Jump to content

Coronavirus Articles, Discussions and Videos

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, SkyMan said:

I don't know about repeat cases but that may be due to testing inaccuracy.  Maybe someone got a wrong negative result and later positive or maybe the second positive was wrong.  I don't read much about it and it seems that would be big news.  As far as the antibodies going away in a short time, it's my understanding that the while the antibodies go away, the map to build those antibodies remains.  So that if there is a reinfection, the right antibodies can be spun up quickly reducing the severity.  This may be a false hope but if is then there isn't much hope for any kind of vaccine.  So I  would rather hang onto that than consign myself to permanent quarantine.

"Big news" is whatever fits the narrative that MSM is pushing at the time. I said I wouldn't post any more videos about coronavirus, but maybe you should watch just this one... 


  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 547
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Headshot


  • lamoe


  • Salty Dog


  • Dafey


Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

From an on line Senior's website which I'm a Member  https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/health/covid19/glasses-cut-covid-infections-study? This although not conclusive I found interesting as

I Just spoke with my sister (79) in the UK.  Had her Covide19 vacination ( Astra Zeneca,) last Saturday.Had to present at the town hall at 1.17pm .She queried this Time with the nurse who rang ,b

Posted Images






Restrictions, lockdowns, business and school shutdowns, mandatory wearing of face masks.

Health officials and politicians the world over are saying only the creation of a vaccine would end the need for such actions.

And scientists across the globe are working to find one. Some say it’s a combined effort, others are calling it a race.

With infection cases still rising, the US brought to its knees, European countries such as Spain and France re-instating restrictions and many others quickly learning the price for reopening borders and businesses too soon, the quest for a vaccine remains all important. 

But when will one be available?

As at 19 July, there were 23 COVID-19 vaccine candidates in clinical testing, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Some of the most promising research is happening in Australia, where human volunteers are already being jabbed with potential COVID-19 vaccines to check for safety and to analyse their bodies’ immune responses.

Last week, 120 volunteers joined phase one trials of a potential vaccine developed by the University of Queensland (UQ).

In Adelaide, at Royal Adelaide Hospital, human trials have been under way for two weeks and are already showing encouraging signs.

Trials in Melbourne and Perth are also under way.

There may be many ways to combat COVID-19, but all four clinical trials in Australia are aimed at controlling the spike protein of the coronavirus – the sticky part that latches onto the human cell and infects us.

If a vaccine can work with our bodies to recognise the spike protein and build immunity against it, the coronavirus won’t be able to penetrate our cells and make us sick.

UQ’s proposed vaccine uses a ‘molecular clamp’ designed to fuse a synthetic spike protein with the ones that protrude from the coronavirus, in a process that glues three molecules together to form one complex.

UQ researchers have also developed a special ingredient called an adjuvant, which supercharges the immune system.

The combination of the clamp fused to the synthetic spike protein tricks our bodies into thinking it has detected the coronavirus, triggering a specific immune response that will, in theory, destroy the real coronavirus when it tries to infect us.

“When the virus is floating around in your system and your immune system tries to recognise it, the spike protein is the first molecule it will encounter and raise an immune response against,” Professor Trent Munro, project director of UQ’s coronavirus vaccine program told The New Daily.

“That’s what we want to mimic with our vaccine.”

Scientists at Adelaide biotechnology company Vaxine have also used a synthetic coronavirus spike protein in its proposed vaccine.

But instead of using a molecular clamp, they have added a unique type of adjuvant called ‘inulin’ which is derived from chicory.

“Inulin purified from Belgian endive is a white sugary powder that looks very much like table sugar if you saw it sitting in a bowl,” said Vaxine research director Professor Nikolai Petrovsky.

“By making inulin into these special microscopic particles, they are able to trigger the immune system and act as a turbo-charger to make it respond better to vaccines, thereby giving stronger protection.”

Prof. Petrovsky says there are no side-effects to the vaccine.

“While some adjuvants may cause people to get fevers or flu-like symptoms, ours achieves the benefits of educating the immune system but without the side-effects,” he said.

“Using synthetic proteins with our plant-based inulin adjuvant to induce strong protective immune responses against pandemic viruses is something we’ve done many times in animal and human trials over the last 15 years, so we know it works.

“It’s been very effective for SARS and MERS coronaviruses and various pandemic flu strains.”

Researchers say it still might take between 12 and 18 months for a vaccine to be approved.

