Fauci Doesn’t Have An Answer To Why Those Who Recovered From Covid Are Required To Take Vaccine

Authors: JORDAN LANCASTER REPORTER September 10, 20214:03 PM E

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday night on CNN that he didn’t have a “firm answer” as to why those who have been previously infected with Covid and have natural immunity are being required to take the vaccine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent, pointed out a recent study from Israel that found people with natural immunity from Covid due to a previous infection were much less likely to become infected, be hospitalized, or die from Covid than their counterparts who had never been infected but had received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. The scientists also found that previously infected people were more protected if they had one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Gupta asked if previously infected people should also get the vaccine, and if so, how Fauci plans to make the case for those people to get it.

“You know, that’s a really good point, Sanjay. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”

Fauci also said that the study didn’t discuss how long the immunity lasts. (RELATED: Natural Immunity To COVID-19 May Last More Than A Year After Infection, New Studies Show)

“The one thing the paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection – what’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” he added. “So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously, because you very appropriately pointed out it is an issue, and there could be an argument for saying what you said.”

Does this enzyme raise the chance of COVID-related death?

Researchers discovered an enzyme that is genetically related to a key enzyme in snake venom and was found in COVID-19 fatalities in doses 20 times the safe amount.

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF   SEPTEMBER 4, 2021 19:37

A study from the University of Arizona discovered that an enzyme with a key role in severe inflammation may be a vital mechanism in COVID-19 severity and could provide a new target for medicine development.The researchers collaborated with Stony Brook University and Wake Forest School of Medicine to analyze blood samples from two COVID-19 patients and discovered that the circulation of the sPLA2-11A enzyme may be an important method in predicting which patients would die of COVID-19.At high levels, the enzyme has the ability to “shred” the membranes of vital organs. “It’s a bell-shaped curve of disease resistance versus host tolerance,” said Floyd (ski) Chilton, senior author on the paper and director of the U Arizona Precision Nutrition and Wellness Initiative at the university. “In other words, this enzyme is trying to kill the virus, but at a certain point it is released in such high amounts that things head in a really bad direction, destroying the patient’s cell membranes and thereby contributing to multiple organ failure and death.” “The idea to identify a potential prognostic factor in COVID-19 patients originated from Dr. Chilton,” said Maurizio Del Poeta, a co-author of the study. “He first contacted us last fall with the idea to analyze lipids and metabolites in blood samples of COVID-19 patients.” The research team analyzed thousands of patient data points. The team focused on traditional risk factors like age, body mass index and preexisting conditions, but they also focused on biochemical enzymes and patients’ levels of lipid metabolites.

“In this study, we were able to identify patterns of metabolites that were present in individuals who succumbed to the disease,” said Justin Snider, an assistant research professor at the University of Arizona and lead study author. “The metabolites that surfaced revealed cell energy dysfunction and high levels of the sPLA2-11A enzyme. The former was expected but not the latter.”The analysis showed that most healthy people have approximately half a nanogram of the enzyme per milliliter, 63% of people who had severe COVID-19 and died had more than 10 nanograms per milliliter.”Some of the patients who died from COVID-19 had some of the highest levels of this enzyme that have ever been reported,” said Chilton.Previous research into the enzyme shows that it has similar genetic ancestry to a key enzyme contained in snake venom. “Like venom coursing through the body, [the enzyme] has the capacity to bind to receptors at neuromuscular junctions and potentially disable the function of these muscles,” said Chilton.”Roughly a third of people develop long COVID, and many of them were active individuals who now cannot walk 100 yards,” he added. “The question we are investigating now is: if this enzyme is still relatively high and active, could it be responsible for part of the long COVID outcomes that we’re seeing?”

Pfizer Board Member Warns Policymakers: “Natural Immunity” Needs to Be Included In COVID Mandate Plans

Authored by: Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times, MONDAY, AUG 30, 2021 – 10:20 PM

Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is a Pfizer board member, noted that “natural immunity” gained from a prior COVID-19 infection needs to be included in discussions about policies and mandates.

“The balance of the evidence demonstrates that natural immunity confers a durable protection,” Gottlieb said during a Monday morning TV interview, referring to a landmark new preprint Israeli study that found prior COVID-19 infection confers much more protection against the virus than any vaccine.

