Category: Corona Virus

A total of 1,513 cases of COVID-19 sub-variant JN.1 have been recorded in the country so far with Maharashtra and Karnataka registering the highest number of cases of the variant, according to INSACOG on Sunday. Data compiled by the Indian SARS-CoV-2 Genomics Consortium (INSACOG) showed Maharashtra has recorded the highest number of JN.1 cases at 382 followed by Karnataka at 249.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rajasthan has recorded 38 JN.1 cases, Telangana recorded 32, Chhattisgarh 25, Delhi 21, Uttar Pradesh nine, Haryana five, Odisha three, and Uttarakhand, Manipur and Nagaland one each, according to the data accessed by PTI.

ADVERTISEMENT

The states have been urged to ensure effective compliance of the detailed operational guidelines for the revised surveillance strategy for COVID-19 shared with them by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

ADVERTISEMENT

The World Health Organisation has classified JN.1 as a separate "variant of interest" given its rapidly-increasing spread, but said it poses a "low" global public health risk.

ADVERTISEMENT

Originally posted here:

India logs 1,513 cases of Covid sub-variant JN.1, according to INSACOG data - The Economic Times

Jan 19

Please try again

(Tang Ming Tung/Getty Images)

Updated 5:20 p.m. Friday

California health officials have updated the states official guidance on how long people with COVID-19 should isolate from others with new recommendations that represent a relaxing of the isolation guidelines still in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Up until now, the CDC has recommended that people who test positive for COVID-19 stay home and away from other people for at least five days regardless of whether or not they have symptoms. But on Jan. 9, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an update that their official recommendations for Californians would now move away from the five-day rule in favor of instead focus[ing] on clinical symptoms to determine when to end isolation.

Now, the new guidance for COVID-positive Californians says that they should still stay home until their symptoms improve and wear a mask around others indoors for 10 days. But COVID-positive people without symptoms can leave their homes and be in public, CDPH says albeit as long as they stay masked for that period.

This big change in state guidance, coming amid a wave of respiratory virus infections around California and running counter to the CDCs current advice might be causing confusion in your household. Keep reading for the breakdown of the new official guidelines for what happens when you test positive, why the state says theyre making this change, and how to think about the risk your positive COVID-19 test poses to others.

CDPHs new isolation guidelines are focused on whether or not a COVID-positive person has symptoms. (Jump straight to the guidance for people without symptoms.)

The new guidance for COVID-positive Californians who have symptoms:

CDPHs message is clear: You still need to stay home initially. But now, instead of setting a clear time period like before five days at home, 10 days masking CDPH now says that you should judge when youre safe to leave the house: until you have not had a fever for 24 hours without using fever-reducing medication AND other COVID-19 symptoms are mild and improving.

Not everyone gets a fever as one of their COVID-19 symptoms, so what should you do if thats you? CDPH confirmed via email to KQED that you should still stay home if sick until symptoms are mild or improving.

Once your symptoms have improved, CDPH recommends that you Mask when you are around other people indoors for the 10 days after you become sick. You should only remove your mask before the 10 days are up if you have two sequential negative tests at least one day apart, says the new CDPH guidance. If you have symptoms, Day 0 is the day those started.

CDPH also says to Avoid contact with people at higher risk for severe COVID-19 for those 10 days. The agencys definition of higher-risk individuals includes the elderly, those who live in congregate care facilities, those who have immunocompromising conditions, and that put them at higher risk for serious illness.

CDPHs new guidance includes a reminder that youre potentially infectious with COVID-19 two days before your symptoms start.

The biggest change in CDPHs guidance: If you test positive for COVID-19 but dont have symptoms, you should now:

The CDC still says that COVID-positive people should stay home a full five days whether they have symptoms or not. But now, CDPH says that symptom-free people with COVID-19 can leave their homes as long as they follow the guidance above.

Like people with symptoms, you should only remove your mask before the 10 days are up if you have two sequential negative tests at least one day apart, the new CDPH guidance says. If you have no symptoms, your Day 0 is the day you tested positive.

CDPHs new guidance advises that even if you have no symptoms, youre still potentially infectious with COVID-19 two days before you get a positive test.

The states updated isolation protocol applies to schools, and the Oakland Unified School District was one of the first to announce it will be adopting the new recommendations that allow students who test positive for COVID-19 but have no symptoms, to attend school, as long as they wear a mask for 10 days after testing positive. Cal/OSHA has also adopted the new rules for most workplaces around the state (PDF).

Remember, theres growing evidence that some people take longer to get a positive test on an at-home antigen test. If you have symptoms but have tested negative, dont assume it means youre COVID-free. The CDC recommends that you take another antigen test 48 hours later and then test again after another 48 hours. You can also seek out a PCR test, which is more sensitive.

CDPH is firm that for California, the time has come to make this change.

