now positive or negative? You can say that PCR is positive. We see the patient as infected.

Korinna Hennig: In normal everyday life.

Christian Drosten: Right. But in a case like this, where it is said that we rewrite the infectious events of this disease and say: In reality it happened in France and then probably everywhere else in the world a month earlier or even longer. And maybe something was concealed or not noticed. If you want to publish such an important finding, you have to secure it. In addition to a second or third confirmation PCR, this would also include sequencing the virus, ie determining the entire genome sequence of the virus. You can do that when the PCRs are positive. Technically, it's very easy these days.

You would see something very special in it, you would then have a virus in front of you, whose mutation constellation should also correspond to an early virus. Because these viruses, which change over time, are subject to parallel mutation activity as the time goes by. If we sequence a virus today, we can tell which month it is most likely to come from. If someone asked us if it was a December virus, I would say that I can tell from the sequence with some certainty.

Korinna Hennig: But that without changing its quality for us patients?

 

Christian Drosten: Exactly. This has nothing to do with the phenotype, the behavior of the virus in the infection. This is an ongoing ongoing mutation process.

Then you should do something else. If you have a patient who is said to have gotten infected in December and that patient has not died. Then you have to test it serologically and prove that the antibody has. If he had a real infection, then he must also have antibodies today. We have discussed antibody tests in the podcast several times. It would be easy to call this patient and say: We have a highly suspicious case here and we would ask you to give us a blood test so that we can do an antibody test. And then there is an epidemiological follow-up. The patient's son also had an influenza-like infection in the previous period and one can get hold of this son. And then just test a blood test and show that this child probably already had this infection. Then the transfer would have been proven.

And none of this has been done, starting with the first confirmation test that was supposedly done, but the result of which is not shown in this publication. That is written ambiguously. It would have been so easy because this confirmation test picks up several PCR target genes. This could have been shown in this publication and should have been. Then no attempt was made to sequence, although that would have been easy. No attempt has been made to test serum either by the infected person or by the son, about whom nothing is known. I wonder: why is something like this published?

There is something else that also makes me skeptical. This is the test that was done, this one initial test. This is our test, they used our tests for it. And what you see is that the patient has a signal, a weak signal. And the positive control used in this test is incredibly strong. So no normal diagnostic laboratory would use such an incredibly high concentration of a positive control in a PCR. You don't do that, because you know that if you put a lot of control material - which is a copy of the virus genome - in the reaction, you have a very high risk that it will hop into another test tube. We are talking about cross-contamination. And that you have a finding that is simply not correct, that you yourself pollute your test reaction through the positive control. That is why the positive control is always used in the very low positive range, only a few molecules per reaction, so that this risk of cross-contamination does not arise.

One can see from the one data point shown in this paper that these authors apparently do not know how to deal with a positive control. And negotiate a high risk of a false positive result. I really have to say, I don't understand how this could be published, how the experts could let it go. That has obviously been assessed. And I certainly don't understand how you can do such broad press work with such a finding and thus unsettle the scientific community.

 

o pojavi virusa u Evropi prosle godine

studija: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920301643

Edited May 13, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

o poreklu virusa i sojevima

studija: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.974139v3.full.pdf

 

Spoiler

Quote

Korinna Hennig: Perhaps that is the crucial point at which we can pick up something that I have had on my slip of paper for a long time, namely the question of the origin of the virus. The much-voiced theory was circulating for a long time that it could perhaps have come from a Chinese laboratory, where it came to the public in an accident from cell culture. Then virologists were quoted who said total nonsense. You just have to look closely at the virus, then you know that it is of animal origin. Does the sequencing, i.e. the investigation of the genome, really give any clues? Can you see that in the laboratory?

Christian Drosten: Well, there are closely related viruses in animals and you can basically sample such animals in bulk and hope that you can find a close relative of this virus. There were a few small studies in China that were done.