“It’s fair to conclude that,” he said.

Although Gottlieb said he would “be careful” about concluding whether natural immunity provides better protection against transmitting the virus, officials “should start assimilating that into our policy discussions.”

“Natural infection confers robust and durable immunity,” he said, citing the Israeli study and others.

However, whether natural immunity or vaccines are better than one another “isn’t that material” when it comes to policy discussions, Gottlieb added.

Last week, researchers from Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University said that individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had superior protection against the Delta variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus than those who received the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, the most commonly used shot in Israel.

“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization due to the Delta variant,” the study concluded, noting their findings came from the “largest real-world observational study” in the world. Their study, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, noted outcomes for a period between June 1 and Aug. 14 of this year.

When researchers compared cases of prior infection that occurred between March 2020 and February 2021 with vaccinations between January and February 2021, they found that the vaccinated cohort was 5.96 times more likely to contract the Delta variant and 7.13 times more at risk for symptomatic disease compared to those previously infected.

The results suggest that natural immunity gained from having survived a previous infection of COVID-19 may wane over time against the Delta variant, the authors wrote.

Those vaccinated were at a greater risk of COVID-19-related hospitalizations compared to those who were previously infected, the authors noted. They said that being 60 years of age or older increased the risk of infection and hospitalization.

The authors of the research paper said they only observed protection against the Delta variant and not other strains. Meanwhile, they only observed the Pfizer vaccine and didn’t look at other vaccines or the effects of a booster shot.

FDA Issues Warning About Increased Risk Of Heart Inflammation Caused By Moderna Jab

Authors: BY TYLER DURDENMONDAY, AUG 30, 2021 – 02:14 P

Earlier this month, we reported on leaked data from a Canadian study which arrived at a disturbing conclusion: the risk of rare side effects like myocarditis and pericarditis – types of heart inflammation that are potentially deadly in some patients – was at least 2.5x higher in the Moderna jab than in its main competitor, produced by Pfizer-BioNTech.

The leaking of the data to the press was an embarrassment for the FDA and CDC, and so they pledged to investigate. Now, less than two weeks later, the FDA has just announced that it has updated its “fact sheet” to reflect the higher risk of heart inflammation in male patients under the age of 40.

For all patients, the “post-marketing” data examined by the FDA show that the risk of experiencing these side effects is highest within 7 days of receiving the second dose.

Only Pfizer has received full approval from the FDA; the Moderna jab is still technically under the emergency authorization. Whether this will delay or in any way impact the FDA’s approval of the Moderna jab remains unclear.

Here’s the full updated text:

Myocarditis and Pericarditis Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 18 through 24 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae. The CDC has published considerations related to myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, including for vaccination of individuals with a history of myocarditis or pericarditis

Questions about the link between the mRNA jabs and heart inflammation have been circulating since these side effects were first uncovered in a group of American soldiers reporting acute chest pain after their vaccinations.

The news is weighing on Moderna’s share price, which has fallen substantially since its Aug. 9 peak. It was down more than 3% on Monday afternoon.

Durability of mRNA-1273 vaccine–induced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants

  1. Authors: ViewAmarendra Pegu1,†, Sarah O’Connell1,† View ORCID ProfileStephen D. Schmidt1,, Sijy O’Dell1,View ORCID ProfileChloe A. Talana1, Lilin Lai2, Jim Albert Science  12 Aug 2021: eabj4176m OI: 10.1126/science.abj4176