Previous isolation recommendations were implemented to reduce the spread of a virus to which the population had little immunity and had led to large numbers of hospitalizations and deaths that overwhelmed our healthcare systems during the pandemic, the agency says in the introduction to its new guidelines. We are now at a different point in time with reduced impacts from COVID-19 compared to prior years due to broad immunity from vaccination and/or natural infection and readily available treatments for infected people.

The agency says its now recommending these new guidelines to align with common practice of other respiratory viruses, and in an email to KQED, elaborated that a significant proportion of COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic or include minimal symptoms, and many people may be infected with COVID-19 or other respiratory infections and do not test or know what infection they may have.

Acknowledging that COVID-19 now spreads alongside flu, RSV and other respiratory viruses, CDPH says in its email that this update incorporates our recommendations into a broader, multi-pronged approach to multiple respiratory viruses.

But if you look now at the weekly hospitalizations and deaths theyre much higher for COVID than they are for flu, like for the flu season, says Dr. Abraar Karan, an infectious disease physician and researcher at Stanford University. Late December, we had [around] 6500 [nationwide] recorded deaths for COVID. It was [around] 1500 to 2000 per week.

I wouldnt say that COVID has come down to the level where its less pathogenic than the flu per se, just by the numbers, Karan says.

The states COVID-19 dashboards show that hospitalizations and deaths of people with COVID-19 have risen since early November 2023. And when it comes to COVID-19 levels in Bay Area sewage, Stanford Universitys WastewaterSCAN team says that those levels of COVID-19 are high and increasing right now.

Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease expert at UCSF, says this new chapter in the states health policy took us all a bit by surprise.

But when you step back and think about it, were in a different place in January of 2024 compared to March of 2020, Chin-Hong says. There are some things that are changing. It seems dramatic, but there are many things that are not changing in terms of continuing to protect each other.

CDPH says that in 2024, the agencys policies and priorities for intervention are now focused on protecting those most at risk for serious illness while reducing social disruption that is disproportionate to recommendations for the prevention of other endemic respiratory viral infections. Chin-Hong says that he sees this latest CDPH guidance as really speaking to workplace and schools, and especially notes the impact of the pandemic on kids education, particularly in California and in the Bay Area because we probably were shut down more than most places in the country for a long, continuous time.

So I think in some ways it might be a response to that and sort of a nervousness around making sure that our kids are really as well prepared for the future as they can be, Chin-Hong says, given the fact that were going to be seeing these kinds of viruses emerge at least twice a year, we know, for COVID and at least once a year for many of the other respiratory viruses.

While Stanfords Dr. Karan says he has concerns about how much the general public will be able to adhere to mask guidelines and avoid higher-risk people after testing positive, he also says that even before this new guidance, a lot of people werent testing at all or even if they were testing positive, they probably werent following [existing isolation] guidance to 100%.

So I think what the health officials were trying to do was to be more practical and more pragmatic and say, Okay, well, people are probably going out anyways if they feel okay so lets at least just try to emphasize wearing a mask [and] staying away from others who are higher risk, Karan says. Thats my assumption of what drove this.

After almost four years of public health policy at the federal and state levels thats emphasized If youre COVID-positive, stay the heck away from other people, this new update might seem jarring to you.

Theres also the fact that since 2020, weve been told that not only can asymptomatic people be contagious with COVID-19, they might be responsible for fueling a lot of the spread of COVID-19 because those folks are so often unaware they even have the virus.

We know that you can be contagious without symptoms, Karan says. We also know that symptomatology can increase the risk of transmission. So if youre coughing and sneezing, youre probably emitting more viral particles.

This new California guidance focuses on symptomatic people as posing the most risk to others, noted Karan hence the continuing recommendation that those people stay home until those symptoms get milder. As for those asymptomatic people, Karan says, CDPHs take appears to be that if those people wear a mask for 10 days after their positive test, their risk is going to be pretty low that theyre going to be transmitting over time.

Karan says it might also be helpful to see this recent change in the context of how isolation recommendations have evolved throughout the pandemic but also how they havent. At the outset, the CDC stipulated a 10-day period of isolation for COVID-positive patients, a period shortened to five days in December 2021. But this update was still accompanied by guidance to wear a well-fitted mask for another five days.

That aspect wearing a mask for 10 days is something thats remained the same in this latest California update, and the mask part of it is key, Karan says. Its just sort of extending this a little bit to say people who no longer have any symptoms: To people that are either asymptomatic or theyve been fever-free without medications for 24 hours, he says. So theyre adding a contingency.

I think it will confuse the public, Karan says.

One big element hes looking at: As the isolation advice shifts from a clearly set time period five days, regardless of symptoms toward monitoring your own symptoms and you deciding when youre safe to leave the house, will people still remember that crucial next step of wearing a mask for 10 days? And will they have all the necessary information to also follow the other part of CDPHs new guidance that urges them to stay away from people at higher risk from COVID-19?