Curiously, the pangolin has been found to carry these viruses. The sequences that I saw there that were published from the pangolin do not convince me at all that this is really the origin of the virus. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there is no animal origin. It's just that we have a so-called under-tested situation. So here and there we take a small bullet point and can not derive much from the kinship of this virus.

It's like if you want to know - how can you say that, what example should I give here ... whether the dolphin is related to the cow. By the way, it is. But we never examined a cow, we only examined horses and camels and sometimes a mouse and humans. One can say that the horse is genetically more similar to the dolphin than the human being or the mouse in many parts of the genome. But now the dolphin clearly doesn't have four legs either. So you know what I mean: We fish quite badly in a troubled situation because we have only got to know the real kinship of the cetaceans, the marine mammals, at one point, namely the dolphin. And we have not sampled the many other marine mammals and the more closely related cows.

 

If we did, we would have a much better proof of evolution or proof. And in evolutionary biology you can hardly ever prove anything. It is almost always the case that you make inferences. So that you work on the basis of particularly well-worked-out examples that you can open up in this way. And what has been developed here is simply not quite complete. I cannot yet believe these findings in pangolins with conviction. This is because we know from basics that all of these SARS-like viruses are related to bats, in certain genera or subfamilies of bats, in the Rhinolophidaen.

 

And now, by the way, an interesting new finding has emerged that is not that new for us at the institute. But our colleagues from China have prevented us from publishing this, namely we have a very special property here, namely a specific protease cleavage site, which comes as an additional feature to the whole speculation about the origin. We come into this conspiracy area, the laboratory origin. There are also theories about it. This is an additional property of this virus, which is always put into the field, where one says: Well, that is a property that this virus has, but one that is not found in any of the related animal fours. This is not found in bats, not in these pangolins, namely a very special interface in the main surface protein of the virus, the spike glycoprotein.

Korinna Hennig: What is responsible for entry into the cell?

Christian Drosten: Right, this interface will most likely help the virus to enter the cell. We can speculate that even this throat replication property may be facilitated by the presence of this special interface, which was not in the original SARS corona virus, which is not in other Chinese bat SARS corona viruses, and which is not in the pangolin virus is in there. Now Chinese scientists have found something that we have already seen in European Rhinolophus bat viruses, namely such a cleft. It is slightly different than that from the human SARS-2 virus, but it is very similar. So the opinion: "Such a fissure, it doesn't belong in a SARS virus. Someone must have artificially built it into the laboratory. You can see from that that it's a laboratory virus" - that's it from the table. We see that is exactly what occurs in nature.

 

We are repeating a discussion here that we have already had about influenza. But where it has been clear for many years that something like this occurs in nature - under selective pressure because it is of some use to the virus. This happens by chance and there are several evolutionary coincidences strung together. And at some point a virus comes out that not only gradually replicates a little bit better, but has an enormous replication advantage. Then there is an enormous selection advantage in evolution and such a virus then prevails.

 

 

 

[wwww]

o mutacijama

studija: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v2.full.pdf

 

Spoiler

Korinna Hennig: We have been talking for quite a while, but I would like to finish the topic of mutations because there is also a new study by researchers from the USA and Great Britain that may be interesting for us normal people - with regard to the question: does the virus actually change its properties at some point? Will it be important for transmission routes, for pathogenic potential and for immune defense? Perhaps you can present and classify this study to us.

 

Christian Drosten: Yes, there is a study published by a very respectable sequence analysis laboratory in Los Alamos, USA. This is the further laboratory context in which the gene bank is also operated. There is an incredible amount of expertise in scientists who deal with the evaluation of sequences of any origin. And it is an observation that has previously been described in smaller studies, namely an exchange at a certain point on the surface protein. And these viruses that have this exchange have been found to be increasing internationally, in a way that one can say that in many countries around the world a virus variant that does not have this exchange has been described. And then there is this exchange and it becomes more and more dominant over time. This occurs more and more frequently in the respective local outbreaks, until luckily in many places you can see that with the lockdown measures that have happened internationally everywhere, the whole thing comes to a standstill, i.e. the basic activity, so that you can do that in many places can no longer tell which virus variant is more common. At first it sounds as if it were alarming. Incidentally, this is also included in this study. The word "alarming" is in there. That means something. Scientists are less likely to write the word "alarming" in a scientific publication.

