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

[Amigo]

6 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

Nisam videla da je neko pomenuo, ali osim slicnog sindroma Kawasaki bolesti kod dece su nasli jos neke reakcije na virus, i nazvali ga koronavirus prsti. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/covid-toes-other-rashes-latest-possible-rare-virus-signs/2420555/

 

Evo posle skoro tri meseca izgleda da se jos mnogo toga nije tacno ustanovilo i stalno se nesto novo otkriva, ali se ne nalaze nikakva resenja. Sumnjam da cemo se mi brzo otarasiti virusa, jos ako mutira... 

 

Virus mora da mutira...

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

Just now, Amigo said:

 

Virus mora da mutira...

 

Znam, ali koliko brzo. Ako je ovaj virus mutirao za eto, od januara, onda je tu moguce da vakcina tesko moze da pomogne. 

[wwww]

11 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

Znam, ali koliko brzo. Ako je ovaj virus mutirao za eto, od januara, onda je tu moguce da vakcina tesko moze da pomogne. 

Kazu da mutacije za sada nisu prevelike, tako da se za sada ocekuje da vakcine koje se sad razvijaju i deluju (bar dok virus ne mutira previse).

 

[wwww]

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/05/14/science.abb9789

Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2020/05/14/science.abb9789.full.pdf

Quote

we were able to relate the inferred change points to the three major governmental interventions in Germany: We found a clear reduction of the spreading rate related to each governmental intervention and the concurring adaptation of individual behavior (Fig. 3), (i) the cancellation of large events with more than 1000 participants (around March 9), (ii) the closing of schools, childcare centers and the majority of stores (in effect March 16), and (iii) the contact ban and closing of all non-essential stores (in effect March 23).

Our results indicate that the full extent of interventions was necessary to stop exponential growth. The first two interventions brought a reduction of the growth rate from 30%0% to 12%12% and down to 2% 2%, respectively. However, these numbers still implied exponential growth. Only with the third intervention, the contact ban, we found that the epidemic changed from growth to decay. However, the decay rate of about -3%−3% (CI (-5%, -2%)−5%,−2%]) remains close to zero. Hence, even a minor increase in the spreading rate may again switch the dynamics to the unstable regime with exponential growth.

Fig. 2 The timing and effectiveness of interventions strongly impact future COVID-19 cases.

A: We assume three different scenarios for interventions starting on March 16: (I, red) no social distancing, (II, orange) mild social distancing, or (III, green) strict social distancing. B: Delaying the restrictions has a major impact on case numbers: strict restrictions starting on March 16 (green), five days later (magenta) or five days earlier (gray). C. Comparison of the time span over which interventions ramp up to full effect. For all ramps that are centered around the same day, the resulting case numbers are fairly similar. However, a sudden change of the spreading rate can cause a temporary decrease of daily new cases, although spreading rate (lambda) > recovery rate (mi)  λ>μ

at all times (brown).

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by wwww

[Down With The Sickness]

10 hours ago, Angelia said:

An experimental vaccine against the coronavirus showed encouraging results in very early testing, triggering hoped-for immune responses in eight healthy, middle-aged volunteers, its maker announced Monday.

Study volunteers given either a low or medium dose of the vaccine by Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Moderna Inc. had antibodies similar to those seen in people who have recovered from COVID-19.

In the next phase of the study, led by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, researchers will try to determine which dose is best for a definitive experiment that they aim to start in July.

 

https://www.marketbeat.com/articles/moderna-early-coronavirus-vaccine-results-are-encouraging--2020-05-18/?1

 

Sve sto sam procitao govori da su ovo najozbiljniji kandidati za prvu vakcinu koja bi mogla biti gotova cak mozda i do kraja godine. Nema nauke bez Bostona. 

 

Visok nivo antitela i relativno blage propratne reakcije kod 45 dobrovoljaca, u julu na 600 i na jesen na nekoliko hiljada, to je to. Plus potpuno nova tehnologija izrade vakcine koja ce ostati rebus za ostale.

 

Ne treba Bil Gejc, ne treba WHO, kao sto nikada nisu ni trebali. Neka se oni vakcinisu izmedju sebe svojom vakcinom.

 

A za ove sto su sirili virus simpaticna tarifa, da se steta nadoknadi.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Down With The Sickness

[Angelia]

10 minutes ago, Down With The Sickness said:

 

Sve sto sam procitao govori da su ovo najozbiljniji kandidati za prvu vakcinu koja bi mogla biti gotova cak mozda i do kraja godine. Nema nauke bez Bostona. 

 

 

deluje tako, Oxford izgleda ne ide bas najbolje.

