TeDaDeS
Forum Addict!
It appears covid restrictions are planned to return, if you plan to travel the coming months sounds like a cancellation-insurance makes sense again:
Masking again?:
nypost.com
www.independent.co.uk
www.theguardian.com
Should you mask your cat or dog?:
Quote: "Do not put masks on pets; masks could harm your pet."
Source (CDC): https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/covid-19/pets.html
New booster planned:
www.forbes.com
Previous post on the debate on masking:
Quote: "Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human corona viruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55)"
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf / https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332293
Quote: "In conclusion, although our findings did not suggest that face masks could prevent transmission of influenza in households, the lack of statistical power prevents us to draw a formal conclusion as to exclude that face masks could nevertheless have a substantial effect. Therefore our study should be interpreted cautiously as providing additional data to other trials realized in the context of seasonal epidemics."
Source (54): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013998
Quote: "The use of a mask should always be accompanied by other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures such as physical distancing of at least 1 metre, hand hygiene, avoidance of touching one’s face, and respiratory etiquette using a bent elbow whenever coughing or sneezing. Limiting stay in crowded or enclosed spaces, ensuring adequate ventilation of indoor settings (6), and regularly cleaning high-touch surfaces are also key precautionary measures to follow. Their implementation in coordination with broader public health and social measures (PHSMs) such as testing, contact tracing, quarantine and isolation is critical to prevent human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2"
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream...CoV-IPC-Masks-Comm-health-care-2021.1-eng.pdf
Quote: "In an intention-to-treat analysis, rates of clinical respiratory illness (relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.13), ILI (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13) and laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.54) were consistently lower in the mask arm compared with control, although not statistically significant. A post hoc comparison between the mask versus no-mask groups showed a protective effect against clinical respiratory illness, but not against ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections."
Quote: "The study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control, but is limited by small sample size and low secondary attack rates. Larger trials are needed to confirm efficacy of medical masks as source control."
Source (55): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
Quote: "In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection. While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [Reference Johnson7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection."
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...matic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
Quote: "Face masks seem to have a real but small effect for wearer and source control, although final conclusions should await full reports of the trials from Bangladesh and Guinea-Bissau."
Souce: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729
Quote: "At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." ...
Quote: "Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission. This practice reflects the strong preferences and values placed on preventing potential COVID-19 infections in health workers and in non-COVID-19 patients; these preferences and values may outweigh both the potential discomfort and other negative consequences of continuously wearing a medical mask throughout their shift and the current lack of evidence."
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf
WHO recommendation (page 2): "Children aged up to five years should not wear masks for source control".
Same document (1 Dec 2020): "At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI."
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337199 / https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf
Title: "The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147-receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non-infective mechanism of COVID-19 microvascular disease"
Abstract: "The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes a broad range of clinical responses including prominent microvascular damage. The capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect vascular cells is still debated. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein may act as a ligand to induce non-infective cellular stress. We tested this hypothesis in pericytes (PCs), which are reportedly reduced in the heart of patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Here we newly show that the in vitro exposure of primary human cardiac PCs to the SARS-CoV-2 wild type strain or the Alpha and Delta variants caused rare infection events. Exposure to the recombinant S protein alone elicited signalling and functional alterations, including: (1) increased migration, (2) reduced ability to support endothelial cell (EC) network formation on Matrigel, (3) secretion of pro-inflammatory molecules typically involved in the cytokine storm, and (4) production of pro-apoptotic factors causing EC death. Next, adopting a blocking strategy against the S protein receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD147, we discovered that the S protein stimulates the phosphorylation/activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) through the CD147 receptor, but not ACE2, in PCs. The neutralisation of CD147, either using a blocking antibody or mRNA silencing, reduced ERK1/2 activation, and rescued PC function in the presence of the S protein. Immunoreactive S protein was detected in the peripheral blood of infected patients. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the S protein may prompt PC dysfunction, potentially contributing to microvascular injury. This mechanism may have clinical and therapeutic implications."
Source: https://portlandpress.com/clinsci/a...3/The-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-protein-disrupts-human
Title: "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning"
Abstract: "Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination."
Source: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Quote: "A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24-0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11-0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies."
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473312/
Other wild rumors:
It's Aliens! Based on the release of this report:
"Nevertheless, the coincidences between some orbital parameters of ‘Oumuamua and IM2 inspires us to consider the possibility that an artificial interstellar object could potentially be a parent craft that releases many small probesduring its close passage to Earth, an operational construct not too dissimilar from NASA missions.These “dandelion seeds” could be separated from the parent craft by the tidal gravitational force of the Sun orby a maneuvering capability. A small ejection speed far away could lead to a large deviation from the trajectory ofthe parent craft near the Sun. The changes would manifest both in arrival time and distance of closest approach toEarth. With proper design, these tiny probes would reach the Earth or other Solar system planets for exploration,as the parent craft passes by within a fraction of the Earth-Sun separation - just like ‘Oumuamua did. Astronomerswould not be able to notice the spray of mini-probes because they do not reflect enough sunlight for existing surveytelescopes to notice them if they are on the 10 cm scale of CubeSats or smaller."
Source: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf (also attached as PDF)
Masking again?:
Amid ‘summer surge’ of new COVID variant — should we be wearing masks?
