Showing posts with label Scientific American. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scientific American. Show all posts

Wednesday 14 July 2021

There are few good Covid antivirals, but that could be changing

‘The COVID pandemic has now made new antiviral treatments a priority. But generating these therapies—especially direct-acting, orally administered drugs that inactivate viruses—is time-consuming. The reason monoclonal antibodies came along first is that scientists could simply follow the immune system’s lead and create synthetic versions of the natural antibodies that deflect the novel coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2, from its host cell receptor in recovered patients. The goal of an antiviral pill is to stop the pathogen from replicating, but finding drugs that can do that without injuring the infected human cell is no easy task. Scientists start by screening thousands of compounds for their efficacy in targeting SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture. Promising candidates are then tested in animals—both to ensure that the drugs are not toxic and that they are not immediately destroyed in the body and reach tissues in the lungs and other organs in sufficient amounts. All this work takes place in high-level biosafety laboratories staffed by skilled workers, who are in short supply.’

Read here (Scientific American, July 15, 2021)

Monday 29 March 2021

A city in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest is a stark warning about Covid to the rest of the world

‘Manaus and cities like it will continue to generate dangerous viral variants if vaccination campaigns are not expanded to broadly reach all nations, rich or poor...

‘Manaus was devastated by a first wave of COVID cases beginning last March. Excess deaths—the 3,457 people in the city who died above the expected mortality figures between March 19 and June 24, 2020—represented 0.16 percent of Manaus’s relatively young population. And 7 percent of men older than 75 died at the peak of the spread.

‘Infections were so prevalent that researchers at the University of São Paulo and their colleagues concluded that Manaus was the first city in the world to reach herd immunity—the point at which enough people are immune to a virus that the spread of new infections is hindered. Their preliminary preprint study estimated that 66 percent of the population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (they later revised their figure to 76 percent as of October). The threshold for COVID herd immunity is unknown, but projections often cited range from 60 to 90 percent. Similarly high rates of infection have also been found in the Peruvian and Colombian Amazon...

‘In December 2020 a second wave did hit. And by January the city’s health system, which serves communities across the Amazon, had collapsed. ICUs were full to bursting, and oxygen supplies became exhausted. Some patients were airlifted to other regions of Brazil. But many died of asphyxiation on makeshift beds in hospital corridors or their home, doctors say.

‘More severe than the first one, the new wave took Manaus by surprise. Wearing masks and practicing social distancing had been discarded in the belief the city had reached herd immunity. Caseloads surged out of control, and bleak milestones from last year were surpassed. In January alone more than 3,200 excess deaths were logged, Orellana says.’

Read here (Scientific American, Mar 29, 2021)

Wednesday 24 March 2021

The coronavirus variants don’t seem to be highly variable so far

‘No doubt you’ve heard about the novel coronavirus variants that are evolving around the world. There now appear to be more than a dozen versions of SARS-CoV-2, which are of varying degrees of concern because some are linked to increased infectivity and lethality while others are not. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by this diversity and to fear that we’ll never achieve herd immunity. Yet evidence is growing that these variants share similar combinations of mutations. This may not be the multifront war that many are dreading, with an infinite number of new viral versions.’

Read here (Scientific American, Mar 24, 2021)

Saturday 20 March 2021

We need social science, not just medical science, to beat the pandemic

‘The polio pandemic of the 1950s is another often-ignored “teachable” moment. On the surface, it would seem that it was a scientific, medical and policy success story. But the reality is closer to what we are seeing with COVID.

‘In 1954, when polio was at its most virulent, the Eisenhower administration declared that every child should receive the polio vaccine being developed at that time. But there was no cohesive plan at the federal level to make that happen, so the mandate was not a success. In addition, lack of oversight regarding the quality of the vaccine manufacturing process led to some children becoming sick or dying. Limited resources to administer the vaccine on a national scale were another problem, and it was not until Eisenhower’s signing of the Polio Vaccination Assistance Act in 1955 that there were enough federal funds available for a national public inoculation program. Such massive confusion resulted in public distrust that took years to abate.