Karan says that he worries that people are going to forget the second and third part of that, Karan says and hes especially concerned that the importance of that well-fitted, high-filtration mask is going to get lost.

Karan says hed also liked to have seen CDPH give the public more information about the rationale behind why they were doing it, so that the public could understand that this new guidance wasnt a green light to go out into the world with COVID-19.

If theyd said, People that are not symptomatic can be contagious, but its less likely, and people without symptoms are likely going to be shedding less virus, so if you wear a high filtration mask, your risk of infecting others is quite low, and thats why were doing it? I think that would have made a lot of sense, Karan says.

Chin-Hong also acknowledges the emphasis these new guidelines place on avoiding exposing people who are at higher risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. I worry about that population every night I go to sleep, he says, and thats because were still seeing 1600 Americans die every week.

When I look at the patients who Im taking care of in the hospital right now, the people who are doing poorly are people who didnt get the recent vaccines, Chin-Hong says. Theyre generally older than 75, and they didnt get access to or take advantage of Paxlovid.

Calmatters has reported that disability and equity advocates have particularly criticized CDPHs new guidelines, which they say could increase the risk of infection for Californians most vulnerable to severe illness or death from the virus.

This policy is not based in science, equity or public health, Lisa McCorkell, co-founder of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative that studies the impacts of long COVID, told CalMatters. It devalues the lives of immunocompromised and disabled people and completely ignores the risk of long COVID.

Michelle Gutierrez Vo, a registered nurse with Kaiser Permanente and a president of the California Nurses Association, echoed these concerns, calling the new guidelines a step backwards from protecting public health and very dangerous.

High risk people do not walk around with a flag saying I am high risk, so then the people that are COVID-positive can identify them and stay away from them, said Gutierrez Vo. It doesnt work that way.

So therefore, if you cannot be selective of who you need to be getting away from, then there just has to be a general understanding or a mandate which is what we had to make sure to protect the general public. It is is the Department of Public Healths responsibility to uphold public health, and they are not doing that with this new guidance, said Gutierrez Vo.

On the risks of long COVID, Gutierrez Vo said that Californias relaxing of isolation protocol puts everyone in danger. COVID, she said, is not like any other respiratory illness. When you have flu and you get over it, it doesnt have long term effects. When you have RSV, or any other respiratory illness like a viral syndrome, it doesnt damage your kidney or it doesnt damage your heart.

Chin-Hong urged the public to remember the ongoing basics of COVID-19 prevention seeking out the latest vaccine, wearing a well-fitted mask when necessary, remembering the importance of ventilation indoors and testing for COVID-19 amid the latest guidance. Reminding ourselves of those things should be really front and center, he says.

This story contains reporting by KQEDs Lesley McClurg.

At KQED News, we know that it can sometimes be hard to track down the answers to navigate life in the Bay Area in 2024. Weve published clear, practical explainers and guides about COVID-19, how to cope with intense winter weather, and how to exercise your right to protest safely.

So tell us: What do you need to know more about? Tell us, and you could see your question answered online or on social media. What you submit will make our reporting stronger and help us decide what to cover here on our site and on KQED Public Radio, too.

More here:

How Long to Isolate With COVID in 2024? California Now Says That Depends on Symptoms - KQED

The genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was submitted to a National Institutes of Health database two weeks before its release by the Chinese government, according to documents that were shared with US lawmakers and released Wednesday.The sequence doesnt indicate the origin of the coronavirus but undermines the Chinese governments claims about its knowledge of the information, one expert told CNN and could have cost critical weeks in the development of a vaccine against the virus.On Dec. 28, 2019, virologist Dr. Lili Ren of the Institute of Pathogen Biology at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College submitted the genetic sequence to GenBank, a genetic sequence repository that collects, preserves, and provides public access to assembled and annotated nucleotide sequence data from all domains of life, according to a letter that Dr. Melanie Egorin, assistant secretary of legislation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sent to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers last month.GenBank is managed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the US National Institutes of Health.Rens submission was incomplete and lacked the necessary information required for publication, the letter says. She was sent a resubmission request three days later, but NIH never received the additional information requested. The submission was removed from a processing queue on Jan. 16, 2020, and the sequence was never made publicly available on GenBank.However, a different submission of the genetic sequence that was nearly identical to Rens was published on GenBank on January 12, Egorin said, one day after the World Health Organization said it had received the sequence from China.McMorris Rodgers, R- Washington; Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky; and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith, R-Virginia, said in a news release Wednesday that the committees investigation into the origins of COVID-19 will help policymakers strengthen the nations biosafety practices in addition to helping prepare for the next pandemic.They noted that they received the new information almost two months after they informed the NIH of their intent to issue subpoenas for copies of documents related to any early coronavirus sequences, early COVID-19 cases or other pertinent information.Dr. Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, wrote Wednesday in an analysis of Rens submission that it clearly falsifies the Chinese governments claim that the causative agent of the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak still had not been identified near the end of the first week of January 2020.The earlier submission would have provided adequate information to initiate vaccine production in late 2019 if it had been made public, he said, noting that drugmaker Moderna used the spike sequence to design its COVID-19 vaccine within two days of the Jan. 12 release.However, he said, the genetic sequence is unlikely to represent the first virus that infected humans and does not provide any new insights into the origin or early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan.The belated discovery of the submission underscores the importance of rapid data sharing during outbreaks, since immediate public release of the sequence could have accelerated by several weeks the development of COVID-19 vaccines that saved thousands of lives per week in the United States alone, he said.Even two weeks would have made a huge difference in the pandemic, agreed Dr. Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. The fact that the vaccine program began immediately on publication of the genetic sequence shows you how important that sequence was.When you sequence a virus its not even just a vaccine then youve nailed it. You know exactly the features, about the spike protein and all the other major components: the nucleocapsid, the envelope, the whole entire panoramic view of the virus. You cant get that without the sequence.The documents should be read in the context of hindsight, says Dr. Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist and director of infectious disease genomics at the Translational Institute.In late 2019, nobody knew that a pandemic would later ensue, he wrote in an email. This is a really critical part that most people seem to forget nobody knew back then that a never-before-seen coronavirus only distantly related to SARS-CoV-1 was causing mysterious illnesses in patients associated with a wet market in the middle of Wuhan, which would later spark a devastating pandemic.Should the sequence have been released at the time and as preliminary data? Sure, that would have been great, and is a good example of where we could hope to do better in the future, he said. Whoever reviewed the sequence at NCBI over the holiday period in 2019 would have no way of connecting this sequence to a mysterious illness in Wuhan because it was yet to be reported.CNNs Jen Christensen and Brenda Goodman contributed to this report.

The genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was submitted to a National Institutes of Health database two weeks before its release by the Chinese government, according to documents that were shared with US lawmakers and released Wednesday.

The sequence doesnt indicate the origin of the coronavirus but undermines the Chinese governments claims about its knowledge of the information, one expert told CNN and could have cost critical weeks in the development of a vaccine against the virus.

On Dec. 28, 2019, virologist Dr. Lili Ren of the Institute of Pathogen Biology at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College submitted the genetic sequence to GenBank, a genetic sequence repository that collects, preserves, and provides public access to assembled and annotated nucleotide sequence data from all domains of life, according to a letter that Dr. Melanie Egorin, assistant secretary of legislation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, sent to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers last month.

GenBank is managed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the US National Institutes of Health.

Rens submission was incomplete and lacked the necessary information required for publication, the letter says. She was sent a resubmission request three days later, but NIH never received the additional information requested. The submission was removed from a processing queue on Jan. 16, 2020, and the sequence was never made publicly available on GenBank.

However, a different submission of the genetic sequence that was nearly identical to Rens was published on GenBank on January 12, Egorin said, one day after the World Health Organization said it had received the sequence from China.

McMorris Rodgers, R- Washington; Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Kentucky; and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith, R-Virginia, said in a news release Wednesday that the committees investigation into the origins of COVID-19 will help policymakers strengthen the nations biosafety practices in addition to helping prepare for the next pandemic.

They noted that they received the new information almost two months after they informed the NIH of their intent to issue subpoenas for copies of documents related to any early coronavirus sequences, early COVID-19 cases or other pertinent information.

Dr. Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, wrote Wednesday in an analysis of Rens submission that it clearly falsifies the Chinese governments claim that the causative agent of the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak still had not been identified near the end of the first week of January 2020.

The earlier submission would have provided adequate information to initiate vaccine production in late 2019 if it had been made public, he said, noting that drugmaker Moderna used the spike sequence to design its COVID-19 vaccine within two days of the Jan. 12 release.

However, he said, the genetic sequence is unlikely to represent the first virus that infected humans and does not provide any new insights into the origin or early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan.

The belated discovery of the submission underscores the importance of rapid data sharing during outbreaks, since immediate public release of the sequence could have accelerated by several weeks the development of COVID-19 vaccines that saved thousands of lives per week in the United States alone, he said.

Even two weeks would have made a huge difference in the pandemic, agreed Dr. Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. The fact that the vaccine program began immediately on publication of the genetic sequence shows you how important that sequence was.

When you sequence a virus its not even just a vaccine then youve nailed it. You know exactly the features, about the spike protein and all the other major components: the nucleocapsid, the envelope, the whole entire panoramic view of the virus. You cant get that without the sequence.

The documents should be read in the context of hindsight, says Dr. Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist and director of infectious disease genomics at the Translational Institute.

