(a) COVID patients (community-enrolled), whether with Long COVID (LC) or not (MC), have dramatically elevated interferon levels persisting 4 months after...
..infection - something not seen in uninfected controls (UHC) or people who caught "cold" coronaviruses (HCoV). As a reminder, interferons are cytokines sound the alarm call to viral infection and form a complex regulatory network of pro- and anti-inflammatory signals. Elevated..
...levels of pro-inflammatory interferons - as observed - promote aggressive T-cell responses; symptoms can range from asymptomatic to feeling ill to serious pathological states.
(b) While in non-Long COVID patients most IFN levels have significantly declined by 8 months, in...
... Long COVID patients most experience little to no decline in a number of interferons.
(c) Plasma ACE2 activity remains significantly elevated at 4 months in both categories of COVID patients but not in uninfected patients or those infected by cold coronaviruses. Levels...
...declined significantly in both groups by 8 months. ACE2, normally a surface protein that triggers reduction in blood pressure, can change into a soluble form (sACE2) during viral entry (and some non-pathogenic conditions) detectable in blood plasma.
(d) The pro-inflammatory..
...IFN-β cytokines proved the most diagnostic for Long COVID. They did best-fit measures for diagnosing Long COVID with variations of 2, 3 or 4 measured parameters, and IFN-β was in 89%, 93%, and 94% of the best-performing fits.
5) They then measured levels of various classes...
... of immune cells. They plotted out measurements using TriGraph to cluster cells of similar types near each other. A remarkable lack of certain groupings of T cells are almost entirely absent in Long COVID patients. (1) is a grouping of naive Cd8+ (killer) T-cells; (2) is a...
... grouping of mature Cd8+ (killer) T-cells; (3) is a grouping of Cd4+ (helper) T-cells; (4) a grouping of innate T-like cells which may include natural killer (NK) cells that attack cells that (like SARS-CoV-2 causes) try to hide from T-cells by downregulating MHC-I; and ...
(5) a grouping of naive B (antibody-producing) cells.
In general, naive T and B cells were heavily suppressed. These are immune cells with a potentially new novel variable region for targeting pathogens which can become activated if a matching antigen is encountered.
Naive immune cells provide a potential reservoir of defense against new pathogens without actively causing pathology.
(6) A number of other markers of T-cell activation and T-cell exhaustion were dramatically elevated in either all post-COVID patients, only Long-COVID...
... patients, or a mix of the two.
In total: just like the sudden acute respiratory symptom that characterizes severe acute COVID-19 is associated with high levels of inflammatory cytokines and a generally dysregulated immune system, this also characterizes post-infection...
... states as well, with a particularly slow to absent recovery in Long COVID patients.
The mechanism remains unclear. "Possibilities include persistence of antigen, autoimmunity driven by antigenic cross-reactivity or a reflection of damage repair"
** ED: Not just T-cell groupings, but also B- and innate immune cells.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Summary: sniffer dogs can detect Long COVID patient sweat samples 51,1% of the time with a 0% false positive rate on controls.
Handlers are blinded to the sample locations, so not a Clever Hans effect. There's detail about how patients were sampled but not controls, though one presumes it's the same. I rather suspect unintentional scent marking distinctions, either in handling of samples...
... or in things that Long COVID patients tend to do (or not do) that the general public does not, rather than a dog-detectable odour eminating from their bodies. It's easy to accidentally mark samples with odours that humans cannot detect.
This evening, I decided to put all of my masks to a proper qualitative fit test using a nebulizer, bitrex solution, and improvised hood. From the upper left, counterclockwise:
Summary: In SARS-CoV-2 patients, there's dramatic alteration of gene expression in the olfactory bulb of the brain, yet this doesn't correlate with the virus's presence or absence...
... in the olfactory bulb. Seeking to explain this, they checked for a marker of connectivity of sensory nerve fibres (afferants) called OMP-1, and as controls looked at a marker for olfactory lesions (TH) and general. neural activity (SNAP-25)
Results?
OMP-1 - the connectivity marker - was highly depleted in COVID patients (A) with anosmia, in comparison to non-COVID patients. No difference was seen in the marker for lesions (TH) or neural activity (SNAP-25). It thus appears that the pathology is upstream of the olfactory bulb.
Hey @elonmusk, any way to rollback this horrid UI update? It's destroyed the usability of common controls on the bottom bar. Literally imposdible to have things like defrost and seat heaters as one-click. Is hiding "defrost" even legal? Shouldn't be.
Who designed this thing, and who approved it? All logic is gone. Like, if I swipe my music down off the screen, them swipe back up, it's not the music that comesup, but the giant climate control screen! Is that "intuitive" or "helpful"?
With all the things that vanished from the bottom bar, it's now mostly blank unused space, on the most important part of the screen - even if I fill the custom bar from the limited subset of choices.
What were designers thinking with moving wiper controls so far from the wheel?
* 35% as severe as Delta (which was in turn ~200x that of Wuhan-Hu-1) - in contrast with 95% as severe in the Imperial College report.
* 10x greater risk of reinfection than with Delta
* Boosters give 57%...
... protection against symptomatic infection.
The nuance:
* Age *is* controlled for. This is important, as 49% of Omicron cases were age 20-39.
* Vaccination status is controlled for, but past infection is not.
* Small sample size (15 hospitalized patients)
* They *do* appear to control for time bias with a Cox proportional hazards regression model.
* "Only individuals reporting symptoms at the time of test were included in this study" - Not sure why they're doing this, sounds like a good way to introduce bias.
Beyond the mentioned:
* +30% transmission
* boosted=90% protection v. infection (was 95%)
It's:
* boosted=93% protection vs. severe (same)
* 2,4x more severe strain than Delta
The 2,4x more severe ("those not inoculated have a 2.4 times greater chance of developing serious symptoms") runs contrary to the narrative being spun in some African nations that it's a "mild strain" - statements often made right before insisting on lifting the travel bans.
Statements that - I should add - were just repeated by an anonymous WHO official, along with claims that vaccine efficacy isn't reduced, and also demanding the lifting of travel bans: