The Covid-19 pandemic has caused immense confusion, fear, and debate since its first outbreak in Wuhan, China in November of 2019. Among the most significant debates surrounding the pandemic has been the origin of the virus. Recently, the U.S. Energy Department released a report stating that COVID-19 “most likely” originated in a lab. This finding suggests that the virus could have been either created or modified in a laboratory, potentially contributing to the pandemic’s emergence. However, it’s crucial to note that the report does not suggest that the outbreak was intentional. In fact, the lab’s intention might have been to reduce the likelihood of a pandemic.
Despite the U.S. Energy Department’s report linking COVID-19 to a lab origin, controversy surrounds the finding as four other government departments maintain that the virus occurred naturally. The Energy Department itself expressed “low confidence” in its report. The FBI also supported the lab leak hypothesis in 2021, but only with “moderate confidence.” Conversely, the National Intelligence Council reported that four anonymous agencies assess with “low confidence” that the virus evolved naturally through transmission from an infected animal. Other government agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, remain undecided between the lab-leak and natural-transmission theories. The ongoing debate underscores the complexity of tracing the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is worth noting that despite the diverging opinions among government agencies, there is a consensus that COVID-19 was not the result of a Chinese biological-weapons program. The argument is further supported by the fact that three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology became ill in November 2019 and sought hospital care. However, the FBI has been unable to provide any further details regarding the incident due to Justice Department policy aimed at preserving “the integrity of ongoing investigations.” The lack of information adds to the challenges of tracing the virus’s origins, making the situation more complex and uncertain.
In light of the ongoing debate and divergent opinions on the origin of COVID-19, President Biden has called upon the intelligence community to intensify their efforts in investigating the matter. The President has directed that the review draw on work by the U.S.’s national laboratories and other agencies. The complexity of the situation is becoming increasingly apparent, and the answer may not be as straightforward as initially presumed. As the intelligence community continues to scrutinize and analyze the evidence, there is hope that definitive answers will be forthcoming, helping to resolve the global health crisis that has affected millions of lives worldwide.
The Covid-19 pandemic has undoubtedly had a profound and unparalleled impact on the world, highlighting the significance of science, facts, and cooperation in the face of a global crisis. The ongoing debate over the origin of the virus has been a point of contention since its inception, and finding conclusive answers remains crucial in providing solutions to the ongoing pandemic. As we move forward, it is essential to remember the importance of scientific inquiry, objective analysis, and collaboration in finding answers to the most significant challenges of our time.
A few weeks ago, I woke up in the middle of the night, couldn’t sleep. It didn’t help that when I looked at my phone, I noticed a news story about a new variant of COVID thought to be more contagious than previous strains. The story about the B.1.1.529 strain or “Omicron” was morbid. It described that Omicron was tearing through South Africa, in a mostly unvaccinated population. Since COVID-19 hospitalizations and death tend to trail infections, it was too early to tell how bad things would be, but all indications were that it would not be good.What a difference a few weeks can make!
Predictions about how infectious, contagious or how fast Omicron spreads were accurate. However, what was surprising is that hospitalizations were not increasing at the same rate as the Delta variant or prior versions of COVID-19. Despite only 25% of the South African population having a vaccine intended to prevent severe illness, those who are infected are not experiencing high levels of severe disease or hospitalizations. Preliminary data of the first 43 documented cases of Omicron in South Africa showing there was only 1 hospitalization was promising. Recently published data shows there is a 70% – 80% reduction in the rate of hospitalizations with Omicron compared to earlier strains such as delta.
It’s not all good news. Omicron will infect more people, faster. Ultimately, this may increase overall hospitalizations despite a reduced rate of hospitalization, if it infects enough individuals. As is pointed out by Christina Ramirez, a biostatistician at the University of California, Los Angeles in an article in the NY Times, “I don’t want to be alarmist, but I don’t think that you can let your guard down.” Could another mutation exist that makes the virus more dangerous? I guess it is possible, though I doubt this is probable ( based on the statistical concept of reversion to mean – after all, most coronavirus or Coronaviridae are not deadly). If future versions of covid remain similar in nature to O-micron, there is a possible silver lining here, and it’s huge.
O-micron might achieve what the vaccine could not achieve on its own. Omicron can distribute itself effectively, not just in the USA, where there is an abundance of vaccinations and boosters, but globally where vaccines are scarce. In combination with a vaccine bringing COVID-19 antibodies to individuals without a prior exposure to COVID, O-micron infection will confer immunity to others. That could bring forward herd immunity, which takes place when enough individuals have antibodies. Given the lack of global distribution of vaccines, this was unlikely to take place any time soon, if not ever, from Vaccination and boosters alone. The O-micron variant might be the best thing we’ve seen in a long time! Only time will tell.