In late 2019, nobody knew that a pandemic would later ensue, he wrote in an email. This is a really critical part that most people seem to forget nobody knew back then that a never-before-seen coronavirus only distantly related to SARS-CoV-1 was causing mysterious illnesses in patients associated with a wet market in the middle of Wuhan, which would later spark a devastating pandemic.

Should the sequence have been released at the time and [marked] as preliminary data? Sure, that would have been great, and is a good example of where we could hope to do better in the future, he said. Whoever reviewed the sequence at NCBI over the holiday period in 2019 would have no way of connecting this sequence to a mysterious illness in Wuhan because it was yet to be reported.

CNNs Jen Christensen and Brenda Goodman contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:

Genetic sequence of coronavirus was submitted to US database two weeks before China's official disclosure ... - WBAL TV Baltimore

azcentral.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.

Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on azcentral.com

The rest is here:

Donald Trump is returning to the Phoenix scene of his 2020 COVID-19 crime - The Arizona Republic

Scientists in China have recently conducted experiments on a novel coronavirus strain, GX_P2V. It resulted in a 100% fatality rate in genetically-modified mice. This strain is a mutation of GX/2017, a virus initially identified in Malaysian pangolins in 2017.

The study, originating from Beijing, notes the swift and lethal impact of GX_P2V on mice with human-like genetic structures. The virus, targetting multiple organs including the brain, led to rapid deterioration in the mice's condition, culminating in death within eight days.

The mice got very sick quickly. They lost a lot of weight, couldn't move well, and their eyes turned white before they died. This study is different because all the mice died, which is more than what happened in other studies about similar viruses.

SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) can cause 100% mortality in human ACE2-transgenic mice, potentially attributable to late-stage brain infection. This underscores a spillover risk of GX_P2V into humans and provides a unique model for understanding the pathogenic mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses," wrote the authors.

But, it's not clear what this means for people. The study does not directly correlate these results with potential effects on humans.

Some experts, like Francois Balloux from the University College London, think this study is not useful and could be dangerous.

It's a terrible study, scientifically totally pointless. I can see nothing of vague interest that could be learned from force-infecting a weird breed of humanised mice with a random virus. Conversely, I could see how such stuff might go wrong," he posted on X (formerly Twitter).

This madness must be stopped before too late," posted Dr. Gennadi Glinsky, a retired professor.

This study is separate from the research in Wuhan, which was linked to different ideas about where COVID-19 came from. The origin of COVID-19 is still not known. The new study in China raises questions about doing risky experiments with viruses.

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Read the rest here:

China continues experiments with 'lethal' COVID strain; experts raise alarm: This madness must be... | Mint - Mint

Chinese researcher in Beijing uploaded a nearly complete sequence of the Covid virus structure to a U.S. database run by the National Institute of Health on December 28, 2019, two weeks before Beijing shared the viral sequence with the rest of the world, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services documents recently obtained by a House committee reveal.

The HHS documents, first reported by theWall Street Journal, were obtained by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee after they threatened to subpoena the agency.

When Beijing shared the SARS-CoV-2 sequence with the World Health Organization on January 11, 2020, two full weeks had elapsed since the virus was sequenced by a researcher at the Institute of Pathogen Biology in Beijing, an arm of the state-affiliated Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences which has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Peoples Liberation Army.

Those two weeks represent a crucial period in the evolution of the pandemic, as the international health community scrambled to assess and respond to the burgeoning viral threat. In late 2019, scientists across the globe were racing to understand the viral disease that would eventually kill millions.

During that period, Chinese officials still described the disease outbreak in Wuhan, China, as a viral pneumonia of unknown cause to the greater public. The latest congressional investigation has again raised questions about what China knew in the crucial early days of the pandemic.

As to the origins of Covid-19, different U.S. government agencies still hold disparate conclusions. While some still hold that the dangerous coronavirus emerged from an infected animal at the Huanan Seafood Market, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy concur that Covid most likely emerged from a lab leak in Wuhan.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, W.A.), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, saidthat the recent discoveries demonstrate thatthe U.S. cannot trust any of the so-called facts or data provided by the CCP and calls into serious question the legitimacy of any scientific theories based on such information. The committee has spent months probing the origins of Covid-19 and U.S. government funding of overseas research.

Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, reviewed the Health Departments documents and the recently discovered gene sequence. The revelation underscores how cautious we have to be about the accuracy of the information that the Chinese government has released. Its important to keep in mind how little we know, Bloom told the Journal.

The Chinese researcher who uploaded the virus sequence in December, Dr. Lili Ren, did not respond to the Journals email seeking comment. Ren was contracted as a collaborator on a U.S.-funded project to study how coronaviruses can be transferred from animals to humans. The nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance oversaw the project, which included the collection of bat samples in China.