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 mutations may diminish vaccine-induced protective immune responses, particularly as antibody titers wane over time. Here, we assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), B.1.429 (Epsilon), B.1.526 (Iota), and B.1.617.2 (Delta) on binding, neutralizing, and ACE2-competing antibodies elicited by the vaccine mRNA-1273 over seven months. Cross-reactive neutralizing responses were rare after a single dose. At the peak of response to the second vaccine dose, all individuals had responses to all variants. Binding and functional antibodies against variants persisted in most subjects, albeit at low levels, for 6-months after the primary series of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Across all assays, B.1.351 had the lowest antibody recognition. These data complement ongoing studies to inform the potential need for additional boost vaccinations.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has infected millions of people worldwide fueling the ongoing global pandemic (1). The combination of RNA virus mutation rates, replication and recombination, in a very large number of individuals is conducive to the emergence of viral variants with improved replication capacity and transmissibility, as well as immunological escape. Of particular interest are the Variants of Concern B.1.1.7 (20I/501Y.V1 or Alpha), B.1.351 (20H/501Y.V2 or Beta), P.1 (Gamma; first identified in Brazil), B.1.429 (Cal20 or Epsilon; first identified in California), and B.1.617.2 (Delta; first identified in India); and Variant of Interest B.1.526 (Iota; first identified in New York). In multiple studies, B.1.351 is the most resistant to neutralization by convalescent or vaccinee sera, with 6-15 fold less neutralization activity for sera from individuals immunized with vaccines based on the virus strain first described in January 2020 (Wuhan-Hu-1, spike also called WA1) (29). Most of these prior studies evaluated sera from vaccinated individuals at timepoints soon after the first or second dose, and had limited data on the durability of such responses. Likewise, clinical studies have reported somewhat reduced efficacy and effectiveness against the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and B.1.617.2 variants (1012). Although such data provide critical insights into the performance of the vaccines against viral variants, they have not fully addressed the durability of cross-reactive binding and functional antibodies.

Here we investigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on recognition by sera from individuals who received two 100 mcg doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mRNA-1273. mRNA-1273 encodes the full-length stabilized spike protein of the WA1 and was administered as a two-dose series 28-days apart. We previously described the binding and neutralization activity against the WA1 SARS-CoV-2 spike longitudinally over 7 months from the first vaccination in volunteers from the Phase 1 trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (1316). In the current study, we demonstrate the utility of employing multiple methodologies to assess SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-elicited humoral immunity to variant viruses over time. We tested sera from a random sample of 8 volunteers in each of three age groups: 18-55, 55-70, and 71+ years of age, all of whom had samples available from four timepoints: 4 weeks after the first dose, and two weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the second dose (Days 29, 43, 119, and 209 after the first dose, respectively).

Three functional assays and two binding assays were used to assess the humoral immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. SARS-CoV-2 neutralization was measured using both a lentivirus-based pseudovirus assay, and a live-virus focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) (17). The third functional assay was a MSD-ECLIA (Meso Scale Discovery-Electrochemiluminescence immunoassay)-based ACE2 competition assay. This method measured the ability of mRNA-1273 vaccine-elicited antibodies to compete with labeled soluble ACE2 for binding to the specific RBD (WA1 or variant) spotted onto the MSD plate. Antibody binding to cell-surface expressed full-length spike was analyzed by flow cytometry. Binding to soluble protein was measured by interferometry in the MSD-ECLIA platform. All samples were assessed against WA1 and the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants in each of these orthogonal serology assays. In addition, all samples were tested against WA1 containing the D614G mutation in both neutralization assays, as well as binding in the cell-surface assay. Further variants were tested in binding assays as follows: S-2P and RBD binding, P.1 against all samples; cell-surface spike binding, P.1, B.1.429, B.1.526, and B.1.617.2 against all samples. A subset of samples – Day 43 to capture the peak response, and Day 209 to look at durability – were evaluated by pseudovirus neutralization against P.1, B.1.429, B.1.526, and B.1.617.2. The specific sequences used in each assay are defined in table S1.

