Jump to content

The Covid-19 thread


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

The following is NZ centric, but I feel it's worth a read, as it has wider relevance:


Science has played an essential part in Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to this phase of the pandemic. Astonishing progress in vaccine development and the role of public health science has informed Government's decision-making. However, decisions that led us to effectively exclude the virus from our shores were simple compared to the tougher decisions that must be made soon. And while science will have a critical role to play, it alone cannot, and should not, answer the questions ahead as we move away from an exclusion strategy.

The costs of Covid-19 extend well beyond the illness itself to continuing impacts of both the virus and our response to it on the rest of the health system, mental health and well-being, and family ties. Sadly, such impacts extend to family violence and economic insecurity as well as ongoing and negative effects on our economy, education, innovation opportunities, international business relationships, and our diplomatic footprint.

The emergence of transmissible virus variants was inevitable and there could be more challenging variants ahead. As seen over the past 18 months, even with tight border restrictions, the virus will repeatedly seep through. The primary goal of total viral exclusion was to buy time to develop an alternative protection strategy, primarily based on vaccines. These have emerged faster than anticipated. The double doses of the RNA vaccine we use now are highly protective. In future years, there will be boosters (possibly needed rather soon), refined vaccines, and antiviral drugs to reduce harm further, but decisions must be made here and now, with what we know, and what we have.

Hopefully we will soon reach vaccination levels of perhaps 85-90 percent of New Zealand’s population over 12 years old. Yet this is only about 75 percent of the total population. Then we will face decisions about vaccinating children under 12 and the need for boosters. Thankfully, international science will inform us on these.

When will such high vaccination rates allow the balance to tilt from efforts to exclude the virus to a different management strategy?  This cannot be far away. But it too has costs and risks, especially for those who are not vaccinated. Are incentives now needed to get as many as possible of the hesitant and resistant vaccinated? What else needs to be in place? Do we need both internal and external vaccine passports (with strong legal protections on how they would be used)? Should widespread use of rapid self-testing – now well used in Europe – be adopted? Should employers be able to require masks and/or vaccines, and does that need legislative protection?  These questions, which all have ethical and “social licence” dimensions, go hand in hand with the more obvious ones of border triage, rapid testing at the border, modified entry management, ensuring adequate health facilities, and location of quarantine facilities.

Neither science nor politics alone can answer such equations. Whatever choices Government makes will involve trade-offs and time-sensitive decisions. These will necessarily be made in the face of incomplete knowledge and contestable perspectives and values from different elements of our community. “Social licence” and trust will be necessary for whichever choices are made.

Fear can undermine democracy. Parliament’s 2020 Epidemic Response Committee – a truly democratic innovation receiving much international interest – played a major role through its transparency, contributing to broad public acceptance of trade-offs required in following the elimination route. Similar levels of truth and transparency will be key for future choices. The Government’s challenge is to ensure trust in the pragmatic decisions it must soon make.

Broader scientific contributions and contributions beyond science will both be needed. Public health expertise is certainly central, but also needed are social sciences, including communication and behavioural sciences, economics, and more. Business, local leaders, iwi leaders, and others must feel that decisions made have considered their interests. Ultimately, the decisions must remain with our elected Government which, by any measure, and putting partisanship aside, has done an outstanding job in keeping New Zealanders safe. 

It is much more challenging to ‘open up’ than ‘close down’. In crisis and risk management, the concept of the ‘Red Team’ has emerged. Comprising a group of experienced and skilled people who have no responsibility for managing the crisis but have access to the same data as those who are, it can ask tough questions of the decision-makers, in real time. Given the complexities and the need to get beyond political point-scoring, trust could be enhanced for our ‘team of five million’ through using such a process. After all, we want our Government to continue to do the best job possible on all our behalf.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Merck says research shows its COVID-19 pill works against variants

Laboratory studies show that Merck & Co's experimental oral COVID-19 antiviral drug, molnupiravir, is likely to be effective against known variants of the coronavirus, including the dominant, highly transmissible Delta, the company said on Wednesday. 

  Since molnupiravir does not target the spike protein of the virus - the target of all current COVID-19 vaccines - which defines the differences between the variants, the drug should be equally effective as the virus continues to evolve, said Jay Grobler, head of infectious disease and vaccines at Merck. 

  Molnupiravir instead targets the viral polymerase, an enzyme needed for the virus to make copies of itself. It is designed to work by introducing errors into the genetic code of the virus. ...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newly Published Outpatient Study Finds that Early Use of Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Is Associated with Less Hospitalizations and Death

The study reports a survival rate of over 99% in patients with confirmed positive cases of COVID-19

NEW YORK, July 15, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York based primary care physician, announced that a retrospective analysis based on his patient data is available to read online at www.thezelenkoprotocol.com. The study, which has been submitted for peer review, found that early intervention and treatment of risk stratified COVID-19 patients in the outpatient setting resulted in five times less hospitalizations and deaths. The medications used in the treatment approach were zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin.

Prior studies of COVID-19 treatments have been largely based on severely ill patients in the hospital. This study examines outcomes of patients treated after their first visit to the doctor's office. Using simple risk stratification criteria, Dr. Zelenko identified which patients required prescriptions for the triple drug therapy, and prescribed these medications for five days.

To produce the study, Zelenko collaborated with Dr. Roland Derwand, a German medical doctor and life science industry expert, and Professor Martin Scholz, an independent consultant and adjunct professor for experimental medicine at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. Derwand and Scholz performed the data analysis while Zelenko handled all in-person treatments...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am your peer, because I believe that the moon can be reached by a ladder extended from the edge of our flat earth.

 I have reviewed your study and I concur, the moon is made from cheese.

That's where cheese comes from, via the ladder of course .





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...