Ren is also underthe same National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) grant as the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which has been disqualified from receiving NIH grants for ten years for failing to provide laboratory records requested by NIH and for conducting research that did lead or could lead to health issues or other unacceptable outcomes.

China continues to defend its lack of transparency around the virus.

China has kept refining our COVID response based on science to make it more targeted. Chinas COVID response policies are science-based, effective, and consistent with Chinas national realities. They can stand the test of history, aChinese Embassy spokesperson said.

Here is the original post:

Chinese Lab Mapped Covid-19 Virus Two Weeks before Sharing Information Globally, Documents Reveal - National Review

As the winter season brings back a surge in respiratory illness and pandemic-era practices such as mask mandates, global health experts are thinking ahead about how to prepare for the next big outbreak.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a panel of health industry leaders discussed the importance of preplanning for the outbreak of a hypothetical Disease X.

News of the panel sparked conspiracy from right-wing accounts on social media that world leaders are launching the next pandemic or moving to once again restrict free speech and reinstate mask mandates. The WHO has said that such preparation is meant to reduce COVID-19-era devastations such as the insufficient capacity of medical systems or the trillions of dollars that were lost in the economy.

Advertisement

Heres what we know about Disease X, and what pandemic preparedness means.

Disease X is not a specific disease but is the name given to a potential novel infectious agent.

It represents an illness which is currently unknown but could pose a serious microbial threat to humans in the future. It is necessary to be prepared because there is a vast reservoir of viruses circulating among wildlife which could become a source of a new infectious disease to which humans do not have immunity.

Advertisement

In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) added Disease X to a list of pathogens that are a top priority for research, alongside known killers like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Ebola.

Labelling this potential threat as Disease X is meant to prioritise preparations for dealing with a disease that does not yet have vaccines or drug treatments, and could give rise to a severe epidemic.

The WHO has warned that Disease X could result in 20 times more fatalities than COVID-19.

COVID-19 has killed approximately seven million people around the world. In 2023, healthcare professionals warned that any new pandemic could be even deadlier killing an estimated 50 million people worldwide.

At the Davos summit on Wednesday, healthcare experts emphasised that preparing for Disease X could help save lives and costs if countries begin research and preemptive measures in advance of a known outbreak.

Of course, there are some people who say this may create panic. Its better to anticipate something that may happen because it has happened in our history many times, and prepare for it, said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who joined the panel.

Advertisement

He said that the WHO has already started implementing measures to prepare for another outbreak. This includes a pandemic fund and a technology transfer hub in South Africa that enables the local production of vaccines and would help overcome issues of vaccine inequity across high and low-income countries.

Michel Demare, chair of the board at AstraZeneca, said the company is working to carry out an assessment of health systems across the world to present recommendations for pandemic management.

Preetha Reddy, executive vice chairperson at Apollo Hospitals, pointed to conversations around inequity at the G20 forum, and that using technology to reach rural populations in India is a key focus of current planning.

Advertisement

This involves international cooperation, including on research and development, as well as the development of country-level initiatives such as tentative response plans in the event of an outbreak of a new disease.

Such plans could include mapping out how to increase hospital capacity, scale up supply of treatment and adopt new technologies to support medical workers.

The European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention recommends strengthening existing systems instead of developing new ones for a pandemic, and also encourages testing any new systems prior to a new pandemic.

Advertisement

Preparedness also involves increased surveillance of disease to quickly detect any novel pathogens that could turn into a serious threat. Studies show that, on average, at least two new viruses are discovered each year.

Such measures are also expected to dramatically reduce the costs associated with a pandemic, should one occur. While COVID-19 cost the world about $16 trillion, global investments of just $124bn over five years could make the world significantly better prepared for major epidemics in the future, according to a study by the Gates Foundation-backed organisation, Resolve to Save Lives.

The WHO first classified Disease X as a placeholder term for a potential deadly virus in 2018.

However, news of the Davos panel sparked a social media firestorm. Right-wing accounts slammed discussions about Disease X, warning that governments could use it to impose policies such as vaccine and mask mandates, while some conspiracy theories suggest governments could even create pandemics themselves.

In a post on X a week before the summit, former Trump administration official Monica Crowley suggested that the panel was signalling the advent of a preplanned disease.

Just in time for the election, a new contagion to allow them to implement a new WHO treaty, lock down again, restrict free speech and destroy more freedoms, she wrote.

However, the WHO maintains that the designation of Disease X will allow governments to better cope with a novel pandemic as worldwide, the number of potential pathogens is very large, while the resources for disease research and development (R&D) is limited.

See the rest here:

What is Disease X and how will pandemic preparations help the world? - Al Jazeera English

Accommodation & food services, transportation & storage among sectors that sawsubstantial drops in mean hours worked

March 11, 2024 will mark four years since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. As economies, borders and workplaces reopened, the global unemployment dropped to the lowest level in 2023 compared to the beginning of the pandemic, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO). Along with this, the working poverty rate (share of employed persons living in poverty due to low-paying jobs or low incomes) and informality has also approached pre-pandemic rates.

