Ultraviolet light has been used to stop pathogens in their tracks for decades. But does it work against SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind the pandemic?

The short answer is yes. But it takes the right kind of UV in the right dosage, a complex operation that is best administered by trained professionals. In other words, many at-home UV-light devices claiming to kill SARS-CoV-2 likely aren't a safe bet.

UV radiation can be classified into three types based on wavelength: UVA, UVB and UVC. Nearly all the UV radiation that reaches Earth is UVA, because most of UVB and all of UVC light is absorbed by the ozone layer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it's UVC, which has the shortest wavelength and the highest energy, that can act as a disinfectant.

Related: What is ultraviolet light?

"UVC has been used for years, it's not new," Indermeet Kohli, a physicist who studies photomedicine in dermatology at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, told Live Science. UVC at a specific wavelength, 254 nanometers, has been successfully used to inactivate H1N1 influenza and other coronaviruses, such as severe acute respiratory virus (SARS-CoV) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), she said. A study published June 26 to the preprint database medRxiv from Kohli's colleagues awaiting peer review now confirms that UVC also eliminates SARS-CoV-2.

UVC-254 works because this wavelength causes lesions in DNA and RNA. Enough exposure to UVC-254 damages the DNA and RNA so that they can't replicate, effectively killing or inactivating a microorganism or virus.

"The data that backs up this technology, the ease of use, and the non-contact nature" of UVC make it a valuable tool amid the pandemic, Kohli said. But responsible, accurate use is critical. UVC's DNA-damaging capabilities make it extremely dangerous to human skin and eyes, Kohli said. She cautioned that UVC disinfection technologies should primarily be left to medical facilities and evaluated for safety and efficacy by teams with expertise in photomedicine and photobiology.

When it comes to a-home UVC lamps, their ability to damage skin and eyes isn't the only danger, Dr. Jacob Scott, a research physician in the Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research at Cleveland Clinic, said. These devices also have low quality control, which means there's no guarantee that you're actually eliminating the pathogen, he said.

"UVC does kill the virus, period, but the issue is you have to get enough dose," Scott told Live Science. "Particularly, for N95 masks, which are porous, it takes a pretty big dose" of UVC-254 nm to eliminate SARS-CoV-2. This kind of accuracy isn't possible with at-home devices.

In hospitals, the geometry of the room, shadowing, timing and the type of material or object being disinfected are all accounted for when experts determine the right dosage of UVC needed to kill pathogens. But that kind of "quality assurance is really hard out in the world, out in the wild," Scott said. At-home devices don't offer that kind of precision, so using them could offer a false assurance that SARS-CoV-2 has been eliminated when it hasn't, he noted. "Having something you think is clean, but it's not, is worse than something that you know is dirty" because it affects your behavior toward that object, he said.

Both Kohli and Scott and their teams are working to make UVC disinfection of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as face masks and N95 respirators, more efficient. Kohli's group advises hospitals and vendors repurposing existing UVC equipment for N95 respirator decontamination. Scott's group developed a machine that can be used by smaller medical facilities and a software program that helps users factor in the geometry of the disinfection room so that staff can deliver the most effective dose of UVC.

There are ongoing conversations in the field about installing UVC units in ceilings to decontaminate circulating air, Kohli said. And others are researching another wavelength of UVC called UVC-222 or Far-UVC, which may not damage human cells, she added. But that will require more research, Kohli said. Still, it's clear that "used accurately and responsibly, UVC has enormous potential."

Originally published on Live Science.

Read more from the original source:

Does UV light kill the new coronavirus? - Live Science

When coronavirus first hit in March, the freelance production manager paid about $30 for a three-month premium subscription on the dating app Hinge -- and he figured he'd just keep swiping until that ended.

Like many, the 29-year-old used dating apps like Hinge as a way to connect with others, especially since making in-person connections had become nearly impossible with Covid-19 shutdowns. He went on one Facetime date -- the girl, he said, seemed like she was "just going through her matches ... like on a spreadsheet."

But on May 29, he had plans to meet up with a different match -- this time in person. A 28-year-old nurse named Brooke, with whom he would hike Runyon Canyon -- Los Angeles' picturesque, influencer-ridden trail.