Korinna Hennig: Is it really related to transmission pathways, pathogenicity, that is, pathogenic potential?

Christian Drosten: Exactly. There two ideas are explained, what could be behind it. One idea is that building the virus could bring an advantage to the virus. Simply put, the surface protein is made up of individual building components and this mutation could lead to these building components sticking together better. This could be an advantage for the virus, but it is not known. The other explanation is, it could also be, you know, this mutation is at a site on the major surface protein against which good antibodies are raised. So we're talking about a dominant B cell epitope. And these antibodies, which is also a theoretical consideration based on the molecular structure, which could lead, if these antibodies bind at the site, that the cap of the surface protein becomes a little bit denser and the place with which the surface protein binds to the receptor that the receptor binding becomes firmer. This is just a consideration based on molecular structures.

These are sequence prediction scientists who go so far as to calculate their mutations in theoretically predicted molecular structures and to derive derivations from them, but which still have to be checked in the laboratory. I have to say that I am convinced by what I read in terms of theoretical considerations. That would convince me so much that I would say that it is worth experimenting with. So the time investment, for example, if I said to one of my employees, we are now reconstructing this using an artificial virus in the laboratory to see if it really is, I would make this investment. It takes two or three months to make something like that. And then another two or three months to examine it. But it would be worth it. This is such a suspicious finding for me, I would invest this time. We don't do it because it already says in a paper that they are already doing such studies with another group. We cannot win this race. That's why we prefer to do something different in Berlin. But in principle this is a suspicious finding for me.

 

Now I have to say something again: You can be very wrong about such observations. Here again, I have to say for those who are experts and who follow it up myself that I have to simplify again a lot. I've been doing it all the time anyway, but you have to understand it. Here you can say the following: This mutation did not appear out of nowhere and it did not appear several times out of nothing. That would be something that evolutionary biologists would call for very convincing observation, a so-called convergence. So if the same mutation occurs several times in different genetic backgrounds in several places around the world - then one would say that it is highly suspect of a phenotypic change that goes with it and of a strong selection, of a fitness advantage. However, this is not shown convincingly here. In reality we see here that this mutation is a typical mutation for an entire section of the phylogenetic family tree. And this section of the phylogenetic family tree has become known and has grown over the course of the epidemic. And whether that happened by accident or because of a selection advantage, we cannot say today. But there is a significant likelihood that this happened by chance alone.

So you can imagine it like a tree in a garden that you pruned many years ago when it was very small. And now he has two large main branches that come straight out of the trunk and one is pathetic and the other is huge and overgrows almost the whole tree. Anyone can imagine what it looks like. And so maybe the pedigree of these SARS-2 viruses looks a bit meanwhile, not so exaggerated. This stunted branch is not so stunted. But it's a little bit smaller, not so big.

And these viruses, which are on the stunted branch, were found at the very beginning in Wuhan and were more likely to persist in China, and a few of them were exported to the USA on the west coast. Then the Chinese made a lockdown and killed everything in virus that circulated in Wuhan, and the Americans had only a very small entry. Although it has spread, they didn't notice it at first - it was just a subtle first entry. And what then became the big branch was already dragged off in China before the lockdown, and also very strongly to the Shanghai area. From there it went on to Europe. And now we know that many more flights from Shanghai than from Wuhan arrive all over the world. Shanghai is a hub, it is a huge city that is business-oriented and has a lot of western connections. This virus line from Shanghai has apparently not only been carried across the world several times, but several times. The great European outbreaks, above all Italy, then France and Spain, were caused by this line. Evidently, the virus was carried from Europe to the US east coast and caused the great New York outbreak there and many other sub-outbreaks on the American east coast - but also everywhere, together with the then first Chinese virus the west coast. As I am now telling this together, one can imagine that it was perhaps a coincidence that this Shanghai line spread faster and boiled up in Europe, then was carried away within Europe, partly with skiers from Italy throughout Europe. And that there was perhaps only a better opportunity for this virus, for this type of virus, than for the other type of virus, which happens to not have this mutation, to simply spread worldwide.