But the desire and need to return to pre-COVID situation has come along with a reality that will especially worry the employers, reveals a new report.

Despite the fact that more people are entering the workforce, the number of hours worked are often lower than they were prior to the pandemic, said the World Employment and Social Outlook Trends 2024 report released by ILO January 10, 2024.

The total number of working hours increased in all countries between 2019 and 2023, regardless of income levels. Strong employment growth throughout the post-pandemic recovery has been the main driver of this.

However, the difference between the average number of working hours and the total hours worked grew. Mean weekly hours per worker were lower in 2023 than in 2019 across all income groups except low-income countries, where they were slightly higher, the ILO noted.

The percentage decrease in average hours worked in upper-middle-income countries was less than 1 per cent and in high-income and lower-middle-income countries over 2 per cent.

The trend indicates a decrease in the optimal utilisation of workers, the analysis showed. The reasons for the reductions in hours per worker include increases in part-time employment because of care duties or health reasons, the authors noted.

But one of the reasons behind this, according to the ILO report, is the ongoing longer-term health problems that have built up over the past three years. An increasing number of people are suffering from long-term illnesses attributed to COVID-19, now popular as the Long COVID.

Long COVID can affect anyone exposed to SARS-CoV-2, regardless of age or severity of original symptoms, according to WHO. It is a debilitating post-infection multi-system disease, with impacts on multiple organ systems. It has over 300 symptoms, including fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, impairing ability of a person to perform daily activities for several months or years.

The number of sick days per person has grown dramatically from pre-pandemic levels, the analysts observed. This indicates the negative effects of Long COVID on people's life.

Deteriorated health post-pandemic could be a possible reason for decreases in mean working hours, read the report.

This is consistent with the WHOs December 2022 warning that Long COVID, which affects about 20 per cent of people infected, may be significantly influencing labour market activity metrics, such as working hours.

According to WHO, more than 17 million people across the WHO European Region may have experienced it during 2020 and 2021. As of March 5, 2023, an estimated 1.9 million people in the UK alone were living with Long COVID.

In 2022, the number of sick days per worker in a year remained significantly higher than in 2019. According to data from at least 12 European countries included in the ILO analysis, between 2019 and 2022, the average number of sick days taken by employees increased by 3-72 per cent.

In Estonia, where there is scientific proof of long-term COVID, the annual number of sick days per worker rose by 72 per cent during the period, while it increased by 38 per cent in Germany and Latvia.

People who develop chronic fatigue syndrome (ME / CFS) after their SARS-CoV-2 infection tended to remain severely ill for a long time, found a study by the Charit-Universittsmedizin Berlin and the Max Delbrck Center across Germany

Scientific studies done in many countries, including the United States and Africa, showed that individuals who contracted mild or asymptomatic cases are experiencing lasting symptoms with significant implications for their day-to-day lives, including their ability to work. Governments across the world, including India, have acknowledged Long COVID as a disease of concern.

In the US, people with Long COVID who stayed in the labour force reduced their average hours of work by 2.2-3.4 per cent, leading to a loss of between 20,000 and 39,000 full-time equivalent workers, according to a research paper by Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, Brookings Institution.

Sectors which saw substantial relative drops in mean hours worked include accommodation and food services, as well as transportation and storage, the ILO report noted based on data from high-income nations. Other sectors which followed were information and communications, real estate and professional, scientific and technical activities.

The WHO had warned in December 2022 that Long COVID, which affects about 20 per cent of individuals affected, may be significantly influencing labour market activity metrics, such as working hours.

While the world is determined to move on from the acute phase, at least 65 million people are estimated to struggle with Long COVID, with cases increasing daily, according to a study published in the journal Nature January 13, 2023.

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.

See the article here:

People working fewer hours due to Long COVID, as sick days increase dramatically: ILO report - Down To Earth Magazine

While the WHO has not specified the identity of Disease X, experts suggest it is likely to be a respiratory virus, given the higher survival rates for such viruses. The WHO has created an R&D blueprint for various priority diseases, any of which could mutate and become Disease X. The current list includes zoonotic viruses present in India, such as Covid-19, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, Ebola, and others.

See the rest here:

What is Disease X? How scientists are gearing up for the upcoming pandemic? - Business Today

In a recent study published in ACS Central Science, researchers used a luciferase-independent luminescence test to investigate whether the wild-type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein possesses pseudo-luciferase activity for Cypridina luciferin.

Luciferin (luminescent substrate) and luciferase (enzyme) are crucial for bioluminescence (BL) detection, allowing for highly selective luminescence detection of target proteins and cells. Imidazopyrazinone-type (IPT) luciferin is found in many marine species, whereas Cypridina luciferase catalyzes Cypridina luciferin and coelenterazine (CTZ). Luciferin emits light in luciferase presence, although it can react with non-luciferase proteins or other biomolecules.