It was in the middle of their approximately three-mile hike, when the two decided they felt comfortable enough to remove their face masks, that he knew this was different. Their guards were down, or as he described it, "all caution (regarding coronavirus) was thrown to the wind."

Now, less than one month and many dates later, they split most of their time between his West Hollywood apartment and hers in Long Beach. He's done what many initially considered impossible with social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home orders:

He found love during a global pandemic.

"This is truly two people finding their soulmate during the most unlikely of times," he told CNN in a phone interview. "We're thinking about eloping to Vegas if the chapels open."

While this may sound extreme, many formerly single people -- and dating experts -- say the pandemic has actually helped people find their matches more easily.

"Because we have this dedicated time to find love, there are no distractions -- you're not a bar looking at people around you or looking at your drink. Everyone's more present and they are more conscious about the way they are showing up to these virtual or real-life dates."

Xu and podcast co-host Julie Krafchick, who are based in San Francisco, said they've noticed an overall change for the better in terms of the dating landscape over the past few months.

"Consider this a reset," Xu said. "Even though we're losing magic of that first date -- the first kiss, first touch -- we're forced to think about how we can reinvent dating."

The 'fail fast mentality'

Dating has never been -- and never will be -- perfect. Before the pandemic, Xu and Krafchick answered questions on their podcast such as "Do Millennials even want to find love?" and "Is monogamy dead?"

"We can't have amnesia that dating wasn't perfect before," Krafchick said. "Part of the reason we created the podcast in the first place was to answer the question, 'What the f**k is wrong with modern dating?'"

The biggest challenge for the singles out there before the pandemic, Krafchick said, was that many spent a lot of time in relationship limbo.

"No one wanted to say they were excited about someone," she said. "No one wanted to define the relationship."

Now, however, the pandemic has led to what Krafchick described as the "fail fast mentality."

"People are starting to feel it's better to fail fast than be in this constant state of equilibrium," she said. "Like, let's either get it off the ground or end it."

The podcast hosts have heard countless stories during these past few months of people who have successfully found love, and people who have felt more encouraged by their dating experiences even if their quarantine relationships didn't work out.

"Coming out of quarantine, everyone has a really strong feeling of a yes or no," Xu said.

Many have also taken this time in quarantine to self reflect, which has helped pave the way to finding healthier relationships.

"I think this time has given people a lot of clarity into what they want in life," Krafchick said. "It's shown life is short and at the end of the day, relationships are what matters most. A lot of people have used this time to do self work, especially in the dark middle period of quarantine, where it didn't feel like there was any way to meet someone."

Virtual dates have also made people throw their old notions of dating out of the window, as they are forced to get creative. For example, "there are 'Zootie' calls now," Xu explained. "Zoom booty calls."

'A whole other dimension of consent'

With this uncharted era of dating also comes new conversations around consent: Do you feel safe meeting in person during a pandemic? Do you agree to wearing masks on the first date? Do you feel comfortable being less than 6 feet apart?

Jessica Gerhardt, a Santa Monica, California, native, and her new partner -- they have not labeled the relationship yet -- waited three months before they decided to meet in person for the first time last week.

The two, who had mutual friends in the music scene, began talking after he "slid into her DMs" on Instagram. Before they met up, he researched and looked into data about social distancing, Gerhardt said.

"We both consented to hug when we first met," the 30-year-old told CNN. "There's a whole other dimension of consent during this pandemic. Under normal circumstances, of course I'd want to hug -- but it was helpful to have that conversation before and nice to know if we don't do something it's not necessarily a sign of 'Oh, I'm not attracted or interested, but I'm trying to be considerate of your safety and vice versa.'"

The lack of touching before meeting, Gerhardt said, made her feel like the two were cultivating "deeper intimacy" as they got to know each other.

They ended up going on a social distance walk in her neighborhood while both wore face masks. At the end of their walking date, he asked whether he could use her bathroom before he drove home.

"He came inside, and we both took off our masks after I asked, 'Do you feel comfortable being maskless?' and he said, 'I feel comfortable.' It was a nice surprise," she said. "We ended up feeling comfortable enough to also hold hands and cuddle. It was really sweet."