Vaccination rates in South Africa are around 25%
Initial CDC reports on Omicron suggested it might be less dangerous despite being more contageous
News outlets make sure they tamper any good news — here there is an emphasis on hospitalizations.
Herd immunity as defined by Mayo Clinic
The South African Study Shows lower rates of severe disease
I recently shared the video on Twitter and provided some comments in a series of tweets which I’ve shared below.
Reducing Risk and Anxiety During Coronavirus (Tweets)
Some places that are opened are still risky: Just because a salon or restaurant is open (or because others are doing it) doesn’t mean it’s safe.
Consider making decisions with risk management in mind for #COVID-19 in the following manner:
- What is More Safe?
- What is Less Safe?
- How can I do whatever is safest to reduce my overall risk of contracting or spreading #covid?
Factor in how much virus is spreading in your community
It’s safer if #COVID infections in your state aren’t at an all-time high. If #Covid19 infections are relatively high think twice before going out!
Taking part in an activity
Activities are safer when there is more space available so activities outdoor are safer than indoor activities
Eating in a restaurant
Eating in a restaurant is less safe than eating outdoors with others, which is less safe than eating alone. But that doesn’t mean that you should eat alone. This is because it’s safer to be in places where you have more control than places with people you can’t control. Even when you are vigilant in a restaurant by wearing a mask, there is no telling what others will do.
Keep your distance
More physical distance is better than less physical distance. 6-feet is a guide based on how far a droplet might travel but there are times when the droplet & #covid can travel farther.
Strenuous Activity
Activities that might contribute to farther droplet & #covid spread might include: strenuous exercise with rapid, more frequent or louder breathing or going to #Church or other services with singing, chanting or loud recitation of prayers might propel droplets and #covid further.
When things get crowded
If you are indoors it is safer to be in a space that isn’t crowded. If it’s getting crowded…get out!
Limit your time around others or in confined space
If you are around others it’s safer to keep that time limited. That is what makes things like going to a hair dresser less safe–your time of exposure is prolonged. Confined spaces like airplanes might result in a crowded space, without distance and an inability to stay in control or to limit your time of exposure.
Stay away from Sick People
It’s safer (but not risk free) to be around someone who doesn’t have symptoms. Up to 40% of #COVID19 may be spread from asymptomatic individuals. That means 60+% is from symptomatic spread & these individuals are likely to be spreading even higher amounts of virus
Facemasks are a great but you don’t always have to wear one
Err on the side of caution & wear a #facemask but there are times that you can probably take it off safely like when you are alone outdoors (like going out for a jog) and there aren’t many people around. You might also be OK taking off the #facemask when you are with others in your household when
- you are already in close contact
- you are all healthy and not showing symptoms
- you don’t have #covid
It’s probably fine to go outdoors with your spouse and children who you live with, when everyone is healthy. On the other hand, it’s always a good idea to keep in mind whether COVID-19 is currently spreading in your community even when you are spending time with those in your household.
]]>
The petition is focused on stopping the spread of Coronavirus by urging public health organizations to make two recommendations:
- Reserving PPE equipment like surgical facemasks for Health Care workers caring for patients.
- Recommend non-medical face coverings be worn by everyone in public. (The CDC has recently made this recommendation)
Anyone can sign the petition and of course we greatly appreciate for you to share it with others!
]]>
While any barrier should be able to stop droplets, those who advise against wearing face masks often say it may lead to a false sense of security (which I believe has never been scientifically shown and was never mentioned in literature with reference to viral spread due to droplets). Theoretically this false sense of protection would be due to an inability to filter out small particles. But has it ever been studied? In fact, it has. While a T-shirt has not done a great job compared to an N-95 respirator, a Hanes sweatshirt did show that it helped somewhat. It filtered out up to 60% of really tiny particles.
This doesn’t mean covering your face with a DIY face mask wouldn’t help to stop the spread of coronavirus. It probably would since Coronavirus is generally spread with large droplets that can be stopped by any barrier. Of course, if you are in an ICU where a patient is getting intubated and airborne particles are generated, an N-95 respirator would be a better choice.
The Hanes T-shirt may not be a Coronavirus slayer but it can definitely provide protection to the most common route of spread, through large droplets. It may even stop some Coronavirus that is spread through airborne particles.