A recent study showed that the CTZ derivative HuLumino can quantitatively detect human serum albumin (HAS) with accuracy equivalent to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in less than a minute.

In the present study, researchers investigated the application of Cypridina luciferin's oxidative luminescence reaction, catalyzed by the SARS-CoV-2 S protein, in biotechnology. They reported that the SARS-CoV-2 S protein had pseudo-luciferase activity against Cypridina luciferin and investigated its chemical structure and luminescence activity.

The team investigated IPT luciferins for light emission using the full-length monomer of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. They combined 36 IPT luciferins, including two native luciferins (CTZ and Cypridina luciferin) and 34 previously known CTZ analogs, with S protein. Using the three S protein subunits [S1, S2, and receptor-binding domain (RBD)], the team detected potential Cypridina luciferin components. They compared the kinetic profiles and derived the Km and relative Kcat values from Michaelis-Menten equation fitting curves produced using the starting luminescence intensity for 30 seconds.

The team studied the structure-activity connection of Cypridina luciferin analogs (CLAs) with SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins to gain insights into the luminescence reactions between the Cypridina luciferin substrate and SARS-CoV-2 S glycoproteins. The functional groups, 3-indolyl and 3-(1-guanidino)propyl are unique to Cypridina luciferin and absent in other naturally occurring luciferins. To investigate the effects of the functional chemical groups on SARS-CoV-2 S enzymatic luminescence, the researchers synthesized three CLA types by substituting the NH group of 3-indolyl at C-6 of the ITP ring with a heteroatom and removing 3-(1-guanidino)propyl functional groups from C-8 using synthetic procedures.

The team explored the binding affinity of Cypridina luciferin to the S protein due to the 3-(1-guanidino)propyl functional group at C-8 using computational simulations using Autodock Vina. They also investigated whether a biomolecule-catalyzing chemiluminescence (BCL)-based test method that uses the S protein's pseudo luciferase activity might detect the trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein in a human salivary sample from a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-negative donor without sample preprocessing.

The SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein could be identified in human saliva using a BCL-based test method that detects the protein selectively and rapidly without requiring sample preprocessing. Enzymatic identification of the 3-(1-guanidino)propyl functional group in luciferin at the interfaces of the S protein units led to the luminescence response. The BCL approach has the potential to supplement centralized reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, which needs specialized clinical facilities, trained individuals, and lengthy diagnostic timeframes.

The monomeric SARS-CoV-2 S emitted light in Cypridina luciferin presence [signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 35) rather than other luciferins. The findings indicated that the SARS-CoV-2 S protein had pseudo-luciferase activity and demonstrated the ability of this technology to supplement centralized testing approaches. The appropriate orthogonal combination of the monomeric SARS-CoV-2 S protein and Cypridina luciferin showed flash-type kinetic reactions, observed in bioluminescent systems utilizing IPT luciferin, with a luminescence intensity drop of roughly 23% over one minute.

IPT luciferin has sec-2-butyl at C-2, 3-indolyl at C-6, and 3-(1-guanidino)propyl functional groups at C-8 sites of the ITP ring, revealing the pseudo luciferase activity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cypridina luciferin, a monomeric spike protein, exhibited a higher efficiency for catalytic reactions than fragment proteins, boosting the relative enzymatic turnover (kcat) values by greater than 2.6. Individual units may not contribute to luciferin luminescence but rather the reaction sites created when units unite. The chemiluminescence system, which produces luciferase-dependent luminescence in aprotic polar fluids, should be classified as BCL based on luminescence intensities.

The Cypridinaluciferase (Cluc) and Vargulaluciferin combination produced a 30% bioluminescent quantum yield, the highest of any IPT luciferin-based BL system, with reaction specificity. The biomolecule-catalyzing chemiluminescence-based technique identifies SARS-CoV-2 S quantitatively using a "mix-and-read" approach, which involves adding the luciferin protein to the material and monitoring the luminescence signal for one minute. This approach detects the S protein faster and more accurately than the lateral flow assay (LFA) method, which uses S-protein-binding sialic acid.

The study findings revealed a novel method to identify SARS-CoV-2 antigens without genetic alterations or antibodies. Researchers could quantify the pseudo-luciferase activity of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins in human saliva. The monomeric S protein glows with Cypridina luciferin, but the trimeric S protein needs more luciferin. The 3-indolyl substituent at C-6 and the 3-(1-guanidino)propyl functional group are critical for luminescence activity. The novel protein-analysis technology can detect S proteins in human saliva in one minute without sample preparation.

Here is the original post:

Innovative COVID-19 test prototype uses bioluminescence for speedier results - News-Medical.Net