While they do not have plans to move in together any time soon, Gerhardt said he has now joined her quarantine pod, which includes her roommate and her roommate's boyfriend.

Learning each other's values early on

How people have acted during this time has helped provide a window into their beliefs, which for some singles has helped narrow down their pool of potential matches.

For example, on dating apps, many have said they have encountered photos of people holding "Black Lives Matter" signs at protests on their profiles. Others said they've seen people sporting face masks in their pictures, to highlight the fact that they are following social distancing guidelines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to curb the spread of the virus.

"With the Black Lives Matter movement, Covid, and everything else that's been going on, it's been causing people to have way deeper conversations," Krafchick said. "You can really quickly realize who has same values as you and who would be a better long-term partner. (Talking about) those things can really help you understand someone a lot better on a deeper level and get you past those basic dating questions."

Liz Dwyer, who lives in LA, fell for a guy named Demis Courquet-Lesaulnier, who she has been messaging on Instagram since before the pandemic. He lives in Paris, and they had plans -- pre-coronavirus -- to meet abroad. Now, that plan has been put on hold.

But that hasn't slowed their relationship down at all. In fact, it's sped things up. Dwyer said she's gotten closer to her now-boyfriend these past few months virtually, thanks to many of the current events they discuss.

"We have completely different cultural backgrounds," the writer and editor told CNN. "I'm American, he's French. I'm Black, he's White. We had to get to know each other -- not just on the 'I think you're good looking' and 'you're cute too' conversation."

"He was open to understanding what was happening in terms of racism," she said.

Without the pandemic, she doesn't know what their relationship would look like today.

"I don't know what the future holds," she added, "but no matter what, the experience has changed me for the better."

Finding your 'apocalypse partner'

Ronni Morgan, 32, and her partner Adriane (AJ) Johnson, 41, met on the HER app -- a dating app for queer people -- on March 23.

They started by texting, having FaceTime dates and watching Netflix together virtually, with Morgan in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Johnson in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

When they finally reached a point where they felt safe enough to start planning an in-person meeting, they found an AirBnB in between their two locations that they considered secluded and off-the-beaten path.

From the beginning, Morgan said, the two were "on the same page about how to handle the pandemic."

"We have both taken it very seriously," Morgan told CNN. "I don't think we would've made it this far otherwise."

When they finally did meet, on June 26, Morgan said their weekend together "legitimately was like a lesbian romance novel, complete with a fireplace, velvety red blanket and epic thunderstorm."

"When we did finally get to meet in person, we were already so deeply connected there was no question of what the chemistry would be like," she told CNN.

Their relationship is still a long-distance one -- but Morgan said there's no doubt in her mind that she's found her "apocalypse partner," aka the person to ride out the pandemic with.

"There's this meme that talks about how dating in 2020 is about choosing your apocalypse partner wisely and honestly I couldn't agree more," Morgan said. "I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, there's no one I'd rather be braving the new world with than AJ."

"I never imagined I'd meet the love of my life during a global pandemic but here we are," Morgan wrote in a post sharing their story on Facebook.

"Anything is possible."

Meeting at the virtual bar

Back in March, Krafchick and Xu decided to bring their community of listeners together in a Facebook group they called "Love in the Time of Corona by the Dateable Podcast." They said they felt it was important for people to feel less alone as quarantine began.

So far, the group has amassed more than 500 members -- who all actively utilize the group to share their experiences with dating in comments, over virtual happy hours, and, sometimes even with the two hosts as guests on their show.

Thursday afternoon, a "Dateable"-hosted virtual happy hour was in full swing, with about 20 people from across the United States -- some returning faces, others new to the hangout -- hopping on a video chat on Facebook.

Group members could check out different Facebook rooms, including: "The Bar," where Krafchick and Xu kicked off the afternoon with intros. Then, some stayed behind to play a game of "Would You Rather?" with dating-themed questions.

"Would you rather date someone who is in a lot of debt but donates to charity on a regular basis," Xu asked the group, "or someone who has no debt, but doesn't donate to charities?"

Others joined the "Playtime" room, where they participated in dating-themed trivia. And some joined a new "room" called the "Dance Floor," where one member taught a dance class.