[Tomiprunet]

7 hours ago, Baby said:

 

Nisam videla da je neko pomenuo, ali osim slicnog sindroma Kawasaki bolesti kod dece su nasli jos neke reakcije na virus, i nazvali ga koronavirus prsti. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/covid-toes-other-rashes-latest-possible-rare-virus-signs/2420555/

 

Evo posle skoro tri meseca izgleda da se jos mnogo toga nije tacno ustanovilo i stalno se nesto novo otkriva, ali se ne nalaze nikakva resenja. Sumnjam da cemo se mi brzo otarasiti virusa, jos ako mutira... 

 

 

 

O ovome je bilo pre jedno mesec dana, citao sam mislim na b92, Italijanski lekari su to primetili.

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

34 minutes ago, I, Ja Sam Laki said:

 

O ovome je bilo pre jedno mesec dana, citao sam mislim na b92, Italijanski lekari su to primetili.

 

Da znam, videla sam ja to odavno, ali nisam znala da li je neko pisao i da li ima neko novo objasnjenje oko toga... 

[ćušpajz]

Researchers Find Another Virus in Bats That's Closely Related to SARS-CoV-2

 

12 MAY 2020

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-found-another-close-relative-of-sars-cov-2-in-bats

[wwww]

2 hours ago, uini said:

Researchers Find Another Virus in Bats That's Closely Related to SARS-CoV-2

 

12 MAY 2020

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-found-another-close-relative-of-sars-cov-2-in-bats

To je rad o kome je prof Drosten pricao proslog utorka.

[ćušpajz]

@wwww

hvala, znam da od početka pandemije daješ linkove za drostenov pod, ako nije problem, pejstuj mi taj iznova da poslušam 

[wwww]

3 minutes ago, uini said:

@wwww

hvala, znam da od početka pandemije daješ linkove za drostenov pod, ako nije problem, pejstuj mi taj iznova da poslušam 

broj 40: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/40-Jetzt-ist-Alltagsverstand-gefragt,podcastcoronavirus208.html#Proben

 

prica tu malo i o onim sojevima A i B (samo ih ne imenuje direktno, vec sam na osnovu one skice iz jednog drugog rada zakljucila koji je koji). Kaze da je u Evropu i svet u najvecem stepenu virus dosao iz Shangaja (to je valjda soj B), posto Kinezi nisu uspeli da sprece izlazak virusa iz Wuhana.

 

rad: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241

 

 

[ćušpajz]

hvala, usput kapiram očigledno - verovatno je na nemačkom (:

[wwww]

14 minutes ago, uini said:

hvala, usput kapiram očigledno - verovatno je na nemačkom 🙂

Imas transkript, pa pomocu googla mozes da prevedes. Plus su dati linkovi za clanke koje je analizirao.

[NMX]

4 hours ago, uini said:

Researchers Find Another Virus in Bats That's Closely Related to SARS-CoV-2

 

12 MAY 2020

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-found-another-close-relative-of-sars-cov-2-in-bats

 

Bila je ova vest skoro..i komentar ispod:

 

Javljajte kad ovaj kreće, da znamo zbog kvasca 

[Vjekoslav]

...

16 hours ago, wwww said:

Hm, izgleda da je Hrvatsku pogodio "blagi" kineski virus, za razliku od Srbije (nemam pojma koji virus je tu, ali definitivno nije ni italijanski, a ni kineski).

A Nemacku je izgleda pogodio kineski virus iako su zarazu doneli skijasi iz Austrije (a njih po svemu sudeci zarazili Kinezi (a ne nemacki barmen i koleginica mu iz Svajcarske) posto i oni imaju mali broj mrtvih, iako je Tirol "tu preko brda" do severne Italije) i turisti iz Italije (plus poneki iz Irana). Dok je npr. susednu Belgiju i Francusku pogodio opasni italijanski. Virus u Holandiji je "nesto izmedju": ni kineski ni italijanski.

Madjarsku, Slovacku, Poljsku je, opet, pogodio neki virus blazi i od kineskog. Island je izgleda pogodio kineski virus uprkos cinjenici da su ga u zemlju uneli skijasi iz Tirola. Kao i Norvezane (za razliku od komsija Svedjana).

 

5 hours ago, wwww said:

Bio je jedan clanak (predat u stampu u martu, analizirao stanje od februara) koji je nasao 3 soja virusa u to vreme: A, B i C

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9241

A i B su nadjena u Wuhanu, pri cemu je B (koji je nastao kasnije) bio dominantniji. Kazu da nema razlike u pogledu smrtnosti ili ostalih bitnih karakteristika.