While most of the world waits with bated breath for a vaccine, there are many who would refuse the jab should one become available.

A finder.com survey found that six million Australians may not choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine if one becomes available.

Just under seven in 10 Aussies (68 per cent) said they would get the vaccine, leaving almost one in three Aussies susceptible to coronavirus.

Recent US polls revealed that only 50 per cent of people in there would receive the vaccine, with another quarter wavering.

And another survey revealed that nearly one in six Britons say they would refuse a coronavirus vaccine if and when one became available, with a similar number unsure whether they would get one.

Reasons for refusing vaccination range from uncertainty about the safety of a rushed vaccine to straight up denial that COVID-19 exists.

In the meantime, for those of us who do believe in coronavirus, social distancing, handwashing, wearing masks and following government and health organisation guidelines is our best defence.

Would you be vaccinated if one became available? Do you doubt the existence of COVID-19?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a vaccine (from recent studies) is the antibodies to this virus appear to be very short-lived (a few weeks to a few months). The purpose of a vaccine is to cause the body to create antibodies. Of course, if the antibodies don't persist, what is the point? Do you get a new vaccination every two months to ensure immunity?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Headshot said:

The problem with a vaccine (from recent studies) is the antibodies to this virus appear to be very short-lived (a few weeks to a few months). The purpose of a vaccine is to cause the body to create antibodies. Of course, if the antibodies don't persist, what is the point? Do you get a new vaccination every two months to ensure immunity?

If they're smart enough to produce a Covit19 vaccine, I would suggest that that may also be smart enough to deal with said vaccines life span!    Lets just wait and give hem the benefit of the doubt...... Geeezus!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites



Oxford's COVID-19 vaccine is safe and induces immune response


Initial human trial results for a promising COVID-19 vaccine have been been published in the journal The Lancet. The vaccine, developed at Oxford University, has so far been found to be safe and induce the two key immune responses needed to protect against coronavirus infection.

The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine, recently renamed from ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 to AZD1222, was developed incredibly rapidly, with Phase 1/2 human trials starting in April. The newly published preliminary data reports the results of a blind, randomized controlled trial testing the safety and immunogenicity of the experimental vaccine in 1,000 subjects.

The cohort blindly received either AZD1222 or a meningococcal vaccine as control. The initial phases of human testing in a vaccine trial are designed to investigate how safe the new vaccine is and whether it triggers biomarkers associated with an effective immune response.

The data suggests the vaccine causes no serious adverse effects, although more than half of subjects did display mild to moderate side effects, including injection site pain, fever and fatigue. All these adverse effects resolved within 48 hours of treatment.

Looking at immune responses, the vaccine generated robust antibody and T-cell responses in all subjects with neutralizing antibodies detected in 91 percent of subjects one month after a single dose of the vaccine. A small cohort receiving a booster dose one month after the initial dose showed even stronger antibody responses.

T-cell responses were seen to peak around two weeks after a single dose of the vaccine. At the two-month follow-up those T-cell levels were seen to slightly decline. It is unclear at this stage what kind of long-term immunity the vaccine could confer, however, these two immune biomarkers induced by the vaccine are similar to what is seen in recovered COVID-19 patients.

"The immune system has two ways of finding and attacking pathogens – antibody and T cell responses,” explains Andrew Pollard, lead author on the new study. “This vaccine is intended to induce both, so it can attack the virus when it's circulating in the body, as well as attacking infected cells. We hope this means the immune system will remember the virus, so that our vaccine will protect people for an extended period.”

Researchers not affiliated with the Oxford vaccine are expressing cautious optimism after reviewing this new data. Although these results present exactly what one would hope to see at this stage in the development of a successful vaccine it is important to note it is too early to know whether this leads to protection from infection in the real world.

“The preliminary findings look very promising with responses to the vaccine similar to what is seen post natural infection,” says Beate Kampmann, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “Whether this is what’s needed to protect against infection and/or disease cannot be established with these early-phase datasets.”

Oxford has joined forces with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca to expand testing and lay the groundwork for mass manufacturing of the vaccine. A number of large-scale Phase 3 trials are already underway with tens of thousands of people enrolled across the UK, US, Brazil and South Africa. Over the next few months it's hoped these larger cohorts will deliver insights into how protective the vaccine actually is in real-world conditions.