]]>When a cell is exposed to water guess what happens? It explodes. That’s right. Remember learning about Osmosis in high school biology class? I was thinking about it lately. Water travels into a cell which is more concentrated. The cell swells and then pop! If that happens with a cell, what happens when Coronavirus is exposed to water? In the video below you can see cells exploding is slow motion after a few minutes in water.
I posed the question on Twitter earlier today, hoping for an answer. After an hour or two without an answer, I decided to look into the research further.
Coronavirus can persist for up to 9 days on surfaces such as metal, glass or plastic. When asked by reporters, Dr.Anthony Fauci said it was more likely hours than days. Either way, there are several ways to decontaminate a surface aside from ethanol including 0.5% hydrogen peroxide or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite. Research uses the term “efficient inactivation” when a substance (like ethanol) reduces the amount of a virus within 1 minute. If it takes longer than that it’s not “efficient.” In summary, you measure the amount of the virus, expose it to a substance. If enough of the virus is dead after 1 minute then the substance is “efficient.”
Why would we need an efficient substance? Well it makes sense if you are washing your hand or using a hand sanitizer that you don’t want to have to do it for too long. Most people don’t even wash their hands for 15 seconds! But what about a scenario where we are sanitizing a floor or a door handle. In that situation we might not care if it stays wet for longer than 1 minute. Would water work in such a situation?
At first glance of research titled “survival of surrogate coronaviruses in water” it seemed obvious that Coronavirus could not be killed by water. But then I realized something quoted in the article.
“Other investigators found that “SARS-CoV survived longer in PBS (14 days) than in dechlorinated tap water or domestic sewage (2 days) at 20 Celsius).” This study and others like it, tested water that was DE-CHLORINATED.
A better and more relevant question is: would chlorinated water kill coronavirus? In the USA, the most readily available water is treated with chlorine (aka chlorinated) to protect us by preventing other bacteria and pathogens from living in our drinking water. In fact, according to americanchemistry.com, about 98 percent of US water treatment systems use some type of chlorine.
It turns out that when the deadly H5N1 Avian Influenza virus was exposed to chlorinated water the virus died. It died quickly–within 1 minute. That’s right, tap water in the USA is a natural-born killer! More accurately, water it is a natural-born killer when it is chlorinated. As an efficient killer of H5N1 virus, would water also kill Coronavirus?
In the research, published in Emerging Infectious Diseases available on the CDC.gov website, the authors question why more studies have not investigated the use of chlorinated water on infectious pathogens “despite general acceptance that the outer lipid envelope” of the influenza virus has an outer “lipid envelope.” That lipid envelope which is basically a fatty outside coating makes the virus “susceptible to getting killed by chlorine” and yet no “published reports specifically address the effect.” Do you know what other virus has one of these fatty outside coatings? Coronavirus.
The fatty outside coating, the lipid envelope that encircles influenza also surrounds Coronavirus. That should also make the coronavirus susceptible to chlorinated water.
Considering its availability and potential to decontaminate surfaces from Coronavirus, the idea warrants immediate research. If Coronavirus proves to be susceptible to death from household water, it could have many prevention implications. But it is important to note that bottled water, distilled water, well water or water outside the USA that doesn’t have chlorine added wouldn’t work. There may also be other additives in tap water that could kill Coronavirus, such as the organically unstable compound known as fluoride. Sometimes the answers to common problems are sitting right in front of us. In this case, the answer may be the most readily available substance in our homes–water.
]]>
Anti-malarial drugs that might help treat COVID-19 include Chloroquine & Hydroxychloroquine.
Countries that experience higher incidences of Malaria are more likely to have supplies of these drugs.
They may also have a surplus of Hydroxychloroquine or Chloroquine for the USA effort to slow spread of Coronavirus, if they are not seeing a large amount of COVID-19 yet.
This is largely due to great work of Bill and Melinda Gates and the Gates Foundation to help reduce the incidence of Malaria. And if there ever was a time to notice how achieving something like this in remote areas of the world like Africa could come back to potentially realize direct health benefits in the USA It is now! These countries may have surplus of medications for malaria. As Malaria has decreased over time, their stockpiles of medications have likely increased. They also have established supply chains for Anti-Malaria drugs.
The Gates Foundation has a major role to play to help us secure medications. I suspect they may already be helping but if they are not, they can help the United States government acquire medications needed for the treatment of patients with Coronavirus. Big Pharma can also help with supply chain logistics in coordination with Gates Foundation. Government might look towards freeing resources to pay generic drug makers to ramp up manufacturing and guarantees to buy excess supply for future stockpiles should we have the need again in the future. I pray we won’t have this need but fear we will.