Bilo je i nekih clanaka gde je vise razlicitih grupa naucnika analiziralo poreklo virusa prema genomu, pa su dosli do zakljucka da je on verovatno presao na coveka negde izmedju septembra i novembra 2019, i to verovatno negde u pokrajini blizu granice s Vijetnamom (Yunnan - gde ima mnogo tih slepih miseva koji imaju corona viruse - sad je @uini postavio na drugoj temi jedan clanak o novom virusu pronadjenom na slepim misevima u toj oblasti) ili one blizu Hongkonga (Guangzhou) ili ove gde je Wuhan (ovo pisem po secanju i gledajuci sad google mapu Kine).

 

u Hrvatsku je koronavirus stigao iz Italije (autobusom iz Milana, 25.02.2020.). moguce da se razlikuju "hrvatski" i "srpski" soj, ali pitanje je po cemu? po smrtnosti? Srbija na 1 milijun stanovnika ima duplo vise zarazenih, medjutim skoro pa identican broj umrlih. znaci li to da je "srpski" soj (duplo) manje letalan od "hrvatskog"? po zaraznosti? vecu zarazenost u Srbiji ja pripisujem losim potezima Vuciceve vlade (dozvola kretanja stanovnistva po cijeloj Srbiji i rad kladionica u jeku pandemije), kao i samoj poziciji / znacaju (ekonomskom prije svega) Beograda u izrazito centraliziranoj drzavi, jer upravo je u Beogradu konstantno zariste epidemije. 

[Laki21]

15 hours ago, Angelia said:

deluje tako, Oxford izgleda ne ide bas najbolje.

 

?

 

Odakle ovo, nisam naleteo nigde?

[Angelia]

22 minutes ago, Laki21 said:

 

?

 

Odakle ovo, nisam naleteo nigde?

Negde procitah da su majmuni na kojima je testirana dobili coronu, ne secam se sad gde.

 

Potrazicu.

[Tomiprunet]

45 minutes ago, Laki21 said:

 

?

 

Odakle ovo, nisam naleteo nigde?

https://www.b92.net/zdravlje/vesti.php?yyyy=2020&mm=05&dd=15&nav_id=1684247

[Angelia]

4 minutes ago, I, Ja Sam Laki said:

https://www.b92.net/zdravlje/vesti.php?yyyy=2020&mm=05&dd=15&nav_id=1684247

On the positive side, 2/3 of the unvaccinated animals showed clear evidence of viral pneumonia at autopsy, but none of the vaccinated ones did. The conclusion is that the vaccinated animals were indeed infected – the vaccine did not protect against that – but that the disease was definitely less severe. But these results mean that the virus might well still be transmissible from people who had been so vaccinated, even if the disease course itself was not as deadly. You’d want to do better than that, if you can. Haseltine’s take is “Time will tell if this is the best approach. I wouldn’t bet on it.”

 

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/18/criticism-of-the-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine

 

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, said the vaccine data suggests that the jab may not be able to prevent the spread of the virus between infected individuals.   

"That viral loads in the noses of vaccinated and unvaccinated animals were identical is very significant. If the same happened in humans, vaccination would not stop spread," he said. "I genuinely believe that this finding should warrant an urgent re-appraisal of the ongoing human trials of the ChAdOx1 vaccine."

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/doubts-oxford-vaccine-fails-stop-coronavirus-animal-trials/

 

 

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

A deadly virus is targeting rabbits in the US

A virus believed to have jumped from domestic to wild rabbits is threatening the lives and habitats of the animals.

 

 

https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/498480-a-deadly-virus-is-targeting-rabbits-in-the-us

 

[wwww]

Ne znam koliko vas razume nemacki, pa da poslusa podcast Prof Kekule-a (bavarskog profe virologa-epidemiologa). Danas je pricao o scenarijima bezbednog odlaska na letnji odmor (na  more). Na zalost nema transkript. Covek je skroz zanimljiv, par puta sam se bas slatko nasmejala njegovim opazanjima sto se tice ponasanja nemackih turista i slicno   Podcast je opusteniji i manje strucan/naucni od podcasta Prof Drostena. Ne libi se da daje savete i misljenje sta bi politicari trebalo da urade itd. niti da ih kritikuje. Danas je bila 54. epizoda.

https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/podcast/kekule-corona/urlaub-ausland-flugzeug-bahn-taxi-virologe-100.html

 

[wwww]

@McLeod prof Drosten danas govorio o svinjskom gripu (h1n1) i  zasto su virolozi/epidemiolozi 2009 "preterano reagovali". Mislim da ce te zanimati sutra da procitas transkript.