We first assessed the patterns of antibody activity over time. Consistently across assays, low-level recognition of all variants was observed after a single dose (Day 29) (Fig. 1). Activity against all variants peaked two weeks after the second dose (Day 43) with moderate declines over time through Day 209 (Fig. 1). Notably, the values obtained for each assay on a per-sample basis correlated with each other (fig. S1). We next evaluated the relative impact of each variant, considering all timepoints together. Employing the pseudovirus assay, the neutralizing activity was highest against D614G and lowest against B.1.351, with values for all other variants tested falling in between those two variants (Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A). Similar to previous reports from our group (15) and others (18), pseudovirus neutralization ID50s to D614G were 3-fold higher than to WA1 (Fig. 2G). In contrast, using the live-virus FRNT neutralization assay (Fig. 1B and Fig. 2B), titers to WA1 were higher than to D614G, consistent with previous reports for that assay (19). For all other variants, the impact in the live-virus and pseudovirus neutralization assays were concordant: titers against B.1.1.7 were similar to D614G and lower against B.1.351. ACE2 competition was highest for WA1 RBD, intermediate for B.1.1.7, and lowest for B.1.351 (Fig. 1C and Fig. 2C). Spike-binding antibodies were measured using two different methodologies. In the cell-surface spike binding assay, serum antibodies were bound to full-length, membrane-embedded spike on the surface of transfected cells and measured by flow cytometry (20). In this assay (Fig. 1D and Fig. 2D), WA1 and D614G were nearly indistinguishable, with ~1.5-fold reduced binding to B.1.1.7, B.1.526, B.1.617.2, and 2.4 to 3.0-fold reduced binding to P.1, and B.1.429, and B.1.351. We also used the MSD-ECLIA multiplex binding assay to simultaneously measure IgG binding against both the stabilized soluble spike protein S-2P (21) and RBD proteins derived from WA1 and the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants. The ECLIA assay showed slightly reduced binding to the variant S-2P (Fig. 1E and Fig. 2E) and RBD (Fig. 1F and Fig. 2F) proteins, with the rank order of highest to lowest binding as follows: WA1, B.1.1.7, P.1, and B.1.351. The overall effect of each variant in each assay is tabulated in Fig. 2G, which shows the geometric mean of the ratios between values for WA1 and variant or D614G and variant. In all assays, B.1.351 was the variant that caused the greatest reduction in titers compared to WA1 or D614G.

For More Information: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/08/11/science.abj4176.full

‘Natural Immunity Is Really Better’: New Israeli Study Fuels Debate On Vaccination Versus Natural Immunity

Authors: DYLAN HOUSMAN HEALTHCARE REPORTER August 28, 20215:12 PM ET

A new study of the power of COVID-19 natural immunity versus the protection provided by vaccines is igniting further debate among scientists on how to assess risk from the virus.

The observational study of more than 700,000 Israelis, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, compared three groups: those who hadn’t been infected and received two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, those who had been infected and were completely unvaccinated and individuals who were previously infected and received one dose of the vaccine. The researchers found that uninfected vaccine recipients were 13 times more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than those who were previously infected.

“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, told Science Magazine. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID-19.”

Prior research has indicated that natural immunity to COVID-19 is strong, but no research has definitely shown that it is more protective than getting vaccinated up to this point.

The increased protection found in the study extended beyond reinfection, as natural immunity was also found to lead to fewer symptomatic cases and hospitalizations as well. The researchers also concluded that individuals who received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine in addition to recovering from previous infection had the highest level of protection of the three groups.

Data was pulled from Israel between June 1 and August 14, when the Delta variant was dominant in the country. The variant is currently driving a spike in cases and deaths in the United States. It is believed to be the largest real-world study conducted during the pandemic comparing natural immunity to vaccine protection. (RELATED: Poll: Anxiety Over COVID-19 At Highest Point Since Winter)

“The differences are huge,” added Thålin, although she warned the research couldn’t be considered conclusive. The sample size of hospitalizations in the 32,000-person analysis of the vaccinated group was only eight, and only one among the previously infected. Nobody in the entire study died, signaling that both vaccination and natural immunity provide a substantial amount of protection from death.

Researchers warned that the takeaway from the study should not be that catching COVID-19 is a superior substitute to getting vaccinated, due to the higher level of risk that comes with battling the virus versus getting the shot. “What we don’t want people to say is: ‘All right, I should go out and get infected, I should have an infection party,” Rockefeller University’s Michael Nussenzweig, an immunologist, told Science.

New Israeli Study Finds Fully Vaccinated People are at “Greater Risk of Hospitalization” and 13 TIMES MORE LIKELY to Catch Covid-19 Than Those Who Have Recovered and Have Natural Immunity

Authors: By Julian Conradson Published August 27, 2021 at 2:06pm

A new study out of Israel has seemingly confirmed that individuals who have natural immunity have better protection against the NEW DELTA VARIANT than people who are fully vaccinated.

The team of researchers, from Maccabi Healthcare and Tel Aviv University, published their study earlier this week to medRxiv.org.

‘This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, ‘ the team of researchers wrote

Not just a little bit better either. People who have taken both doses of the Pfizer jab are 13 TIMES more likely to have a breakthrough infection, and are even at a “greater risk for Covid-19 hospitalizations.”