Phase 3 vaccine trials generally take quite a long time. This is because researchers must recruit a cohort of subjects deemed to be at a high risk of contracting whatever disease is targeted by the vaccine, and then follow those subjects for months as they inhabit the real world. After a period of time the researchers can then compare the amount of infections between the vaccine and placebo groups to determine what real-world efficacy the vaccine has in protecting a person from infection.

Testing a vaccine by deliberately exposing healthy volunteers to a pathogen is known as a human challenge trial. There has been significant debate amongst scientists for several months over whether human challenge trials should be conducted to speed up the testing of COVID-19 vaccines.

A recent open letter directed to Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, called for broad deployment of human challenge trials for COVID-19 vaccine development. Co-signed by over 100 academics, scientists, and medical ethicists, the letter lays out several principles for safe oversight in this type of clinical trial.

Several members of the Oxford vaccine research team are also calling for human challenge trials to be run in parallel with the ongoing Phase 3 trials already underway. It has been reported that some Oxford scientists have already begun internal preparations for a human challenge trial that could commence later this year.

The new study was published in the journal The Lancet.

Source: Oxford University


Link to post
Share on other sites



Half of CDC Coronavirus Test Kits Are Inaccurate, Study Finds

Coronavirus testing has been a hot-button issue since the beginning of the pandemic. First, there weren't enough coronavirus tests to go around. Now, a new issue has emerged—just how accurate the tests people are getting actually are. According to a July 17 study published in the International Journal of Geriatrics and Rehabilitation, 50 percent of nucleic acid coronavirus tests distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided inaccurate results.

The study's lead author, Sin Hang Lee, MD, director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, found that the testing kits gave a 30 percent false-positive rate and a 20 percent false-negative rate.

To determine these false-positive and false-negative rates, the Connecticut State Department of Public Health Microbiology Laboratory provided Lee 20 tests, which were then re-tested using his own methodology, which examines samples on a cellular level, rather than just testing fluid with no cellular matter from potentially infected oral and nasal secretions.

While the results of Lee's testing may be alarming, they also pointed to yet another discovery: new mutations of the virus. Using Sanger sequencing—a method of determining nucleotide (a building block of DNA) sequences within DNA samples—two tests that initially provided false-negatives and one test that yielded a positive result were actually found to be positive for coronavirus and a mutation of the virus, meaning two variants of the virus can simultaneously infect one person.

more at the link

Link to post
Share on other sites



Study detects heart damage in majority of recovered COVID-19 patients


A pair of newly published studies in the journal JAMA Cardiology highlight the potential for long-term heart complications in recovered COVID-19 patients. The research suggests the virus can directly damage cardiovascular muscles with ongoing inflammation detectable months after recovery, even in patients originally suffering a mild form of the disease.

While much attention has been focused on the volume of deaths caused by COVID-19, now that we are six months into this global pandemic researchers are beginning to see signs of chronic health problems in recovered patients. Only now are clinicians starting to get a glimpse at the potential persistent health consequences of this new virus, and two new studies offer insights into the cardiovascular impact of COVID-19.

Back in March it was quickly apparent that patients with underlying cardiovascular disease were more likely to suffer a fatal outcome from COVID-19. However, it was unclear whether the virus was directly damaging myocardial cells, or whether there was longer-term cardiovascular damage following recovery.

The first new study investigated 100 recovered COVID-19 patients (median age of 49 years old), an average of 71 days after initial diagnosis. Using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) the study detected cardiovascular abnormalities in 78 percent of the recovered patients. Signs of myocardial inflammation were detected in 60 percent of the subjects. These abnormal results were compared to a healthy age-matched control group, and independent of any cardiovascular disease diagnosed before the patients presented with COVID-19.

Most notably, only 33 percent of the cohort studied required hospitalization during the course of their COVID-19 infection. This suggests a degree of cardiovascular damage seems to result from the disease regardless of the severity of the acute illness or the presence of any pre-existing conditions.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the researchers write in the study.

The study notes that it is possible these abnormal CMR findings were present prior to COVID-19 infection, however, it is also likely that the viral infection amplified any pre-existing cardiovascular damage. It is also unclear whether these post-COVID-19 cardiovascular effects are permanent or have long-term health consequences.

The second new study looked closely at heart tissue gathered during autopsies of 39 COVID-19 patients. The average age of the patients was 85, and the most commonly listed cause of death was pneumonia.

Traces of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were found in heart tissue of more than 60 percent of the subjects. Sixteen of the subjects were found to have clinically significant levels of viral load in their heart tissue at the time of death.