[Angelia]

Novo istrazivanje u LA-ju:

 

The researchers estimate that approximately 4.65% of the county’s adult population has contracted the new coronavirus. As with all statistical estimates, there is a range of uncertainty or margin of error. The analysis suggests that the fraction of adults in Los Angeles who contracted the novel coronavirus could range from as low as 2.5% to just over 7%. The results verify preliminary results that had been released last month

 

https://news.usc.edu/170565/covid-19-antibody-study-coronavirus-infections-los-angeles-county/

 

 

 

 

[wwww]

15 hours ago, wwww said:

@McLeod prof Drosten danas govorio o svinjskom gripu (h1n1) i  zasto su virolozi/epidemiolozi 2009 "preterano reagovali". Mislim da ce te zanimati sutra da procitas transkript.

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/42-Bei-der-Schweinegrippe-kam-alles-anders,podcastcoronavirus212.html

 

Quote

Hennig: I would like to turn to another topic today that we have both agreed on for this podcast and have always had to postpone. Historically, the coronavirus pandemic can be compared to other epidemics and pandemics. Many people remember that there was swine flu H1N1 more than ten years ago. At that time, the World Health Authority issued clear warnings. The WHO recently said that the corona virus is ten times more deadly. Did you misjudge swine flu back then?

 

Spoiler

Drosten: At the beginning of the swine flu pandemic, there was a mistake about the seriousness. But how it is shown in retrospect is also not correct. By the way, today we know exactly why you have made a mistake. We can also discuss that here. In retrospect, however, it is not that you can say that everything was completely harmless. In terms of the generally deceased, we had about the same number as in a flu season worldwide. No more patients died from it than from normal seasonal influenza, but not less, as is sometimes shown. But there is a big difference, namely the age profile. It was an influenza pandemic, and it affects middle-aged adults more. And we had an artifact here with this virus, an immunological artifact, a natural phenomenon that we didn't understand at the time. We can discuss that right away if we want to talk about why you made a mistake in the beginning. But the same phenomenon also meant that only about 20 percent of those who died were over 65 years of age. This is completely different with normal influenza. As with the SARS-2 virus, there is already the maximum number of deceased people in old age, i.e. beyond retirement age, let's say the idea.

govori o pogresnoj proceni na pocetku pandemije svinjskog gripa, kad su ga procenili kao opasnijeg nego sto se na kraju pokazao, ali ni u kom slucaju bezopasnog - po broju umrlih uporediv je bio s standardnim gripom.

razlka izmedju svinjskog grips i covid-19: svinjski grip je najgore pogodio ljude srednjih godina (25-35 godina), samo 20% preminulih je bilo iznad 65 godina. Suprotno je sad cod covid-19.

Spoiler

Hennig: from 65.

Drosten: Exactly, that's now even more emphasized here. But with pandemic influenza, as was the case with the H1N1-2009 pandemic, it is the middle-aged adults, the 25- to 35-year-olds, who are stressed. I can remember exactly: At the time - I was a virologist in Bonn at the time - there were adults with the most severe courses in all intensive care units, i.e. 30-year-olds, 35-year-olds who died - for whom there was nothing more to be done acute viral pneumonia.

One should not forget that the pathogenesis of influenza is different from that of the current corona virus. In the case of influenza, there is an antiviral drug for those who have no immune protection, the Tamiflu, but it must be given very early, so that it is only effective in clinical cohorts if it is given very early. And there are antibiotics for the later phase. With influenza, it is often the case that you do not die directly from the virus. Incidentally, back in 2009 the swine flu was so that there were often direct viral pneumonia. But many cases also had this classic course of influenza with a secondary bacterial infection, in which one gets into a clinically bad fairway and worsens. But you can treat that with antibiotics.

This current coronavirus is not distinguished by the fact that many patients are getting better with antibiotics because they actually have bacterial pneumonia as a secondary infection. No, that's not the case here. Here it is the virus itself. We urgently need more research on antiviral drugs. We urgently need knowledge on how to use existing immunomodulators and even antiviral drugs, the key word here is remdesivir, how to use this against this virus.

 

seca se kako je tokom 2009 N1H1 pandemije gledao kako na intenzivnoj u Bonu (tad je tamo radio) umiralo mnogo mladjih ljudi od pneumonije.

za razliku od covid-19, kod n1h1 je postojao antiviralni lek, Tamiflu, koji je delovao ako se da dovoljno rano, plus su mogli da koriste antibiotike u kasnijem toku bolesti kad ona iz viralne predje u bakterijsku (kao sto je i inace slucaj kod gripa).

 

Spoiler

Hennig: What can be an explanation for the fact that it was so different at the time, that is, that a lot more younger people were affected by difficult courses? Did the older ones have anything like background immunity?