‘When the sociologist Alondra Nelson was named as the new deputy director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy [in 2021], she noted that the pandemic had “held up a mirror to our society, reflecting … the inequality we’ve allowed to calcify.” She also noted that “science is a social phenomenon.” This implies not just that science requires real insight into the society with which it interacts, but also that it is forged in relationship to social forces and meanings. Social science can assist us in understanding social reactions to scientific knowledge, as well as in ensuring that science becomes aware of its own social biases and interests.’

Read here (Scientific American, Mar 20, 2021)

Wednesday 10 March 2021

How the US pandemic response went wrong — and what went right — during a year of Covid

‘Among the biggest shocks was that the U.S. fared worse than most other countries, with more than 29 million cases and nearly 530,000 deaths as of this writing. “We absolutely can’t say that we had the most robust response to the pandemic, up till this point, because we have had a higher death rate per capita than so many other places,” says Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

‘As the country raced to react to this new and terrifying scourge, mistakes were made that together cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet the tireless efforts of health care workers, along with an unprecedented vaccine push, have saved countless others. Scientific American interviewed scientists and public health experts about the biggest mistakes in the U.S.’s response, some of the key successes and the lingering questions that still need to be answered.’

Read here (Scientific American, Mar 11, 2021)

Tuesday 2 March 2021

Science and society are failing children in the Covid Era

‘In spite of the increasingly polarized debate about school reopenings, community infection rates and prioritization of vaccination, it seems clear that both science and society are failing children. Children have proven uniquely resilient to COVID-19, but many are already suffering lasting educational, mental and physical harms. The greatest harm is falling on the most vulnerable children, and yet we know so little of the true extent and duration of these harms, because relatively little research has focused on them, compared to the research on COVID-19-related spread and mitigation.

‘School closures are a prominent example where following the science is not in itself an answer. These are hard decisions based on ethical and moral considerations for elected officials to make, in ways that acknowledge the evidence on the harms, the requirement for safeguarding and the emerging evidence on COVID-19. Understanding the evidence on the potential trade-offs for children is a critical component of such policies and decisions. It is time science and society elevated this central responsibility.’

Read here (Scientific American, Mar 3, 2021) 

Sunday 28 February 2021

To beat Covid, we may need a good shot in the nose

‘Intranasal vaccines might stop the spread of the coronavirus more effectively than needles in arms...

‘Although injected vaccines do reduce symptomatic COVID cases, and prevent a lot of severe illness, they may still allow for asymptomatic infection. A person might feel fine, but actually harbor the virus and be able to pass it on to others. The reason is that the coronavirus can temporarily take up residence in the mucosa—the moist, mucus-secreting surfaces of the nose and throat that serve as our first line of defense against inhaled viruses. Research with laboratory animals suggests that a coronavirus infection can linger in the nose even after it has been vanquished in the lungs. That means it might be possible to spread the coronavirus after vaccination.

‘Enter the intranasal vaccine, which abandons the needle and syringe for a spray container that looks more like a nasal decongestant. With a quick spritz up the nose, intranasal vaccines are designed to bolster immune defenses in the mucosa, triggering production of an antibody known as immunoglobulin A, which can block infection. This overwhelming response, called sterilizing immunity, reduces the chance that people will pass on the virus.’

Read here (Scientific American, Mar 1, 2021)

7 ways to reduce reluctance to take Covid vaccines

  1. It's not necessary to change the minds of committed anti-vaxxers; they are just a tiny slice of the population, and we can reach herd immunity without them.
  2. Facts alone will not persuade skeptics.
  3. Some minority groups, such as Black and Native Americans, have strong historical reasons to view health authorities with suspicion. Experts favor working closely with civic and faith leaders, admired athletes and other trusted figures within those groups.
  4. Low levels of vaccination, particularly among low-income communities, often reflect practical barriers.
  5. Talk about how popular the vaccine is.
  6. Overcome the human tendency to procrastinate.
  7. For forgetful types, simple reminders—by text or voice message—can be powerful. 