Original post:

Love in the time of coronavirus: Couples share how they found matches in the middle of a pandemic - CNN

Since effectively securing the Democratic nomination in April, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has focused his low-profile campaign on hammering President Trumps handling of the coronavirus epidemic. We rounded up some inaccurate claims in his recent remarks.

What Mr. Biden Said

Theres a study out of Columbia University and a disease control center up there. They pointed out that if he had listened to me and others and acted just one week earlier to deal with this virus, thered be 36,000 fewer people dead. in an interview in May on the radio program The Breakfast Club

This is misleading. A study by infectious disease modelers at Columbia University did find that about 36,000 deaths could have been prevented through early May had social distancing measures been enacted by March 8, rather than in mid-March. But there is no record of Mr. Biden urging adoption of those measures before March 8, nor does Mr. Trump have the power to compel their nationwide enforcement.

The study estimated the combined effects of all intervention practices including mask wearing, travel restrictions, business and school closings and shelter-in-place orders as they were varyingly applied and complied with over time on a county-by-county basis, said Jeffrey Shaman, a professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University and a co-author of the study.

Mr. Biden has a point that Mr. Trump, far from promoting social distancing measures or lockdowns, was playing down the severity of the virus in early March. But while the presidential pulpit might have incentivized governors and mayors to act quicker, Mr. Trump lacks the authority to impose and enforce quarantine and isolation measures in states and cities. (As early as mid-February, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had spoken of the need to mitigate the spread through social distancing and nonpharmaceutical interventions at a community level.)

Mr. Biden had warned in an op-ed in late January that the case number was likely to grow. He also criticized Mr. Trumps previous proposals to cut funding to health agencies, promoted international cooperation and vowed to uphold science and harness expertise. He made similar points in interviews, town hall events and debates in February, but he did not suggest locking down cities or limiting social gatherings. A campaign spokesman argued that Mr. Bidens urging Mr. Trump to let the experts speak included the health officials recommendations of social distancing.

It was not until March 12, when Mr. Bidens campaign released its plan to combat the coronavirus, that he urged the C.D.C. to provide more clarity in issuing guidance on social distancing.

That was a day after Mr. Trump addressed the nation and promised guidelines on school closures, social distancing and reducing large gatherings, which were released on March 16.

What Mr. Biden Said

Forty percent of the money that was supposed to go to small businesses did not go to small businesses. It went to large businesses. in a town hall event in June

This is misleading. Mr. Biden was referring to the Paycheck Protection Program, which offers forgivable loans to cover payroll costs.

Data through June 20 showed that the relief program had approved more than 4.6 million loans totaling $514.9 billion. Of those, loans of over $1 million represented 35.1 percent of the funding and 1.7 percent of the number of loans. But loan size does not directly correlate to business size.

While the term small business may conjure up images of a locally run mom-and-pop shop, the government generally defines the term as companies with fewer than 500 employees, though that can vary across industries by average annual receipts and number of employees.

Companies that meet the definition, as well as some nonprofits and some larger food and accommodation businesses, are all eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program. Because of this expansive eligibility criteria, some high-priced law firms, lobbying firms, private schools, luxury hotels and restaurant chains qualified for and took out millions of dollars in loans.

But of the tens of thousands of companies that received over $1 million in loans, many were likely to adhere to the colloquial understanding of a small business like a local craft brewery in Philadelphia, an artisanal cowboy boot company in El Paso, an independent bookstore in San Francisco and a family-owned third-generation florist in Boston.

Survey data also undercuts the suggestion that small businesses had been crowded out by large ones: about three-quarters of small businesses had requested assistance from the lending program and about 72.4 percent had received funding through June 27. Moreover, when the program first expired and before it was extended on June 30, it had more than $130 billion still in its coffers.

What Mr. Biden Said

Without a uniform plan and guidance from the federal government that state and local leaders can use to inform their reopening plans, this is going to continue to be worse than it wouldve been otherwise. in remarks in July

This is exaggerated. Though they were nonbinding and criticized by some as vague, the White House did release guidelines in mid-April about opening up American again.

The guidelines recommended states and regions meet certain criteria including a downward trajectory of cases or positive rates for 14 days, increasing testing and contact tracing capacity, and the ability toindependently supply personal protective equipment and medical equipment before they move through three phases of reopening.