We won't know for sure until we have examined in the laboratory whether this mutation has a functional meaning. One thing can be said, the authors tried to analyze whether the presence of this mutation in the patient is associated with a more severe course, and this is not the case.

 

Korinna Hennig: That means, but could it be about the question of contagion potential, for example?

Christian Drosten: Or also - and this is above all the conjecture - of the speed of dissemination. Did this big branch of the tree grow so much because people with this virus flew around and carried it off more? Or maybe the transmission speed is faster because the fitness of this virus variant is greater?

Korinna Hennig: But strictly speaking, for us ordinary people, it doesn't matter in the end whether it came about accidentally or not, if this variant has already spread widely here.

Christian Drosten: That anyway. It would be important to know whether the main European virus has a higher disease-causing activity than the main American virus. Meanwhile, this is also the main virus here in the USA. The big New York outbreak, for example, was mainly caused by a European virus. But the big question that arises in the room: is this virus more dangerous than the other, the other subtype? Medically, this is already a relevant consideration. But at the moment we just can't say that. You also have to say that a scientist publishes. The press office makes a press release. The newspapers take it up and then it trickles on. And with every step, the information is shortened a little further.

Korinna Hennig: And the concern is greater.

Christian Drosten: Right, and the more worrying, the bigger the sensation and in the end there are headlines where there is still a question mark. It is then politicized and at the very end there is an expert who has to say: wait, wait, wait, now let's take a look at the whole thing and leave the church in the village.

Korinna Hennig: But is the question of immune defense one that is still open? Because you said about the course of the disease, there is evidence that it has no effect. But immune defense and what would be important for vaccine development?

Christian Drosten: The mutation that has arisen here is not in a domain that typically binds neutralizing antibodies.

Korinna Hennig: Those are the important ones.

Christian Drosten: Based on this assessment, I don't think that this would have any implication for the effect of a later vaccine.

Christian Drosten: Based on this assessment, I don't think that this would have any implication for the effect of a later vaccine.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by wwww

[wwww]

o sirenju laznih informacija

Spoiler

Korinna Hennig: Mr. Drosten, you signed an open letter, together with other scientists and doctors worldwide, in which you ask the companies behind the social media to support what is now called an infodemic - wrong or wrong misleading information about the pandemic. In addition to doctors from all over the world, there are also well-known names from Germany. Her Braunschweig colleague from virology, Melanie Brinkmann, for example, but also popular celebrities like Eckart von Hirschhausen. What is your main focus?

 

Christian Drosten: It can hardly be summarized what is circulating on social media, often in the form of videos that can be viewed and which in some cases have millions of views and are full of nonsense, full of false claims that are not at all are well-founded. Of people who rely on their medical education, there are doctors and professors who are giving some nonsense to the world and who have never really worked on these issues in their lives, but who are believed based on their academic qualifications .

But it continues. There are also real conspiracy theorists who, long before the advent of this pandemic, spread conspiracy theories on completely different topics, where it has been proven in part that this is all nonsense and that these people are simply not trustworthy. Nevertheless, it always goes on. And yet I get the echo back in the form of accusations or questions, ideas that people develop on the basis of conspiracy theories. These are often very well-meaning ideas, but where you have to say that it is so far from any rationality - I can not even answer that, because it is so far from any argument that could be made at all.