How will I get the attention of these individuals? I probably won’t. But how could I? How about a cool rap/nice rhyme? X-Y = Country with Supply? Countries with decreased incidence of COVID-19 and a low incidence of malaria are more likely to have extra supply. You can also overlay the maps of COVID-19 and Malaria to find the regions. But we will need the above measures to be taken for real action that means collaboration between Gates Foundation, private industry and the United States government.
Here is the transcript of this “debate” of ideas: I shouldn’t mislead you by saying that they are equal. One side is based on facts the other…I’m not sure. Over-reliance on others? I guess you could claim that I have the benefit of hindsight. However, I’m not a reporter. Nor am I a medical correspondent. The data I provide is not new. It’s old. It’s also common sense. It’s obvious to anyone who has reviewed the data on face masks that has been around for decades and studied since the SARS outbreak of 2002.
Dr. Michael Morgenstern: I’m Dr. Michael Morgenstern. Today I’m going to debate Dr. Jen Ashton on the importance of face masks. We’re going to let Dr. Jen Ashton start, and I think you’ll appreciate that this is a pseudo debate.
Dr. Jen Ashton: we put surgical masks on sick people to protect healthy people around them. They serve an emotional or psychological benefit for people because people feel more protected. The reality is. They don’t really provide us with protection.
Dr. Morgenstern: it may be true that surgical masks provide an emotional or psychological benefit to the individual who’s wearing the mask. The fact though is that it also serves to stop the spread of coronavirus because most of the spread of coronaviruses due to large Droplets that would get trapped if I were wearing a mask and if I was infected at the same time. We believe that it will also protect you from catching coronavirus and there are some good reasons for that.
Dr. Ashton: So, there are basically two types of masks. There’s surgical masks and their masks called respirators. Let’s start with the surgical masks in a hospital setting. I’m a surgeon. I do real surgery when I go into the operating room and I put a surgical mask on, it is not to protect. Um, myself from getting sick in an in a sterile environment, it is to protect the patient that I’m operating on in case I spit while I’m talking or cough or sneeze.
Dr. Morgenstern: It may be true that when you go into the operating room and put on a surgical mask, that you are just trying to protect others and are not concerned about whether or not you yourself will get infected. Number one, I would say that is one of the primary reasons why we would want anybody in this environment with coronavirus out there wearing surgical masks or another face mask or a face covering. And the reason is because they may be infected. They don’t know they’re infected, they spit onto somebody else, they sneeze onto somebody else, they cough onto somebody else or something else, and that ends up infecting other people. That primarily is the reason that you would wear a surgical mask in surgery. Others, according to the Institute of medicine, would wear a surgical mask during surgeries, prevent bodily fluids from getting into their mouth, and I think that’s the same reason why you would. Probably cover your face with some sort of shield, as I’m sure you do when you do surgery, and you may have seen other surgeons that do the same thing because they’re protecting their bodily fluids from blood or other splashes that could take place during surgery.
Dr. Ashton: surgical masks that you see all over television and video. They do not block out the tiny particle size of Corona viruses or influenza virus. They don’t. Those viruses can pretty much go right through those masks.
Dr. Morgenstern: The bottom line is that coronavirus is mostly spread through Droplet contamination. So, if somebody is coughing, they’re not likely to create aerosolized viral particles capable of infecting other people. So, wearing a surgical mask or any face covering should generally work to prevent you from getting infected by large Droplets. They may not filter out particles. Although the reality is that even penetration testing of Hanes t-shirts shows that they will filter out up to 55% of viral particles. So, it’s not accurate to be saying that they don’t filter out any viral particles because they do, but it’s also misleading because research shows that wearing surgical masks or face coverings works quite well to prevent individuals in hospitalized environments and caring for sick individuals with influenza from actually catching the virus. And we don’t have good enough data to support the fact that, N95 respirators would do a better job just because the disease theoretically could be aerosolized. I think that’s really important to point out to individuals.
Dr. Ashton: Now you would ask. Well then why? If you’re sick, we’d use those masks. Do anything simply as a barrier. It could be a plastic wall, it could be a, you know, a scarf. But masks are just convenient to give to a patient if they’re coughing or sneezing.
Dr. Morgenstern: I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Jen Ashton in this respect. Using any type of face covering, whether it be a plastic wall a plastic barrier a wall or a scarf, just covering your mouth with any face covering a DIY or homemade face mask. Those things are going to act as a barrier and they’re going to stop individuals from spreading this virus, and we need to do everything we can right now to make sure that this virus doesn’t spread to other people who are not sick.