Of the 30 states that had planned to begin reopening in early May, most had failed to meet those guidelines.

The Biden campaign also pointed to reporting in May from The Associated Press that said the Trump administration had suppressed detailed reopening guidance from the C.D.C., but that guidance was revised and eventually released later that month.

Mr. Biden is right that messaging about the guidelines has been far from uniform. Officials in the Trump administration have stressed the importance of the guidelines, but also noted in recent weeks, even as virus cases have been surging, that reopening plans and timelines were up to states. Mr. Trump himself has actively encouraged states to open in spite of the guidelines.

What Mr. Biden Said

The N.A.A.C.P. has endorsed me every time Ive run. I mean, come on, take a look at the record. in the May interview on The Breakfast Club

False. As a tax-exempt nonprofit, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People cannot and does not endorse political candidates at any level, the president and chief executive of the organization said in a statement.

Mr. Biden was imprecisely referring to the largely high marks he received from the N.A.A.C.P. in its voter information guides throughout his career, ranging from 60 percent in 1995 to 1996 to 100 percent in three congressional terms.

Mr. Biden later acknowledged that his claim was a mistake and said that he had overwhelming support from the African-American community my whole career.

Based on scattered polling data throughout Mr. Bidens long electoral history, his claim of overwhelming support from Black voters is generally true. The Wilmington News Journal reported that Mr. Biden won 65 percent of Black voters in 1972, his first Senate race. Polling in March 1984, before his re-election bid, also showed him leading his opponent among Black voters. More than 80 percent of Black voters backed Mr. Biden in 1990 and 1996, and more than 97 percent in his last Senate race in 2008, according to exit polling data provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Black primary voters in South Carolina powered him to a crucial victory this year en route to securing the presidential nomination.

What Mr. Biden Said

Ive been against Keystone from the beginning. in a May interview on CNBC

This is exaggerated. Whether Mr. Biden privately opposed the Keystone XL pipeline project from the beginning, he rarely spoke about it publicly as vice president and did not really stake out a position.

The pipeline, which would carry crude oil from Canada to Nebraska, was first proposed in the summer of 2008 and attracted fierce opposition from environmental groups and others during the Obama administration.

A first proposal for the pipeline was rejected by President Barack Obama in January 2012, reasoning that a deadline set by Congress did not leave his administration time to do a thorough environmental assessment. Mr. Obama said that the decision was not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, and left the door open for a revised application.

Mr. Biden, responding to a question about Keystone on Twitter that month, said a permit could possibly be revisited, but it would need thorough study.

In March of that year, Mr. Obama voiced support for the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline from the Gulf of Mexico to Cushing, Okla. A month later, Mr. Biden was again asked in an interview about the initial rejection of the entire pipeline.

It hadnt gone through the process, he said. There is a process to make sure it can be environmentally sound.

A year later, an environmental activist wrote a blog post claiming that Mr. Biden had told her he opposed the pipeline but said I am in the minority. The vice presidents office declined to verify the account but noted that Mr. Biden had made his views known on this issue and his views havent changed, Politico reported.

Ben Casselman contributed reporting.

Curious about the accuracy of a claim? Email factcheck@nytimes.com.

Follow this link:

Fact-Checking Biden on the Coronavirus and His Own Record - The New York Times

It might be the next best thing to a coronavirus vaccine.

Scientists have devised a way to use the antibody-rich blood plasma of COVID-19 survivors for an upper-arm injection that they say could inoculate people against the virus for months.

Using technology thats been proven effective in preventing other diseases such as hepatitis A, the injections would be administered to high-risk healthcare workers, nursing home patients, or even at public drive-through sites potentially protecting millions of lives, the doctors and other experts say.

The two scientists who spearheaded the proposal an 83-year-old shingles researcher and his counterpart, an HIV gene therapy expert have garnered widespread support from leading blood and immunology specialists, including those at the center of the nations COVID-19 plasma research.

But the idea exists only on paper. Federal officials have twice rejected requests to discuss the proposal, and pharmaceutical companies even acknowledging the likely efficacy of the plan have declined to design or manufacture the shots, according to a Times investigation. The lack of interest in launching development of immunity shots comes amid heightened scrutiny of the federal governments sluggish pandemic response.