Read here (Scientific American, March 2021)

Friday 19 February 2021

Experts answer the biggest Covid vaccine questions

‘The lack of informed messaging from the Trump administration, combined with the range of different COVID vaccines, the emergence of new coronavirus variants, and inconsistent state and municipal rollout plans, have caused confusion and driven vaccine hesitancy. Scientific American asked Namandjé Bumpus, a pharmacologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and Ashley Lauren St. John, an immunologist at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore to answer some of the biggest questions about the currently available COVID vaccines:

  • Should you get an authorized COVID vaccine now if you are eligible?
  • Should you get vaccinated if you have already had COVID?
  • How should you interpret vaccine efficacy—what does “95 percent efficacy” or “66 percent efficacy” even mean?
  • If you get the vaccine and still get infected, does the vaccine still make a difference? 
  • Will it prevent severe disease or death?
  • Do the vaccines protect against the new virus variants, including those first identified in the U.K., South Africa and Brazil?
  • What is the difference between mRNA and viral vector vaccines?
  • Is there a “best” vaccine?
  • Will the vaccine protect you from giving the virus to others?
  • Will the vaccine’s effectiveness “wear off” over time?
  • Should you be worried about allergic reactions to the vaccine?
  • How can you ensure you’re getting a legitimate, authorized vaccine?

Read here (Scientific American, Feb 19, 2021)

Wednesday 10 February 2021

Why it’s so hard to make antiviral drugs for Covid and other diseases

‘Antibiotics abound, but virus-fighting drugs are harder to come by. Fortunately, scientists are getting better at making and finding them...

‘The pandemic has sent scientists scrambling to find treatments. Heise [virologist Mark Heise of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill], for one, is testing a wide range of drugs—not just standard antivirals—against SARS-CoV-2 in lab dishes, as part of the Rapidly Emerging Antiviral Drug Discovery Initiative (READDI). The idea is that, because the virus depends on many processes in human cells, a variety of medications that act on human proteins might give doctors an edge by hurting the virus more than the patient. That throws the doors open to considering medications that were originally designed for cancer, psychosis, inflammatory conditions and autoimmune disease, to see if they might have a shot against Covid-19.

‘But the READDI collaborators—including academic centers, pharmaceutical companies and nongovernmental organizations—are aiming for more than a Covid-19 treatment. READDI hopes to identify and test potential medications for as-yet-unknown infections that may crop up in the future.

‘By getting early human safety testing done ahead of time, they’ll be ready to spring into action when those future outbreaks happen. As Heise says, “We don’t want to repeat what we’ve just been through.”

Read here (Scientific American, Feb 11, 2021)

Tuesday 9 February 2021

Safely reopening requires testing, tracing and isolation, not just vaccines

‘The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were developed in record time. However, these announcements highlight significant challenges: delivering two-dose vaccines with stringent cold-chain requirements to almost eight billion people, many of whom reside in communities with underfunded and strained health systems, is no small feat. Even if we address the logistical challenges, the reality is that it takes time and funding to deliver vaccines, treatments and tests that reach everyone in need. It is a sobering reminder that when lifesaving antiretrovirals were introduced for HIV-positive people, it took seven years before the medicine reached the poorest communities. And during that time, millions of people died, and millions more were infected, and the HIV pandemic continued to grow.

‘Until we can overcome these obstacles and ensure equitable delivery of vaccines and treatments once available across the globe, the fundamentals of controlling this virus remain as important as ever.

‘For a long time, many countries will continue to rely on already proven tools to control the pandemic. The formula is simple: test, trace and isolate. This straightforward but effective process is key to safely reopening economies and societies. It is made possible through the rapid and equitable scale-up of diagnostics, which have proven to be the most important tool for limiting the spread of COVID-19. Test, trace and isolate—and ultimately test, trace and treat once more treatments become available—is an efficient, sustainable way to control the virus, especially in contrast to last-resort emergency lockdown measures, which can erode the public support and trust necessary for the success of many other helpful public health measures, including vaccination and mask-wearing.