Dr. Ashton: Then you go to the end 95 respirator. There are a bunch of different models. They come in different sizes, different shapes. Those are for health care providers. When they are taking care of a sick person with a high impact respiratory pathogen, they’re called because they block out 95% of viral particles. You have to be fit, tested for those masks, a specialized process. Um, if you’re not. They can actually also do more harm than good.
Dr. Morgenstern: I don’t see very much evidence, if any evidence to suggest that individuals will do more harm than good by wearing a face mask that doesn’t work for them. Let’s think about it. If the face mask doesn’t work, they’ll get infected. If they don’t wear a face mask, they’ll get infected. If the face mask does work. Then it will protect them, so I don’t see where it’s going to cause more harm than good. I’ve heard people say they’re going to touch their mask and then they’re going to fiddle around with it, but there’s so much more science that shows that the mass will help than any science showing that it would lead to [touching your face]. I’ve not seen any science that shows that people are going to touch their more masks more and that’s going to lead to more infection.
Dr. Ashton: I totally get that people feel more comfortable if they have a mask on, it’s talking about a distinction between concern for me. As an individual, me, myself, and I, and, and my role to protect those around me. So, it’s a difference of being selfish and selfless or thinking of the needs of others before the needs of oneself, however you want to describe it. That’s pretty much what the surgical mask issue comes down to.
Dr. Morgenstern: Just in case you need to hear this from somebody who is an infectious disease specialist. This is a clip from Dr. Colleen Kraft, who’s an infectious disease specialist at Emory university:
Dr. Colleen Kraft: The mask not only protects you against sort of that Droplet, but it protects you from bringing your hand. Which may have virus on it to your mucus membranes, such as your nose, your mouth. There’s an element of protection that it gives you as good as you know how to use it, good hand hygiene, you know, not coughing. in other people’s faces, not being in crowded area, watching what you’re touching, watching and how you touch your face. All of those things kind of go together. Not like a magic bullet, but it certainly is something that can help you protect your airway against things that you breathe in.
Dr. Morgenstern: I think this is really important given the amount of misinformation that’s out there. I think a lot of people didn’t know right up front what was going on, but the media has this role to play that is extremely important, especially health reporters. They need to make sure that those facts are right.
]]>Well sometimes simple things do work . What Candidate Obama actually was talking about were ways to reduce energy costs. Back then, unlike today, the price of oil and gasoline were high. Republicans were proposing off-shore drilling solutions. Obama had a different idea. He said this and Republicans went off on it:
“There are things that you can do individually though to save energy–making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about if everybody was just inflating their tires.” President Obama said we could reduce consumption of oil by about “3 to 4 percent.”
While fact-checkers dispute the validity of his statement on the technicalities, Republicans ridiculed it, only later to realize the general idea was in fact true. We could reduce gasoline prices by inflating our tires. At least according to NASCAR, which at the time recommended on their website that “tires be checked at least once a month and before every road trip coating further” to combat escalating fuel prices and that a focus on simple things “like proper tire pressure could maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy.”
Similarly, the Department of Energy was also promoting the idea of “proper tire inflation as a way to save money and cut gasoline.” Confronted with the fact that the DOE said that keeping tires properly inflated and aligned could improve your gasoline mileage by “around 3.3% time” many Republicans backtracked and moderated their statements.
If you hear an idea that sounds simple, before dismissing it on that basis, look into the facts. In 2008, it could have saved you some money. In 2020, when it comes to face masks, it could save your life!
]]>
Apparently, the CDC doesn’t agree. At the very bottom of new updated recommendation, they continue, “In settings where facemasks are not available” healthcare workers can make masks from materials such as a “scarf or bandana.”
CDC says that they are not considered PPE because “their capability to protect HCP is unknown” and that they should be used in “combination with a face shield that covers the…face.”
However, they may want to add the same disclaimer for all facemasks including surgical masks. How can we know definitively what helps when we have no data on Coronavirus? Experts can’t seem to agree on which masks work best. But ask any expert the following question: Should we err on the side of caution given the seriousness of the crisis? The answer to be a resounding “YES.”
This should be instructive to individuals and policymakers. If CDC is recommending this to health care workers, you should consider doing the same. The primary reason the public has been instructed not to wear facemasks is it might deplete the supply of surgical masks. However, fashioning your own mask doesn’t affect health care workers. Further, when a large organization like the CDC makes a recommendation like this, you can be certain that it will help more than hurt.
Since most countries that have flattened the curve, have recommendations for the communal face masks as well as populations that wear the masks in public, I hope individuals in the USA will take it upon themselves to fashion and wear facemasks in public. Do it before the CDC makes this recommendation. I predict it will come, but pray sooner than later.
]]>