There is little disagreement that the idea holds promise; the dispute is over the timing. Federal health officials and industry groups say the development of plasma-based therapies should focus on treating people who are already sick, not on preventing infections in those who are still healthy.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, said an upper-arm injection that would function like a vaccine is a very attractive concept.

However, he said, scientists should first demonstrate that the coronavirus antibodies that are currently delivered to patients intravenously in hospital wards across the country actually work. Once you show the efficacy, then the obvious next step is to convert it into an intramuscular shot.

But scientists who question the delay argue that the immunity shots are easy to scale up and should enter clinical trials immediately. They say that until theres a vaccine, the shots offer the only plausible method for preventing potentially millions of infections at a critical moment in the pandemic.

Beyond being a lost opportunity, this is a real head-scratcher, said Dr. Michael Joyner, a Mayo Clinic researcher who leads a program sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration to capitalize on coronavirus antibodies from COVID-19 survivors. It seems obvious.

The use of so-called convalescent plasma has already become widespread. More than 28,000 patients have already received the IV treatment, and preliminary data suggest that the method is safe. Researchers are also looking at whether the IV drip products would prevent new infections from taking root.

The antibodies in plasma can be concentrated and delivered to patients through a type of drug called immune globulin, or IG, which can be given through either an IV drip or a shot. IG shots have for decades been used to prevent an array of diseases; the IG shot that prevents hepatitis A was first licensed in 1944. They are available to treat patients who have recently been exposed to hepatitis B, tetanus, varicella and rabies.

Yet for the coronavirus, manufacturers are only developing an intravenous solution of IG.

Joyner told The Times that 600 COVID-19 survivors donating their plasma each day could, depending on donation volumes and concentrations, generate up to 5,000 IG shots. With millions of probable survivors in the United States, he said, capacity isnt a problem.

Plasma companies said theyve focused their efforts on an intervention for the sickest patients. Grifols, for example, said it has not developed a shot because it is pursuing a federally supported IV formula to treat patients already infected with a serious case of COVID-19, but the company acknowledged that an antibody injection would be a good choice for prevention.

Advocates for the immunity shots say businesses are reluctant to invest in a product that could soon be replaced by a vaccine, so the government should offer financial incentives to offset that risk. Billions of federal dollars are already being spent on vaccine research through Operation Warp Speed, and funding for an IG shot that could serve as a bridge to a vaccine would come with a relatively modest price tag, they say.

Antibodies are the most precious resource on the planet right now, next to air. We have the industry, the technology, and the know-how to produce a proven product, said Patrick Schmidt, the chief executive of FFF Enterprises, a major distributor of IG products in the United States.

The amount of money and resources going into a vaccine, with no guarantee it will work this could have saved lives by now.

::

The proposal for an injection approach to coronavirus prevention came from an immunization researcher who drew his inspiration from history.

Dr. Michael Oxman knew that, even during the 1918 flu pandemic, the blood of recovered patients appeared to help treat others. Since then, convalescent plasma has been used to fight measles and severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, among other diseases.

Like other doctors, Oxman surmised that, for a limited time, the blood coursing through the veins of coronavirus survivors probably contains immune-rich antibodies that could prevent or help treat an infection.

On March 27, he and Dr. John Zaia, the director of City of Hopes Center for Gene Therapy, submitted a proposal to the federal Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, urging the rollout of IG shots for first responders and members of other high-risk groups.

The agency granted $12.5 million to Grifols and $14.5 million to Emergent BioSolutions to produce plasma-based COVID-19 medicines in IV form drips, among more than 50 different biomedical partnerships to fight the pandemic. But the immunity shot proposal was rejected.

The pair followed up with a detailed proposal to conduct a clinical trial at UC San Diego. They believed injectable 5-milliliter vials of IG could be given quickly by minimally trained healthcare workers, offering at least two months of immunity to doctors and nurses, as well as residents of nursing homes, college dormitories and military submarines.

The submission was backed by four other infectious disease researchers and statisticians, but it was also rejected, records show.

A spokeswoman for BARDA told The Times that the agency had received thousands of submissions, and that while we are interested in the potential of [IG] for treatment and prevention, we are focused intently on treatments for hospitalized patients to save lives.