‘We have seen this strategy implemented successfully around the world for decades with age-old diseases like tuberculosis. This strategy is also making a difference in the fight against COVID-19.’

Read here (Scientific American, Feb 9, 2021)

Wednesday 3 February 2021

Pregnant during pandemic: The bump that no one saw

‘Sometimes I’m grateful for the isolation. I got to endure nausea in private, be exhausted in private and work from my couch on the days when it felt too hard to stand. Luckily for me, I had a job that allowed me to work from home. Luckily for me, I had a job at all. And as others also reported in a 2020 survey of 70 pregnant women in Ireland, taking a break from life’s fast pace while I grew another life did, at times, bring me peace.

‘My challenge instead has been letting go of the picture I had in my head of what pregnancy was “supposed” to look like. Gone is the fantasy of the Good Samaritan on the crowded bus giving up his seat for me or of colleagues in the hall asking how I’m doing. Also gone are the strangers trying to touch my belly or giving me unsolicited advice. Sometimes, without that constant feedback, I forget I’m pregnant. At other times, the aches and pains I feel in isolation seem stronger than they would be if someone was around to provide distraction.’

Read here (Scientific American, Feb 4, 2021)

Wednesday 27 January 2021

Stories from a past pandemic: Readers write in about their ancestors’ experiences during the 1918 flu

‘A recent Scientific American feature explores how the catastrophic 1918 influenza pandemic seemed to quickly slip from public discourse. The event killed more than 50 million people worldwide, yet it takes up comparatively little space in society’s “collective memory.” The article considers, by analogy, how the current COVID-19 pandemic might be remembered by future generations. Scientific American accompanied the feature with a call for letters telling the stories of families affected by the 1918 crisis. Below are some examples of what we received.’

Read here (Scientific American, Jan 28, 2021)

Monday 18 January 2021

Vaccines need not completely stop Covid transmission to curb the pandemic

‘Influenza may provide the best blueprint of what to expect going forward. The most common flu vaccine—the inactivated virus—is not “truly sterilizing because it doesn’t generate local immune response in the respiratory tract,” Crowcroft says. This fact, coupled with low immunization rates (often shy of 50 percent among adults) and the influenza virus’s ability to infect and move between multiple species, enables it to constantly change in ways that make it hard for our immune system to recognize. Still, depending on the year, flu vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalizations among older adults by an estimated 40 percent and intensive care admissions of all adults by as much as 82 percent.

‘Research on seasonal coronaviruses suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could similarly evolve to evade our immune systems and vaccination efforts, though probably at a slower pace. And data remain mixed on the relationship between symptoms, viral load and infectiousness. But ample precedent points to vaccines driving successful containment of infectious diseases even when they do not provide perfectly sterilizing immunity. “Measles, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, hepatitis B—these are all epidemic-prone diseases,” Crowcroft says. “They show that we don’t need 100 percent effectiveness at reducing transmission, or 100 percent coverage or 100 percent effectiveness against disease to triumph over infectious diseases.”

Read here (Scientific American, Jan 18, 2021)

Monday 14 December 2020

These drugs might prevent severe Covid

‘Even with vaccines on the way, treatments are needed to prevent the disease from getting worse—and to be ready for COVID-25, COVID-37, and so on...

‘In an interview with Scientific American, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, described the desired characteristics of early COVID treatments. “My overwhelming preference is for direct-acting antiviral agents that can be administered orally” and that suppress the virus completely within a week or less, he said. “That, to me, is the highest priority.” 

‘Scientists have begun on differing paths to search for these drugs... One of the current leading contenders for treating mild COVID is an antiviral pill that was previously developed for influenza. At first called EIDD-2801, the drug was found to protect mice from severe lung disease caused by two other coronaviruses—SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV... 