Experts sound off amid rising concerns as CDC warns of “highly mutated variant” dubbed BA.2.86.
nypost.com
New Covid wave has begun and we should wear masks again, warn scientists
Spread of new variant could cause extreme pressure on NHS and cause more damaging long-term health problems, Independent Sage expert says
www.independent.co.uk
Hollywood studio Lionsgate brings back mask mandate amid Covid spike
The studio behind John Wick and The Hunger Games has reinstated the use of masks after several employees tested positive for Covid-19
Should you mask your cat or dog?:
Quote: "Do not put masks on pets; masks could harm your pet."
Source (CDC): https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/covid-19/pets.html
New booster planned:
New Covid Boosters Expected This Fall: Why Some Doctors Suggest Holding Off On Getting Your Next Booster Until Then
XBB subvariants—including the dominant Eris variant—made up 95% of all Covid cases in the U.S. in June.
www.forbes.com
Previous post on the debate on masking:
Quote: "Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human corona viruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55)"
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf / https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332293
Quote: "In conclusion, although our findings did not suggest that face masks could prevent transmission of influenza in households, the lack of statistical power prevents us to draw a formal conclusion as to exclude that face masks could nevertheless have a substantial effect. Therefore our study should be interpreted cautiously as providing additional data to other trials realized in the context of seasonal epidemics."
Source (54): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013998
Quote: "The use of a mask should always be accompanied by other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures such as physical distancing of at least 1 metre, hand hygiene, avoidance of touching one’s face, and respiratory etiquette using a bent elbow whenever coughing or sneezing. Limiting stay in crowded or enclosed spaces, ensuring adequate ventilation of indoor settings (6), and regularly cleaning high-touch surfaces are also key precautionary measures to follow. Their implementation in coordination with broader public health and social measures (PHSMs) such as testing, contact tracing, quarantine and isolation is critical to prevent human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2"
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream...CoV-IPC-Masks-Comm-health-care-2021.1-eng.pdf
Quote: "In an intention-to-treat analysis, rates of clinical respiratory illness (relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.13), ILI (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13) and laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.54) were consistently lower in the mask arm compared with control, although not statistically significant. A post hoc comparison between the mask versus no-mask groups showed a protective effect against clinical respiratory illness, but not against ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections."
Quote: "The study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control, but is limited by small sample size and low secondary attack rates. Larger trials are needed to confirm efficacy of medical masks as source control."
Source (55): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
Quote: "In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection. While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [Reference Johnson7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection."
Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...matic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
Quote: "Face masks seem to have a real but small effect for wearer and source control, although final conclusions should await full reports of the trials from Bangladesh and Guinea-Bissau."
Souce: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729
Quote: "At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." ...
Quote: "Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission. This practice reflects the strong preferences and values placed on preventing potential COVID-19 infections in health workers and in non-COVID-19 patients; these preferences and values may outweigh both the potential discomfort and other negative consequences of continuously wearing a medical mask throughout their shift and the current lack of evidence."
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf
WHO recommendation (page 2): "Children aged up to five years should not wear masks for source control".
Same document (1 Dec 2020): "At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI."
Source: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337199 / https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf
Title: "The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein disrupts human cardiac pericytes function through CD147-receptor-mediated signalling: a potential non-infective mechanism of COVID-19 microvascular disease"
Abstract: "The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes a broad range of clinical responses including prominent microvascular damage. The capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect vascular cells is still debated. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein may act as a ligand to induce non-infective cellular stress. We tested this hypothesis in pericytes (PCs), which are reportedly reduced in the heart of patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Here we newly show that the in vitro exposure of primary human cardiac PCs to the SARS-CoV-2 wild type strain or the Alpha and Delta variants caused rare infection events. Exposure to the recombinant S protein alone elicited signalling and functional alterations, including: (1) increased migration, (2) reduced ability to support endothelial cell (EC) network formation on Matrigel, (3) secretion of pro-inflammatory molecules typically involved in the cytokine storm, and (4) production of pro-apoptotic factors causing EC death. Next, adopting a blocking strategy against the S protein receptors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and CD147, we discovered that the S protein stimulates the phosphorylation/activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) through the CD147 receptor, but not ACE2, in PCs. The neutralisation of CD147, either using a blocking antibody or mRNA silencing, reduced ERK1/2 activation, and rescued PC function in the presence of the S protein. Immunoreactive S protein was detected in the peripheral blood of infected patients. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the S protein may prompt PC dysfunction, potentially contributing to microvascular injury. This mechanism may have clinical and therapeutic implications."
Source: https://portlandpress.com/clinsci/a...3/The-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-protein-disrupts-human
Title: "Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning"
Abstract: "Our group has been using the PLUS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results. A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination."
Source: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Quote: "A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24-0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11-0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36-0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies."
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32473312/
Other wild rumors:
It's Aliens! Based on the release of this report:
"Nevertheless, the coincidences between some orbital parameters of ‘Oumuamua and IM2 inspires us to consider the possibility that an artificial interstellar object could potentially be a parent craft that releases many small probesduring its close passage to Earth, an operational construct not too dissimilar from NASA missions.These “dandelion seeds” could be separated from the parent craft by the tidal gravitational force of the Sun orby a maneuvering capability. A small ejection speed far away could lead to a large deviation from the trajectory ofthe parent craft near the Sun. The changes would manifest both in arrival time and distance of closest approach toEarth. With proper design, these tiny probes would reach the Earth or other Solar system planets for exploration,as the parent craft passes by within a fraction of the Earth-Sun separation - just like ‘Oumuamua did. Astronomerswould not be able to notice the spray of mini-probes because they do not reflect enough sunlight for existing surveytelescopes to notice them if they are on the 10 cm scale of CubeSats or smaller."
Source: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf (also attached as PDF)