Korinna Hennig: But you already mentioned that, some of them are people with academic titles who put such things into the world. It's not that easy to distinguish for the layperson. We are not talking about a different assessment of experts - let's take the example of children, where one virologist tends to say that children tend to transmit the virus less and the other estimates the study situation differently. Are we talking about something completely different?

Christian Drosten: Yes, that's something completely different. The children's topic is simply an open area at the moment, where we lack data and where the few and sometimes not very solid data that are available are interpreted slightly differently by different scientists. That's a good thing and right, everyone has their reasons. But this is about something completely different. Here it is, for example, that there may be a professor somewhere in public - I am also a professor and I would never dare to publicize anything about bacteria, for example, that still contains so much opinion.

 

I am a virologist and would never comment on a bacteriological topic. And that's almost the same for normal viewers, viruses and bacteria, but not for a scientist. It goes much further. Nor would I dare to comment on a virus other than the virus that I am working on here within the scope of virology in this breadth and opinion. You cannot know the literature and expertise in this area unless you are an absolute specialist. That is the only reason why I am in public as a person. Not because I'm particularly smart or because I can speak very well or anything, but because I'm a specialist working on precisely these viruses. And what I hear, in part also from apparent experts, are certainly experts in their own field of research or were, while they were still working, without any basis. These are general places that do not go beyond a superficial knowledge of student textbook knowledge. And with this knowledge base, you then trumpet videos in public and strengthen the backs of dangerous conspiracy theorists, some of whom have political agendas. It is irresponsible.

 

Korinna Hennig: So a good tool for the layperson would be to look, for example, which subject has someone who expresses their opinion? Or which one did he have? Where's his expertise?

Christian Drosten: Exactly. But then you have to take a close look again. Then how did he specialize? What has he already published and worked on on this subject in the past? Is there any indication that the specialist community in Germany or even internationally respects this person as an expert? If that's not the case, then keep your hands off it and don't waste your time investing a quarter of an hour or half an hour in a YouTube video that's full of misleading opinions and not based on scientific knowledge.

Korinna Hennig: There are now first signs that Twitter now wants to mark tweets with dubious content. But we all know these headlines, which are formulated with question marks, for example, so that you can click on them. I'm going to invent something: do strawberries help against the corona virus? And if you read the associated article, the answer is actually there, no, strawberries don't help. But the headline has already established a connection in many minds, also because not everyone reads the article. Do you really think that anything can be done there, with corrections, for example?

Christian Drosten: This is a different kind of suggestion that is also used in mainstream journalism. I don't think you can do anything about it. I have talked to journalists about it several times in the past few weeks. And they tell me: Well, that's part of the tool and somehow we have to get the clicks on our websites. And someone has to subscribe to our newspapers too. It is a mass phenomenon, I think it is dangerous myself. This is partly responsible for the fact that we now have a fragmented public opinion in Germany. But the question is: who provides the food in journalism who make these shortened headlines? And that is what scientists do to a greater extent when they spread things that are not well-founded under the guise of a title or a scientific study. That's when you open the door to such abuse in the media.

 

[Eddard]

BREAKING NEWS:
First results from large seroprevalence study ENECOVID from Spain on more than 60,000 participants!
Antibodies after COVID19 present in only 5% of the Spanish population and 11% in Madrid (the region with the highest incidence). The country with the second-largest incidence of COVID19 is far away from herd immunity (under the assumption that antibodies are protective for a sufficient period to allow for herd immunity to occur without massive vaccination program). 
Preliminary results for mortality is 1.2%!

[Sunshine State]

1 hour ago, Eddard said:

BREAKING NEWS:
First results from large seroprevalence study ENECOVID from Spain on more than 60,000 participants!
Antibodies after COVID19 present in only 5% of the Spanish population and 11% in Madrid (the region with the highest incidence). The country with the second-largest incidence of COVID19 is far away from herd immunity (under the assumption that antibodies are protective for a sufficient period to allow for herd immunity to occur without massive vaccination program). 
Preliminary results for mortality is 1.2%!