The researchers conducted an extensive study on 800,000 individuals that were broken into 3 groups. People who had received either one or two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were compared with unvaccinated individuals who have natural immunity, because they had already recovered from the virus.

SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. 

When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

MOST NOTABLY, the study also found – Three months after a 2nd dose, the risk of contracting Covid was 13.06 times higher among the vaccinated and they are 27 TIMES more likely to experience symptoms.

After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI, 12.7 to 57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic reinfection (P<0.001) (Table 2b). None of the covariates were significant, except for age ≥60 years. 

So, to get this straight – According to these highly credible researchers who conducted a massive study on hundreds of thousands of people, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine won’t just make people more likely to catch new variants – they will also be more affected by symptoms and more likely to end up hospitalized.

This latest data just adds to a mounting pile of evidence that demonstrates the experimental jab’s low efficacy when it comes to stopping the spread of the virus. Even before this most recent study, some researchers had already found that the vaccinated spread the virus as much, if not more, than the unvaxxed.

The FDA skipped out on necessary trials and rubber-stamped their experimental jab anyway.

According to available data, a third of the entire US population had contracted Covid BY THE END OF 2020.

Natural immunity is not new.. It has consistently proven to be superior to inoculation. If 1/3rd of Americans had already contracted the virus – before it had even been known for a full year – then why would “everyone” need to take their experimental vaccine?

Well…

The authoritarian health regime in the US, led by Furor Dr. Fauci, has been flip-flopping since their comrades in thee CCP unleashed the virus on the world.

They are wholly unconcerned with saving anyone and are fully invested in using lockdowns and freedom-crushing restrictions to tighten their grip on power. 

Mindless compliance hasn’t worked so now they must start forcing people in other ways.

Long COVID’s daunting toll seen in study of pandemic’s earliest patients

Authors: Melissa Healy   6 hrs ago

COVID-19 patients in Wuhan were among the pandemic’s first victims, and a comprehensive new study finds that a year after shaking the coronavirus, survivors were more likely than their uninfected peers to suffer from mobility problems, pain or discomfort, anxiety and depression.

detailed accounting of 1,276 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in the pandemic’s opening months reveals that a full year later, almost half continued to report at least one lingering health problem that is now considered a symptom of “long COVID.”

One out of five said they had continued fatigue and/or muscle weakness, and 17% said they were still experiencing sleep difficulties. Just over one in four said they were suffering anxiety or depression in the wake of their bout with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

For the growing number of patients who identify themselves as COVID “long haulers,” the new accounting offers cause for optimism — and concern. The period from six to 12 months after infection brought improvement for many. But most patients struggling with symptoms at the six-month mark were not yet well six months later.

The findings, catalogued by a team of Chinese researchers, were published late Thursday in the medical journal Lancet.

“This is not good news,” said David Putrino, a rehabilitation specialist who works with COVID long haulers at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “If you run the numbers here, about one-third of the group that had persistent symptoms are getting better after 12 months, while two-thirds are not.”

Putrino also called the findings a “wake-up call” to public health officials that even when the pandemic is over — a distant enough prospect in the midst of a fourth wave of infections — its downstream consequences will not be.

“We’re going to need resources for many years to come to deal with these patients,” he said.

There will be a lot of them. More than 87,000 COVID-19 patients are being hospitalized each day in the United States, and 2.7 million have receiving hospital care in the past year alone.

The half who contend with persistent symptoms will show up in doctors’ offices with clusters of vague and perplexing complaints including brain fog, heart palpitations, pain and exhaustion. And despite emerging evidence that time and specialized treatment can help many to improve, few will have the wherewithal to spend months in intensive rehabilitation for their symptoms, Putrino said.

An editorial published alongside the new study noted that only 0.4% of COVID long haulers are receiving rehabilitative treatment for their symptoms.

Even as scientists puzzle over the common biological mechanisms of long COVID’s diverse symptoms, healthcare providers “must acknowledge and validate the toll of the persistent symptoms of long COVID on patients, and health systems need to be prepared to meet individualised, patient-oriented goals, with an appropriately trained workforce,” Lancet’s editors wrote.

The new research also offered some glimmers of hope.

When the study’s COVID-19 patients were examined at six months, 68% said they had at least one of 15 symptoms considered hallmarks of long COVID, which is also known as Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID, or PASC. At one year, 49% were still afflicted by at least one of those symptoms.