Drosten: Yes, they did, and you couldn't have suspected that at the time. You can only know what is really researched. And you work with the laboratory tests that you have. And what you actually saw at the beginning was that in normal laboratory tests that looked for antibodies, it didn't look as if these viruses were really related. So the new H1N1 virus, which was new at the time, and the old H1N1 virus, which was already present in the population. I think we have to talk briefly about how the timing was, because that's important for an explanation. But the first impression at the time was that these viruses are serologically in laboratory tests, the old H1N1 and the new pandemic H1N1 from 2009, not very closely related, do not have much in common, do not make any cross immunity, as was also concluded relatively quickly at the time. That was premature.

And what you also saw when this virus came along, you started evaluating its basic pathogenicity in animal experiments. There is a classic animal model for influenza, this is the ferret with which you have experience and where you can really say that the infection is also very well represented in humans. It's funny at first, ferrets are carnivores, predators.

 

Hennig: carnivore.

Drosten: Exactly. They are not so closely related to us within mammals. For example, the rodents would be much closer to us. But an influenza in the mouse, you can not conclude so much on humans, it is very similar with ferrets. You know that and that is also confirmed. This goes so far that you can also carry out transmission experiments, but you can also watch how a virus, for example, causes damage to the lungs. You can do that and you did it relatively early. And the dates that came were clear. They said this new H1N1 virus is at least as harmful to the lungs in animal experiments as the H3N2 virus, the main circulating influenza virus at the time. And that's also a really pathogenic influenza virus in the animal model, if you neglect immunity. In simple terms, that means immunity in the population - the 2009 H1N1 virus itself is a dangerous influenza virus.

 

And what you only saw after many months was something that was surprising, and you can see from the incidence data that the elderly in the population do not get so seriously ill. That was just an observation and only a few months later, when correspondingly large examinations were possible, did people understand why. It has been seen that those patients who were of a certain age had background immunity - both at the cellular level and later measurable with more precise tests that were carried out, even visibly at the antibody level. But it was seen particularly well at the cellular level. And we know today where that comes from. We didn't know that at the time. Especially from spring 2009, when it started with this virus, where it immediately spread from Mexico to the USA and also to Europe and worldwide. It could not be stopped, until autumn 2009 it was a bit baffled. Then the data came in autumn. What could then be reconstructed was that the old H1N1 virus provided cross protection. And that was significant.

 

govori o tome kako su starije generacije imale vec neki steceni imunitet protiv H1N1 izbog toga su bolje podnosili virus od mladjih, a sto oni u to vreme nisu primetili/znali (na pocetku pandemije). Otuda losa procena tezine pandemije, posto je virus u laboratoriji bio bas, bas opasan: nisu primetili neka prethodno postojeca antitela koja bi ga neutralisala, virus se bas razlikovao od starog H1N1 i na eksperimetni na zivotinjama bas bio gadan.

Tek posle par meseci su (empirijski) primetili da stariji bolje podnose i imaju neki prethodni imunitet (narocito na celijskom nivou).

Spoiler

Hennig: Despite little resemblance.

Drosten: Despite little resemblance. This is all the uncertainty we have today regarding the question of cross protection of the common cold coronavirus with the new corona virus ... I always try to make comparisons to the current situation. We do not know exactly how strong this cross protection is. New studies are coming out these days, again presenting cross protection data, which also suggests there is a bit of cross protection, but certainly not, I dare say that now, certainly not to the extent that it was evident at the time the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was the case.

To explain briefly how this happens. We had a pandemic in 1918, the Spanish flu, and this pandemic was caused by an H1N1 virus. This H1N1 virus circulated until 1957. In 1957 an H2N2 virus, the then Asian flu, came. This virus remained until 1968 and was replaced by the H3N2 virus, the Hong Kong flu. This H3N2 virus is still circulating today. It was not replaced by the H1N1 virus in 2009. The H1N1 virus did not have the power to displace this H3N2 virus. So to date we have H3N2 as an influenza virus. But it's getting a lot more complicated now. In 1977 there was a small new pandemic. That was the so-called Russian flu. This was caused by an H1N1 virus. This H1N1 virus is identical to the H1N1 virus of the Spanish flu and its successors, which circulated between 1918 and 1947. So the virus was reintroduced in 1977 after it had completely disappeared 20 years ago, came back as a small pandemic and stayed until 2009.

Hennig: How can that be?

