This NYT article describes the "antibody passport", meaning that if it is determined by a blood test that one has mounted an IgG antibody response to the Sars-CoV-2, one may go about one's daily business. This might require, I imagine, a sort of antibody police and the possession of an antibody license, without which one would be returned to sequestration, upon threat of a more severe penalty than sequestration. The sticking point here is that people develop different quantities of antibodies, which may last different amounts of time and may or may not be protective. So, it is complicated. The article says that an IgG antibody would neutralize the virus, but in my experience, the mere existence of an IgG subclass doesn't mean that the antibody is neutralizing, which means that it inactivates the virus. Levels of complexity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/opinion/dave-eggers-coronavirus-questions.html
This is a NYT article by Dave Eggers about the actual versus the public space perception of our risk of contracting the coronavirus (Covid-19), the disease caused by Sars-CoV-2. Is it dangerous or "low risk"? If we stay inside, will it go away? Is it less potent in the summer? The virology, immunology and vaccinology qualifications of the deliverers of the erratic and contradictory media messages are questionable. And the history of the 1918-1919, which infected 500 million people is a potent reference in the literature, if not public memory.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/climate/heat-temperatures-climate-change.html
Moving away from Covid-19 for a millisecond, this NYT article reminds us that, with the rise in global population expected to rise by 10 million by 2070, as many as 3.5 billion people will live in conditions considered unsuitable for human habitation. These numbers are admittedly the "worst case scenario", according to climate scientists but there are a lot of worst case scenarios that are playing out now in our current environment. According to the article, history shows that the vast majority of people has always been concentrated in a narrow temperature range.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/health/gene-therapy-harvard-coronavirus.html
Back to the main topic of interest: Covid-19. This NYT article describes work at Mass Eye and Ear and another hospital which use an AAV or adeno-associated virus to deliver DNA in a vaccine. This AAV is a harmless virus that has been approved and is safe. Using this technique requires miniscule amounts of material, so the yield would be high in manufacturing the vaccine. What happens is that,the virus, also known as a vector, gets the coronavirus' DNA into cells, which is transcribed and translated (jargon-y words) in the cell to eventually crank out a protein to put the immune system on alert.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6490/476
This is a super-great AAAS policy-forum observation of a pivoting in practices and a caution against compromising the rigorous standards of scientific research in a time of crisis, as we are living through now. Examples are not conducting randomized controlled clinical trials. Are "fastidious research standards" a luxury in a pandemic, when death is knocking? Should "sub-optimal" study design be acceptable? Are small sample sizes and lack of blinding in an age of urgency practices that will accomplish the desired end: a treatment and a vaccine? The article makes the point that "the challenges that rigorous methods address don't disappear in the face of urgent need."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlnUt9vK3-Q&feature=youtu.be
This is a great youtube video from Penn done by a researcher who has worked on coronaviruses for 30 years. It is part of a symposium.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/crispr-coronavirus-covid-test.html
This article is about how to use the Crispr/Cas9 system to report on the presence of the virus in a sample. Is is called SHERLOCK and works a little like the pregnancy test in that thepositive results develop on a paper and can be read as a y/n. It was developed at the MIT McGovern Institute and there are similar tests being developed at the U of Buenos Aires and CASPR Biotech in San Fransisco. The components would be cheaper than the pcr-based test, which also involves more steps. This new test is in a preprint and it has also to be determined whether it is scalable.
No comments:
Post a Comment