The proportion of patients with ongoing muscle weakness and fatigue dropped from 52% to 20% during that time. Patients experiencing loss of smell dropped from 11% to 4%, and those afflicted with sleep problems fell from 27% to 17%. The 22% who reported hair loss at six months dwindled to 11% a full year out.

At the same time, the numbers of patients reporting breathing difficulties saw a slight increase, rising from 26% at six months to 30% after a year. Likewise, patients who reported new depression or anxiety increased from 23% to 26% during that period.

Study co-author Xiaoying Gu from the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing said the slight uptick in anxiety and depression was, like all of long COVID’s symptoms, hard to explain.

The psychiatric symptoms “could be caused by a biological process linked to the virus infection itself, or the body’s immune response to it,” he said. “Or they could be linked to reduced social contact, loneliness, incomplete recovery of physical health or loss of employment associated with illness.”

Patients who required mechanical ventilation were more likely than those with less severe illness to have measurable lung impairment and abnormal chest X-rays at both six and 12 months.

But in the tally of more subjective long COVID symptoms, the difference between the most severely ill and those who required no supplemental oxygen at all was very small.

That finding underscores the fact that even patients who are only mildly ill are at risk of developing a range of persistent symptoms.

Of the study population’s 479 patients who held jobs when the pandemic struck, 88% had returned to work a year after their illness. Most of the 57 who did not return said they either could not or were unwilling to do the tasks required of them.

The findings from the Wuhan patients also tracked with the widespread observation that persistent post-COVID infection symptoms are more common in women than in men. Women who had been hospitalized for COVID-19 were twice as likely as their male counterparts to report depression or anxiety 12 months later. In addition, they were close to three times as likely to show evidence of impaired lung function, and 43% more likely to report symptoms of fatigue and muscle weakness.

All of the study’s participants were treated at a single hospital in Wuhan, where reports of a mysterious new form of pneumonia first surfaced in December 2019. The researchers followed a large group of patients sickened in the first five months that the outbreak.

That makes the Lancet report one of the earliest and largest accounts of lingering COVID-19 symptoms to be tallied and vetted by other researchers, and the only one to compare such patients to a group of uninfected peers matched on a wide range of demographic and health attributes.

One thing is already clear, the journal editors noted: “Long COVID is a modern medical challenge of the first order.”

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Denmark To Scrap All Covid-19 Restrictions

Authors: BY TYLER DURDENFRIDAY, AUG 27, 2021 – 01:34 PM

Denmark will on September 10th stop classifying Covid-19 as an “illness which is a critical threat to society”, meaning all remaining special pandemic restrictions will expire, The Local reported. In a press release issued on Friday morning, the country’s health minister Magnus Heunicke said that the high level of vaccination in Denmark, particularly among the vulnerable, had radically altered the risks posed by the virus.

“The epidemic is under control, we have record high vaccination rates,” he said in a statement. “As a result, on September 10th, we can drop some of the special rules we have had to introduce in the fight against Covid-19.”

September 10th marks the expiry date for that the executive order classifying Covid-19 as a “socially critical illness”, which was passed by the Danish parliament’s Epidemic Committee on March 10th last year. 

The parties in the centre-right blue bloc, led by the Liberal Party, have already said that they believe that Covid-19 should no longer be classed as a serious threat to society, and the health ministry’s announcement came less than an hour before the ruling Social Democrats were due to discuss the issue with the other parties in the Epidemic Committee. 

“When it sinks in for the Social Democrat government that they are in a minority, they then come up with better ideas just 45 minutes before the meeting in the Epidemic Committee is starting,” said Sophie Løhde, a member of the committee for the Liberal Party. 

A number of restrictions are set to lapse on September 1st, notably the requirement to show a valid coronapas to sit in restaurants and bars, and the ban on discos and nightclubs.  

Friday’s announcement means that just ten days after nightclubs reopen on September 1st, visitors will no longer have to show a coronapas, and it also means that from September 10th, those going to watch a Superliga football match or attend an outdoor event with more than 2,000 people, will no longer need a coronapas. 

The change in the classification of Covid-19 will not, however, affect rules on travel into Denmark, which are governed by a separate inter-party agreement which is due to expire in October, a spokesperson for the health ministry said. 