‘Repurposing existing drugs can also yield some surprises by finding ones that are not logical candidates to work against COVID-19. Fluvoxamine, a pill used for treating anxiety disorders, shows some promise in treating early COVID...’

Read here (Scientific American, Dec 14, 2020) 

Monday 30 November 2020

The surprising mental toll of Covid

‘You didn't need a crystal ball to forecast that the COVID-19 pandemic would devastate mental health. Illness or fear of illness, social isolation, economic insecurity, disruption of routine and loss of loved ones are known risk factors for depression and anxiety. Now studies have confirmed the predictions. But psychologists say the findings also include surprises about the wide extent of mental distress; the way media consumption exacerbates it; and how badly it has affected young people.

‘For example, a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in August, found a tripling of anxiety symptoms and a quadrupling of depression among 5,470 adults surveyed compared with a 2019 sample. Similarly, two nationally representative surveys conducted in April, one by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health and another at Johns Hopkins University, found that the prevalence of depressive symptoms (B.U.) and “serious psychological distress” (Hopkins) were triple the level measured in 2018. “These rates were higher than what we've seen after other large-scale traumas like September 11th, Hurricane Katrina and the Hong Kong unrest,” says Catherine Ettman, lead author of the B.U. study.’

Read here (Scientific American, Dec 1, 2020)

Thursday 19 November 2020

Evaluating Covid risk on planes, trains and automobiles

‘Many transit companies have established frequent cleaning routines, but evidence suggests that airborne transmission of the novel coronavirus poses a greater danger than surfaces. The virus is thought to be spread primarily by small droplets, called aerosols, that hang in the air and larger droplets that fall to the ground within six feet or so. Although no mode of public transportation is completely safe, there are some concrete ways to reduce risk, whether on an airplane, train or bus—or even in a shared car.’

Read here (Scientific American, Nov 19, 2020)

Tuesday 27 October 2020

A flu shot might reduce coronavirus infections, early research suggests

‘In the new study, Mihai Netea, an infectious disease immunologist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, and his colleagues combed through their hospital’s databases to see if employees who got a flu shot during the 2019–2020 season were more or less likely to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 percent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 percent of nonvaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 percent of vaccinated ones did. Netea and his team posted their findings on the preprint server MedRxiv on October 16.’

Read here (Scientific American, Oct 27, 2020)

Monday 14 September 2020

NIH ‘very concerned’ about serious side effect in coronavirus vaccine trial​

‘A great deal of uncertainty remains about what happened to the unnamed patient, to the frustration of those avidly following the progress of vaccine testing. AstraZeneca, which is running the global trial of the vaccine it produced with Oxford University, said the trial volunteer recovered from a severe inflammation of the spinal cord and is no longer hospitalized.

‘AstraZeneca has not confirmed that the patient was afflicted with transverse myelitis, but Nath and another neurologist said they understood this to be the case. Transverse myelitis produces a set of symptoms involving inflammation along the spinal cord that can cause pain, muscle weakness and paralysis. Britain’s regulatory body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, reviewed the case and has allowed the trial to resume in the United Kingdom.’

Read here (Scientific American, Sept 15, 2020)

Wednesday 2 September 2020

How to decide who should get a Covid-19 vaccine first

‘If and when a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is available, what is the fairest way to distribute it? In a policy report published on Thursday in Science, 19 public health experts laid out an ethical framework called the Fair Priority Model. It is geared toward three principles: benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing countries already disadvantaged by poverty or low life expectancy, and avoiding discrimination.

‘The report is critical of previously suggested vaccine allocation plans, including two proposed by the World Health Organization: one of them would distribute vaccines to each country according to its population size, and the other would prioritize health care workers and adults who are above age 65 or have underlying health conditions.’

Read here (Scientific American, Sept 3, 2020)

Worst ever Covid variant? Omicron

John Campbell shares his findings on Omicron.  View here (Youtube, Nov 27, 2021)