 

Pa Spanija ima oko 47 Mio stanovnika i  ca. 270k zarazenih, sto je oko 6 % - herd immunity se ocekuje kod covid-19 na preko 60 %... Ne znam odakle toliko iznenadjenje/sta je tu breaking -  zar su zaista mislili da ce imati  preko 20 Mio sa antibodies i biti blizu herd immunity, pa im ovo sad otkriva da su far away?!

Mislim, uz sve preduzete mere zatvaranja i distanciranja,  to je relativno ocekivano, jer su mere i uvedene s tim razlogom - da se sto manje zarazi. Jedino ako su se potajno nadali da je 20 Mio ljudi imalo asimptomatsku varijantu, sto bi bilo divno, ali skoro nemoguce

[Yoyogi]

Nema šta neće smisliti samo da nekako umanje neodgovornost i nesposobnost Trampa i njegove klike za pomor stanovništva u Americi.

Taiwan warned WHO of possible pandemic in December
Saturday, April 11, 23:23

Taiwanese authorities have disclosed a document sent to the World Health Organization in December in which they warned of a suspected human-to-human virus transmission occurring in China.

The disclosure came after the US State Department on Friday said that it is "deeply disturbed that Taiwan's information was withheld from the global health community". It also criticized the WHO for "choosing politics over public health".

The AFP news agency quoted the WHO as saying the message it received from Taiwan made no mention of human-to-human transmission.

The Taiwanese authorities in response disclosed the full message on Saturday.

The message read, "News sources indicate at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, China". It also said while China's health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not to be SARS, "they have been isolated for treatment".

Taiwan's Health Minister Chen Shih-chung said any medical professional would know the circumstances requiring isolation, and questioned whether being treated in isolation was not a warning.

The United States has accused the World Health Organization of being "China-centric". Taiwan's assertion is in line with the United States' view on the issue.

 

 

Šta je izostavljeno u tekstu (možda nisu ni razmišljali ni tako duboko ili je ovo namerna propaganda)  i šta je dovelo do ignorisanja tajvanskog upozorenja: Tajvan nije član SZO, njihov email je imao težinu kao da ga je neko na kafi u Starbaksu kao privatno lice poslao sa mobilnog telefona.

 

Ovo je kao da na primer Hašim Tači pošalje upozorenje Interpolu da uhapsi nekog Srbina negde na nekoj granici. Oni ne bi prstom mrdnuli.
A ako i bi, Dačić bi se razbesneo da čuje da Interpol preduzima bilo šta na osnovu dojave sa Kosova.

 

Tako i ovde Kina: razbesnela bi se da čuje da SZO radi bilo šta bazirano na bilo čemu sa Tajvana. Pravilno bi bilo, da je Tajvan poslao to Kini da prouči i prosledi. Ne, oni su namerno krenuli sami znajući da najviše što mogu da postignu je da budu ignorisani tamo gde treba, da zamute i iritiraju Kinu i da ništa ne postignu. Oni su odabrali politiku umesto zdravlja.

Da su imali čiste namere, kada su videli da posle dan-dva nema odgovora na njihoov mail, najmanje što su mogli da urade je da svoje nalaze objave u svojim novinama na engleskom. Nisu. Onda su se Trampovi botovi dokopali toga i pišu poluistine.

 

Još, to Tramp verovatno i ne zna, Amerika je 1972. uspostavila diplomatske odnose na nivou otpravnika poslova sa Kinom (Niksonova poseta) i 1. januara 1979. povukla priznanje Tajvana i priznala Kinu sa punim diplomatskim odnosima na nivou ambasada. To je izbacilo Tajvan iz svih tela UN.

[nonick]

 

Kineska imperija/carstvo je druga tema.

 

p.s. a i Kosovo ima temu.