“Inescapable” COVID-19 Antibody Discovery – Neutralizes All Known SARS-CoV-2 Strains

Authors: By LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY AUGUST 26, 2021

An antibody therapy that appears to neutralize all known SARS-CoV-2 strains, and other coronaviruses, was developed with a little help from structural biologist Jay Nix.

Lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines are allowing us to feel optimistic again, after more than a year of anxiety and tragedy. But vaccines are only one side of the coin – we also need treatments that can prevent severe disease after someone has been infected. In the past year, there has been significant progress in developing effective antibody-based therapies, and three drugs are currently available through emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration.

Sotrovimab, the newest antibody therapy, was developed by GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnology after a large collaborative study by scientists from across the nation discovered a natural antibody (in the blood of a SARS survivor, back in 2003) that has remarkable breadth and efficacy.

Experiments showed that this antibody, called S309, neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 strains – including newly emerged mutants that can now “escape” from previous antibody therapies – as well as the closely related original SARS-CoV virus.

Jay Nix, leader of the Molecular Biology Consortium based at Berkeley Lab’s Advanced Light Source (ALS), used beamlines at the ALS and beamlines at SLAC’s Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource to perform X-ray crystallography on samples of survivor-derived antibodies during an early phase of the study. His work, alongside other crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy findings, helped generate detailed structural maps of how these antibodies bind to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, allowing the wider team to select the most promising contenders and advance them to cell culture- and animal-based studies. Following exciting lab results, the developers designed sotrovimab based on the structure of S309, and evaluated it in clinical trials.

The FDA granted an EUA for sotrovimab in late May after trials showed that people with mild to moderate COVID-19 infections who received an infusion of the therapy had an 85% reduction in rates of hospitalization or death, compared with placebo.

But the team didn’t stop there.

Understanding that new mutations could arise and that a novel pathogenic coronavirus could emerge from an animal-human crossover event, the scientists began a follow-up study to deeply explore what factors make antibodies resistant to viral escape and how certain antibodies are also broadly reactive against diverse, related viruses. Using biochemical and structural analysis, deep mutational scanning, and binding experiments, they identified one antibody with unparalleled universal potency.

“This antibody, which binds to a previously unknown site on the coronavirus spike protein, appears to neutralize all known sarbecoviruses – the genus of coronaviruses that cause respiratory infections in mammals,” said Nix, who is an affiliate in Berkeley Lab’s Biosciences Area. “And, due to the unique binding site on mutation-resistant part of the virus, it may well be more difficult for a new strain to escape.”

Subsequent tests in hamsters suggest that this antibody could even prevent a COVID-19 infection if given prophylactically. The new work was published in Nature.

Reference: “SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibodies that maximize breadth and resistance to escape” by Tyler N. Starr, Nadine Czudnochowski, Zhuoming Liu, Fabrizia Zatta, Young-Jun Park, Amin Addetia, Dora Pinto, Martina Beltramello, Patrick Hernandez, Allison J. Greaney, Roberta Marzi, William G. Glass, Ivy Zhang, Adam S. Dingens, John E. Bowen, M. Alejandra Tortorici, Alexandra C. Walls, Jason A. Wojcechowskyj, Anna De Marco, Laura E. Rosen, Jiayi Zhou, Martin Montiel-Ruiz, Hannah Kaiser, Josh Dillen, Heather Tucker, Jessica Bassi, Chiara Silacci-Fregni, Michael P. Housley, Julia di Iulio, Gloria Lombardo, Maria Agostini, Nicole Sprugasci, Katja Culap, Stefano Jaconi, Marcel Meury, Exequiel Dellota, Rana Abdelnabi, Shi-Yan Caroline Foo, Elisabetta Cameroni, Spencer Stumpf, Tristan I. Croll, Jay C. Nix, Colin Havenar-Daughton, Luca Piccoli, Fabio Benigni, Johan Neyts, Amalio Telenti, Florian A. Lempp, Matteo S. Pizzuto, John D. Chodera, Christy M. Hebner, Herbert W. Virgin, Sean P. J. Whelan, David Veesler, Davide Corti, Jesse D. Bloom and Gyorgy Snell, 14 July 2021, Nature.
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03807-6

The Advanced Light Source and SLAC’s Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource are Department of Energy Office of Science User Facilities.