Drosten: We don't really know that. It may not be resolved until today - that perhaps in a remote part of the world, for example in indigenous populations that are isolated from the rest of humanity, somewhere such a virus has been hidden and kept and has come back. You just don't know. In any case, this virus remained until 2009. Looking back from 2009, we now had two groups in the population who had an immunological memory against H1N1. And the most important group is the group of those who have had their first influenza disease in life with the Spanish flu virus and its direct successor until 1957. Now we can do the math very easily. 2009 minus 1957 is 52 years old. All those who were 52 and older at the time had had their first influenza with the H1N1 virus. And they have an overemphasis on their immune memory against influenza, against this H1N1 virus, until the end of their lives. We are talking about the principle of "original antigenic sin", that is, the original antigenetic sin, that is, immunological and epidemiological observations, if you roughly summarize those who say that the influenza that you see first in life is against you the best immune memory for the rest of life.

objasnjava kako je stecen taj prethodni imunitet na N1H1:

H1N1 is Spanskog gripa iz 1918 je bio prisutan do 1957, pa ga zamenio Azijski grip s H2N2 viruso do 1968, koga je zamenio HongKongski grip s H3N2 koji i danas cirkulise u sezoni gripa (H1N1 iz 2009 ga nije istisnuo/zamenio). 1977 je bila minipandemija Ruskog gripa s H1N, koji je bio isti kao onaj iz 1918 i iz perioda 1918-1947 (valjda 1957, ali tako je rekao - mozda je napravio gresku) i taj iz 1977 se bio zadrzao do 2009.

Dakle, 2009 godine ljudi stariji od 52 godine su imali vec antitela na onaj najstariji H1N1,  kao i oni od 32 godine i mladji (koji su svoj prvi grip zakacili 1977, plus oni koji su potom vakcinisani jer je od tad H1N1 bio deo sezonske vakcine gripa)

Spoiler

Hennig: A flowery term and a simple calculation. You have already clarified the timing issue a bit.

Drosten: That is why the old people were little affected by this infection. But these are the ones who are usually the ones who die from influenza because of underlying diseases, lung and heart damage and so on.

However, we are not quite finished with our consideration: where does this good civil protection come from? We have another group, namely the young people who had their first influenza in the then Russian flu. That was two or three birth cohorts, they were affected by this Russian flu, but most of them had the H3N2 virus in 1968 as "original antigenic sin". But there are a few birth cohorts that had their first contact with this Russian flu in 1977, with H1N1 again. And they are 32 years old in 2009. This is actually the group of healthy, middle-aged adults. There is also a subgroup there that probably still had this immune protection. And then, since the Russian flu in 1977, the H1N1 virus was also added to the vaccine. This means that we also vaccinated in parallel up to the 2009 pandemic against an H1N1 virus. All of these effects together are a sufficient explanation for why this H1N1 pandemic had a much smaller impact than one would expect from a pandemic. There are so many unexpected things happening at the same time that you just couldn't count on. Animal studies say this is a relatively pathogenic virus. The first laboratory characterizations of the virus say there is no cross-reactivity. Then suddenly it turns out that you have completely overlooked something important, and that you have overlooked it over many years of influenza research because you would not have had the opportunity to study it there. Actually, it just went stupid, you have to say. In the beginning you made a mistake.

 

Spoiler

Hennig: Or good for the patients.

Drosten: Or well, exactly. But from the point of view of today's interpretation - there are many accusations today against medicine, against epidemiology, against vaccine research and so on, that it was seen back then that "only Bohei is made. Everyone is scared and am In the end, it was nothing. And with SARS-2, the whole thing repeats itself, and it's the same people who comment on it. " Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

Hennig: You have already mentioned the vaccine. It's about the seasonal flu shot that many take part in. But this is also a critical point where a lot of criticism is sparked because you then developed a vaccine against H1N1, against this swine flu. It was bought in large numbers and then could not be sold to men and women because the willingness to vaccinate was not so high. Was that a communication problem? Or was everything already over?

Drosten: Yes, the vaccine issue around the 2009 swine flu is again a very complex topic, that was also a big social discourse that is now being revived and where incredible, totally unfair allegations are made and where we come in the area of conspiracy theories, where to certainly can’t argue anymore. But the vaccination discussion back then was very complex, and there were many misunderstandings there as well. That was a time when we weren't as advanced as we are today in pre-pandemic vaccine development and research. Today we have something like CEPI, simply a donor alliance, let's put it this way, a state donor alliance that is designed to promote vaccine development between academy and industry, especially for emerging pandemic viruses. Developed under the impression of the Ebola crisis, but above all thought ahead and in principle also founded.

Ovaj previd (postojeceg imuniteta)  je izazvao nepoverenje u epidemiologe, plus frka oko vakcine, sto se ogleda i u danasnjim teorijama zavere i antivaksetima.