The strategy baffled Oxman and Zaia, who said the IG shots are a far more efficient delivery system that can potentially reach many more people.

Whats more, prophylactic shots would probably require far fewer antibodies than IV treatments, Joyner said. With IG shots, plasma donations could possibly go twice or even five times as far, he said.

If a second wave of the virus were to arrive before an effective vaccine, that stockpile would be all the more essential.

Oxman started focusing his attention on the key players in the industry the manufacturers who dominate the development of plasma drugs. He held weekly phone calls with Schmidt, the distributor; together, the two tried to persuade seven companies to produce the shots themselves and bring them to health agencies for testing. They were unsuccessful.

Takeda and CSL Behring, two large companies who co-lead the new CoVIg-19 Plasma Alliance to develop an IG product for IV drips, said their efforts are trained on the sickest. The IV formula represents the fastest path to reach patients, assuming the trial is successful, said Julie Kim, the head of the plasma-derived therapies business unit at Takeda.

Financial calculations may be another factor for companies. Intravenous plasma products are traditionally the main economic driver for the industry, supply experts said, in part because vaccines have replaced many short-term immunity shots over the years. The money-making antibodies are also far more diluted in intravenous drugs than in injectable ones, which boosts profit margins.

They charge a fortune off of intravenous drugs in the hospital. They dont want to devote the manufacturing plant to something that wont make oodles of money, said one infectious disease expert, who has advocated for coronavirus IG shots but asked not to be publicly identified.

Researchers also said industry executives have little incentive to produce the immunity shots for the coronavirus, given the possibility that a longer-lasting vaccine could replace it within a year.

Representatives for CSL, Takeda and Grifols all challenged that assertion.

The choice of one delivery method or another has no connection with the potential financial or pricing implications, a Grifols spokesman told The Times.

Throughout May, researchers and doctors at Yale, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke and four University of California schools sent a barrage of letters to dozens of lawmakers. They held virtual meetings with health policy directors on Capitol Hill, but say they have heard no follow-up to date.

Dr. Arturo Casadevall, the chair of the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, said he spoke to FDA officials who told him they do not instruct companies on what to produce. Casadevall told The Times that the leaders of the national project were very supportive of the need to develop an IG shot rapidly and that he believed it would be very helpful in stemming the epidemic.

Joyner, of the Mayo Clinic, said there are probably 10 million to 20 million people in the U.S. carrying coronavirus antibodies and the number keeps climbing. If just 2% of them were to donate a standard 800 milliliters of plasma on three separate occasions, their plasma alone could generate millions of IG shots for high-risk Americans.

At a hot-spot meatpacking plant, or at a mobile unit in the parking lot outside a mall trust me, you can get the plasma, Joyner said. This is not a biological problem nor a technology problem. Its a back-of-the-envelope intelligence problem.

The antibody injections, for now, do not appear to be a high priority for the government or the industry.

Grifols, on April 28 the same day that the U.S. topped 1 million confirmed coronavirus cases made a major product announcement that would expand its leadership in disease treatment with immunoglobulins.

The product was a new vial for IG shots to treat rabies.

Read more from the original source:

An injection may block COVID-19, but feds have failed to act - Los Angeles Times

The long-term effects of COVID-19, even on people who suffered a mild infection, could be far worse than was originally anticipated, according to researchers anddoctors in northern Italy.

Psychosis, insomnia, kidney disease, spinal infections, strokes, chronic tiredness and mobility issues are being identified in former coronavirus patients in Lombardy, the worst-affected region in the country.

The doctors warn that some victims may never recover from the illness and that all age groups are vulnerable.

The virus is a systemic infection that affects all the organs of the body, not, as was previously thought, just a respiratory disease, they say.

Some people may find that their ability to properly work, to concentrate, and even to take part in physical activities will be severely impaired.

The physicians warn that people who do not consider themselves in a vulnerable group and aren't concerned at contracting the disease could be putting themselves in danger of life-changing illnesses if they ignore the rules to keep safe.

They stress that the need for social distancing, hand washing, and masks is as important now as it ever was.

