What a CHAOS!
Everyone seems to have their OWN DEFINITIONS for MILD and SEVERE. It's the perfect recipe for having inconsistent data and leaving us totally confused. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
2) This study compared how different organizations classify people's risk of severe COVID-19 based on their medical conditions. The European classification labeled more people as high-risk ...
3) ...while national classifications in the Netherlands and Norway identified more people as moderate-risk.
The discrepancy was around 12-14% - meaning a significant portion of the population was assigned a different risk level depending on which classification was used.
4) The main conditions contributing to this difference were heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes.
The researchers say more study is needed to determine the true impact of these medical conditions on COVID-19 severity.
5) This would help refine the risk classifications and ensure vaccination programs and other interventions are targeted appropriately. The variability highlights the need for an international consensus on assessing COVID-19 risk.
Thanks 🙏
FYI @C_A_G0101 @Antonio_Caramia
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
MASKS PROTECT !
A COVID-19 SUPERSPREADING EVENT at a choir rehearsal in Finland. It found that AIRBORNE TRANSMISSION of the virus likely caused the MASS INFECTION, as the singers were quickly exposed to infectious levels of viral aerosols in the room. journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
2) This study looked at a COVID-19 outbreak that happened during a choir rehearsal in Finland. It found that the virus likely spread through the air, as the simulations showed the viral particles quickly filling the room and exposing all the singers.
3) Using high-quality respirators could have stopped many from getting infected, while regular masks were not enough to protect people during the long rehearsal.
The key takeaways are that airborne transmission is a major risk in indoor settings, and ...
SARS-CoV-2 ENVELOPE PROTEIN DISRUPT the CALCIUM TRANSPORT SYSTEM
The envelope protein is a key protein (and the one I studied the most).
By causing calcium imbalances, it can disrupt neurological, cardiovascular, metabolic, immune, and ... nature.com/articles/s4159…
2) ...musculoskeletal functions, leading to diseases like Alzheimer's, heart failure, diabetes, and osteoporosis.
This study found that the E protein can interact with and disrupt the SERCA calcium transport system, which is important for regulating cellular calcium levels.
3) The E protein was shown to associate with SERCA and regulatory proteins like phospholamban in the cell's endoplasmic reticulum. Computer simulations suggested the E protein binds to the same sites on SERCA as the regulatory proteins, potentially interfering with ...
2) The study suggests that the mutations in SARS-CoV-2 mutant spectra arise through a stochastic process, rather than being primarily driven by immune pressure.
3) A few key points from the text:
- The text states that "Random events with biological consequences abound at all stages of the infectious cycle of viruses." This indicates that the mutations arise stochastically, rather than being directed by ...
EVOLUTION of SARS-COV-2 :
STOCHASTIC processes or IMMUNE evasion ?
(2nd part)
Before delving deeper into the stochastic evolution of the virus, a study to highlight the role of immune evasion in the variants evolutionary process.
2) "Evolution of new variants of SARS-COV-2 during the pandemic: mutation limited or selection limited?"
The paper examines how new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
3) It looks at whether the rise of new variants was limited by the ability to mutate (mutation-limited) or by the conditions that allow them to spread (selection-limited).
The analysis shows the rise of new variants was selection-limited, not mutation-limited.
RAPID TESTS (RDT) FALSE NEGATIVES, NOT DUE to VIRAL EVOLUTION, but likely ISSUES, with HOW PEOPLE were USING the self-tests, not problems with the tests themselves.
2) This study used a participatory surveillance program to monitor how well SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests (RDTs) were working in the Netherlands. They found that even when people tested negative on the RDTs, many still had high levels of the virus when tested by ...
3) ...the more accurate PCR method. However, this was not due to the virus evolving to avoid detection - when the RDT-negative samples were retested in the lab, they all tested positive.