Potom objasnjava situaciju s vakcinom iz 2009: kako se moralo sto pre proizvesti sto vise vakcina (paralela s danasnjicom, kad se pronadje vakcina)
 

Spoiler

 

Quote

It wasn't like that at the time. At that time, people lived under a different impression.

The first impression was SARS in 2003 and then H5N1, i.e. the Asian avian flu, around 2004/2005, when it really started and then continued, that became enzootic in livestock across the entire Eurasian region to North Africa inside. I think a lot of people know that. Under the impression that H5N1, as a dangerous possible pandemic virus with clear properties, can also infect humans directly, it was thought that something had to be done and you were therefore given type approvals for certain vaccines that were then pre-pandemic vaccines against H5N1. It was thought that when a pandemic comes, you basically want to have an approval sleeve by taking HN1 vaccines and studying it clinically to determine its effectiveness. And allow such vaccines - even if you know you wouldn't use them at all. It was a very good idea at the time and the result was that a pandemic vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu virus was made following the pattern of such a vaccine. The was made according to the basic model of such a prepandemic H5N1 virus vaccine. It was approved and was then available on the vaccine market.

At the same time, however, other H1N1 vaccines were also made that were not subject to this type approval procedure, but were also quickly and normally approved. But they were also made with other manufacturing channels. These were not combination vaccines like those used for influenza, where all the seasonal vaccines are in. Instead, they were single vaccines, including special vaccines for the pandemic that is now swelling. All of this was done in the first half of 2009 under great time pressure. The vaccination programs then began in late autumn. A big, very contrary discourse started in society, not only in Germany. Allegations were made, some of which were based on miscommunication and which had come up in the media and which had not been checked well. For example, one thing that many may still remember: there were different vaccines in Germany. And a vaccine, the one that was produced using this prepandemic process, was bought by the federal government, while the federal states bought other vaccines from other manufacturers that were prepared differently. One big difference at the time was that this federally ordered vaccine had no adjuvant.

 

 

 

kako su imali neki protokol za pripremu neke "bazne" vakcine koja se potom samo malo modifikuje prema aktuelnom virusu, kako su napravljene i druge vakcine paralelno, pa korisceni neki pojacivaci dejstva, pa je u NEmackoj jedna tip vakcine narucila savezna Vlada, a drugi pokrajinske, pa ih optuzivali kako su za "njih" (saveznu Vladi) kupili sigurne vakcine a za narod ove nesigurne (za pojacivacima dejstva) itd. itd. U svemu ovom su i mediji odigrali svoju ulogu.

Spoiler

Hennig: An active ingredient enhancer.

Drosten: Exactly. A discussion flared up about these potentiators, whether they are dangerous, with sometimes rather daring arguments, which were far-fetched and also scientifically difficult to prove.

Hennig: There was a lot of talk about side effects.

Drosten: Yes, exactly. Also the process of the federal government ordering a vaccine that is different from that of the federal states, and why the federal states at all. At that time, all of this was not communicated well in public. The fact was that the manufacturers had to work under time pressure with limited production capacities and had to ask at a certain point in time: Who would like to reserve which quota now? As far as I know, this had to be done in spring. Quotas had to be reserved when the vaccine wasn't even there, simply because it has to be planned in production. It was clear that the companies would use their maximum production capacity anyway. Now certain contracts have to be concluded for the delivery. At that time it was simply the case that the federal states had to order for the public supply, because the federal states now have legal responsibility for the health protection of the population, but the federal government could also place an order for its own areas to be supplied and did so Has. And for example, the federal officials had to be supplied with it.

The intention behind this was not to somehow have the better or worse vaccine and therefore to create a competition, but rather coincidences that happened there. But still many allegations were made, according to the motto: The federal officials get the safe vaccine and the normal people get what is left or something. But that was not founded at all. Then there was the discussion about the adjuvants, about the potentiators. You have to say that these potentiators were necessary because you can produce much more vaccine with potentiators than without. Without a potentiator you need more vaccine antigen, but the production of the antigen is precisely what causes the lack of vaccine in the pressing situation of a pandemic. You cannot produce an unlimited number of vaccine doses. And in this current pandemic we will also face the problem that an unlimited amount of vaccine cannot be produced.

sledi objasnjenje o pojacivacima dejstva:

Spoiler

Hennig: Perhaps we can explain what these active amplifiers are, what they are made of. I don't think everyone knows that.

Drosten: In principle, these potentiators are different substances that are known to irritate the immune system, especially at the injection site, ensuring that white blood cells are attracted more. Some of these are relatively simple chemicals, but have been used for this purpose for a long time. Traditionally, these were complex aluminum salts. However, much better, modern adjuvants have now been produced by the pharmaceutical industry. In some cases, their wording is not open at all. Some of these are company secrets that are formulated in such a way that they improve the immune response particularly well, but at the same time have few side effects. This is already being worked on in a targeted manner. And there is also a lot of research on it.

So certain small molecules, of which you also know exactly how the mechanism is to stimulate the immune system. These adjuvants are added to the vaccine to make it simply more efficient. And at that time there was an adjuvant, it was a modern, new adjuvant. It said: That has not been tried out enough. This is being brought onto the market and the influenza vaccine is being turned into a guinea pig. It was just said, but it was not true. So the counter notification that came from the Paul Ehrlich Institute, for example, was simply not heard. That's often the case, the first headline gets through. Then the correction is no longer so loud and does not really arrive. It's something that happened back then.

Then wild speculation arose, for example that it was a substance that is actually part of the normal metabolism in the human body. Squalene was also an additional component in such an adjuvant. This squalene is responsible for severe neurological damage, even for psychiatric symptoms. But you could never really prove that. But speculation is still being launched into the world. This was also discussed publicly. There was simply a situation that could hardly be controlled in the public discussion. There is this Arte post, for almost an hour. I don't even know what was his name again?

 

Spoiler

Hennig: Profiteers of fear.

Drosten: Yes, exactly. Profiteers of fear, where many of these things are summarized, also in a very bad style, where very one-sided people are heard who speak about it, who have no idea of the matter and where serious accusations are made and left uncorrected. The other side is actually not heard at all. To this day, this video is circulating again in conspiracy theory circles or in anti-vaccination circles - now in connection with this idea that there could be a forced vaccination against the SARS-2 virus, which is also not up for debate.

Hennig: We still don't have a vaccine at all.

Drosten: Exactly, but that is now being revived. It all gets mixed up and it just creates a very bad, misguided discussion. And how wrongly there are reports of numbers. There is, for example, an expert who we are now hearing as public experts as part of the SARS epidemic. Back then he spoke of side effects of vaccination in the range of one per thousand - and that is completely absurd. None of the vaccines that were used then, or vaccines that are used today for other diseases, have such side effects. Such a vaccine would never be approved. But this is dropped by what appears to be a medical expert in a statement. And many, many other things that are completely nonsense in terms of content.

govori o jednoj tv emisliji Arte televizuje u kojoj su sakupili sve zastrasujuce spekulacije i poluistine i koja je onda odradila svoje da se narod uspanici oko vakcine.

Spoiler

But then it goes together with allegations in the area of financial enrichment and corruption by medical experts, where you have to say, there may also be a justified allegation. I can't say much about that myself. I cannot judge that. I definitely don't want to repeat that here. But that's another line of argument that is made in this film. This line of argument is now being raised together in connection with this SARS-2 pandemic.

I say this because I myself am exposed to such accusations. People claim in public: Drosten makes money from the pandemic. Someone once said in public that I would make money on diagnostics because we did this diagnostic test. That's not true. I don't earn a penny on it. And so in this video other allegations are made, such as that certain scientists sit on advisory boards at both the World Health Organization and certain pharmaceutical companies and collect salaries. I have to say that if it is of this size and has this conflict of interest, it is not okay, it is reprehensible. I also want to say that I doubt that this is what is happening nowadays. But I can't judge that either. I can really only speak of myself. I have always said here in the podcast that I have nothing to do with vaccine research at all. That is not my area. And I have no relationships with any companies in this area and also no other companies. I have no additional income from such things, as is sometimes claimed.

 

Hennig: That is also a political issue, as you have already indicated, about which we cannot say anything specific in this podcast, which may be more of a research for other journalists. But if we conclude this entire swine flu issue again with our current situation: The concern for adjuvants, resulting from the reporting at the time, is the one thing you can refute from your point of view? That people are thinking now, maybe there was something wrong with the side effects of these potentiators. Does this play a role in coronavirus vaccine development?

Drosten: There is extremely good data on these active ingredients. I think we can already say today that they are not dangerous. The fact is that they are useful, especially in a pandemic, because we have the same effect there that we can get a lot further with the same vaccine antigen and vaccinate many more people. There is also evidence that the immune response is better and cleaner when potentiators are included. There are really extremely large numbers of patients with clinical experience, application experience, because these potentiators are also found in other vaccines that are constantly vaccinated. We have good experiences in all ages. If that were not the case, it would not be allowed to be so. The criteria in vaccine approval are extremely strict and in principle we do not have to have this discussion.

 

edit: rad o H1N1-review  https://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2013/11000/Case_Fatality_Risk_of_Influenza_A__H1N1pdm09___A.6.aspx

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by wwww