The warnings come amid growing concerns in northern Italy that a second wave of the virus could be imminent. Doctors in two of the main hospitals in the region have reported a handful of new cases of severely ill people with respiratory problems.

Dr Roberto Cosentini, head of emergencies at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, oversaw the response to the virus that swept through this alpine province claiming the lives of at least 6,000 people.

He gave Sky News unprecedented access to the hospital's emergency rooms in March when the first shocking effects of the virus were broadcast around the world, changing perceptions of the scale of the problem.

Now he is leading efforts to again send a warning across the globe that COVID-19 is a lethal killer that affects the whole body, and is not going away.

"At first, initially, we thought it was a bad flu, then we thought it was a bad flu with a very bad pneumonia, it was the phase when you came here, but subsequently we discovered that it is a systemic illness with vessel damage in the whole body with renal involvement, cerebral involvement," he told me in the now silent COVID-19 emergency room that was overwhelmed a few months ago.

"So we are seeing other acute manifestations of renal failure that require dialysis; or stroke, and then acute myocardial infarction, so a lot of complications or other manifestations of the virus.

"And also now we see a significant proportion of the population with chronic damage from the virus."

One of the few positives emerging from the pandemic that caused havoc to the health service here was the creation of a unique environment where doctors and experts in different fields found themselves working together for months, effectively learning new skills. That co-operation is helping the understanding of the virus.

Dr Emanuela Catenacci is a neurosurgeon at Cremona Hospital and when we first met her in March she had been co-opted to work on the intensive care wards during the worst of the outbreak.

She is back on neurology, but crucially, whereas in the past she would have treated patients completely independent of other departments, now she can see the link. That link is COVID-19, and it's a multi-organ killer.

"In our hospital now we have a practice with immunologists, who are checking these patients, especially the most severe, those with the most severe illnesses, and they are checking not only lungs, but all the systemic manifestations of COVID pathology," she told me.

"The virus is a systemic infection, some of our apparatus organs have the biggest manifestation, such as lungs as we know, but also brain, skin, and sometimes we have vasculitis, so it's not [just] high respiratory or low respiratory infection, it's not finished [at] that," she said.

The Italian doctors' findings in their patients mirror a recent study carried out at University College London.

:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

Researchers identified serious neurological complications arising from COVID-19 including delirium, brain inflammation, stroke and nerve damage in 43 people aged 16 to 85.

Some of the patients had experienced no severe breathing problems at all, with the neurological disorder being the first and only sign that they had coronavirus.

An intensive testing and follow up analysis of all survivors has been launched in Bergamo. Teams of doctors examine those who have recovered on a constant basis, trying to track the changing properties of the virus.

Filippo Alcaini, 65, is one of the survivors being tested.

He was intubated in February after becoming severely ill, but recovered. He has been COVID-19-free for four months but he still has problems breathing and has periods of severe exhaustion. He accepts his ongoing condition, but sends a clear warning to people to take care not to catch the virus under any circumstances.

"To those who don't respect the rules, I wish they could have a week of what I felt, a week of feeling as bad as I have been," he told me.

"Perhaps then they understand that they cannot underestimate the many warnings and mandatory rules we have been given."

The doctors carrying out the follow-up and testing programme say they simply do not know enough about the virus to predict what is going to happen next.

"It's something very different, that changes the body of the patient," Dr Gianluca Imeri explained to me.

"We've also seen forms of asthma develop after coronavirus infections. We for sure know the damage of coronavirus is caused by inflammation, and asthma and other respiratory diseases are inflammatory diseases, and there are also some inflammatory diseases in our body that can be developed and triggered by coronavirus.

"Simple coronavirus pneumonia is something that patients will recover completely from, from a radiological point of view, but probably the biggest change is inflammation. I mean, we have seen inflammation in all of their bodies, vascular systems, and respiratory systems, so we think we have to tackle inflammation in these patients even when they recover from the acute phase of the disease."

So little is known of the virus that any long-term planning is guess work.

Doctors believe that even the youngest and mildest infected are at risk of their lives being changed forever, and it could take years to become apparent. Whole workforces could become less productive as a consequence.

The advice from Italy is simple: Don't get infected.

See more here:

Coronavirus warning from Italy: Effects of COVID-19 could be worse than first thought - Sky News