Edited May 14, 2020 by nonick

[Darko]

On 5/14/2020 at 8:31 AM, Sunshine State said:

Pa Spanija ima oko 47 Mio stanovnika i  ca. 270k zarazenih, sto je oko 6 %

0.6%

 

15 hours ago, Yoyogi said:

Šta je izostavljeno u tekstu (možda nisu ni razmišljali ni tako duboko ili je ovo namerna propaganda)  i šta je dovelo do ignorisanja tajvanskog upozorenja: Tajvan nije član SZO, njihov email je imao težinu kao da ga je neko na kafi u Starbaksu kao privatno lice poslao sa mobilnog telefona.

Ispostavilo se da nije bilo upozorenja. Ovo je tekst e-maila koji je poslat WHO (preuzeto sa Tajvaskog sajta - https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202004110004😞

 

"News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter."

 

Što ne znači da Taiwan nije imao sumnje, samo da taj e-mail nije upozorenje. Izolacija je standardni protokol za nove viruse.

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Darko

[Marvin]

Prof. Drosten konacno na engleskom 🙂  Prica o samom virusu, ali i o transparentnosti, teorijama zavere  i sl.

 

 

 

 

Prvih 15-20 minuta su meni bili dosadni, prica je o tome kako sada lako neproverene informacije dolaze do ljudi i lako se sire drustvenim mrezama.

U ostatku klipa, izmedju govori i o tome da li je (i zasto ne) virus napravljan u laboratoriji, da li postoji vise varijacija virusa itd.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Laki Marvini

[Sunshine State]

4 hours ago, Darko said:

0.6%

 

Ispostavilo se da nije bilo upozorenja. Ovo je tekst e-maila koji je poslat WHO (preuzeto sa Tajvaskog sajta - https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202004110004😞

 

"News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment. I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us. Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter."

 

Što ne znači da Taiwan nije imao sumnje, samo da taj e-mail nije upozorenje. Izolacija je standardni protokol za nove viruse.

 

Thanks, zabrojah se!!! 

Tim gore - 0.6 % zvanicno zarazenih i breaking news da su daleko od kolektivnog imuniteta....

Sve i da je 6 %, uz pretpostavku da ima destak puta vise zarazenih nego sto je testirano, ipak je sve to far away od imuniteta krda

Edited May 15, 2020 by Sunshine State

[Klotzen]

Interesantno je da se uopšte ne raspravlja o tome kakav bi odnos trebale da imaju zemlje koje idu na "sistem krda" i ove ostale. Da li bi njima trebalo da se uvedu neke perma vize ili tome slično jer putnici iz tih država predstavljaju mnogo veći rizik za sve ostale. Ili ove sad mere koje će važiti posle otvaranja granica jednostavno treba zauvek ostaviti prema Švedskoj i ostalim državama ? Kako će šengen da funkcioniše u tom slučaju ?

[Asterion]

On 5/13/2020 at 11:05 PM, Eddard said:

BREAKING NEWS:
First results from large seroprevalence study ENECOVID from Spain on more than 60,000 participants!
Antibodies after COVID19 present in only 5% of the Spanish population and 11% in Madrid (the region with the highest incidence). The country with the second-largest incidence of COVID19 is far away from herd immunity (under the assumption that antibodies are protective for a sufficient period to allow for herd immunity to occur without massive vaccination program). 
Preliminary results for mortality is 1.2%!

 

U prevodu, virus ima još slobodnih soba, da se širi. 

 

Inače ova letovanja (ne samo Španija) če biti interesantna...nova žarišta?

Edited May 15, 2020 by Asterion

[Asterion]

 

What is the ACE2 receptor, how is it connected to coronavirus and why might it be key to treating COVID-19? The experts explain

 

 

 

 

 

A molecular model of the spike proteins (red) of SARS-CoV-2 binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein, the receptor (blue) which is its the entry route to the target cell.