Again, there is no evidence at this stage that the viral presence in heart tissue means the disease has any long-term negative cardiovascular effects. But, the two studies combined do suggest this new virus certainly has an effect on the heart.

John Swartzberg, an infectious disease expert from UC Berkeley, says it is becoming increasingly clear COVID-19 is more than just a respiratory disease, and its long-term complications are yet to be seen.

“There is evidence now that the virus can directly attack heart muscle cells, and there’s also evidence that the cytokine storm that the virus triggers in the body not only damages the lungs, but can damage the heart,” says Swartzberg, who did not work on either of these new studies. “We don’t know what the long-term effects of that may be, but it could be that we will have a population of people who survive COVID-19 only to go on and have chronic cardiac problems.”

In a commentary accompanying the publication of the new studies, deputy editor of JAMA Cardiology Clyde Yancy and section editor Gregg Fonarow call for urgent ongoing research to better understand the cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, as preparations may be necessary for what could be another dimension to this pandemic crisis.

“We wish not to generate additional anxiety but rather to incite other investigators to carefully examine existing and prospectively collect new data in other populations to confirm or refute these findings,” write Yancy and Fonarow. “… if this high rate of risk is confirmed, the pathologic basis for progressive left ventricular dysfunction is validated, and especially if longitudinal assessment reveals new-onset heart failure in the recovery phase of COVID-19, then the crisis of COVID-19 will not abate but will instead shift to a new de novo incidence of heart failure and other chronic cardiovascular complications.”

The CMR study and the autopsy study were published in the journal JAMA Cardiology.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites



XPrize launches $5-million competition for a cheap, rapid COVID-19 tests


Further expanding the scope of its international competitions designed to solve global problems through technology, XPrize has launched a contest to develop new and improved testing methods for COVID-19. With millions of dollars of prize money up for grabs, the contest aims to usher in new technologies that allow for cheap, wide-spread testing with rapid results.

The XPrize Rapid Covid Testing competition is being held in collaboration with OpenCovidScreen, a non-profit organization working to improve testing technologies for the virus. The way these two see it, current testing for COVID-19 is expensive, invasive and slow, and is incompatible with the idea of reopening sections of society while the virus continues to circulate.

“Fast, affordable, and accessible testing is crucial to containing the COVID-19 pandemic and safely reopening schools, businesses and other vital institutions around the world,” said Anousheh Ansari, CEO of XPRIZE. “XPRIZE Rapid Covid Testing is inspiring the best entrepreneurial and scientific teams to come together to work towards rapid, affordable Covid-19 testing at scale, and ultimately, getting the world up and running again.”

The competition involves US$5 million in prize money and is open to entrants all around the world. The winning teams will demonstrate COVID-19 tests that are “radically affordable” compared to today’s, and must be able to produce results from a sample within 12 hours. The sampling methods must be minimally invasive and cost less than $15 per test.

“We’re excited to collaborate with XPRIZE and a committed group of partners who want to make a difference by innovating and building the Covid testing capability we need to safely return to work and school,” says Jeff Huber, President & Co-Founder of OpenCovidScreen. “We need solutions that are frequent, fast turnaround, cheap, and easy, and that are supply chain diverse. There is near infinite need and demand at the right price. We need screening testing capabilities 100-times greater than our current status to return our economy and society to normal function.”

The winning teams will also need to deploy their technologies and carry out a minimum of 500 tests per week at a live testing site within 60 days. Registrations are open until August 31,2020, with the competition scheduled to take six months.

You can check out the launch video below.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheap and fast would be good but how about accurate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, SkyMan said:

Cheap and fast would be good but how about accurate?

Good question.

Captain obvious time by me -  accuracy verification of active ingredients by the governments receiving the kits will be crucial, "Trust but verify", as will the time after exposure (incubation time) and usage training.

Interesting article about "false negatives"




. And the primary test for the novel coronavirus—the RT-PCR, or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction—is “actually really good,” said Jeff Pothof, chief quality officer at UW Health. “So good that if we can capture a single strand of RNA, we can get a result.” The real problem likely lies not in the lab but in the samples doctors are taking from their patients to send in for testing.




Edited by lamoe
Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of OZ have been much more adult in preventing it's spread  than US that's for sure, but this shows how difficult it can be to combat it.




A “State of Disaster” was declared for the Australian state of Victoria after almost 700 new cases of coronavirus were recorded overnight, according to reports.

The declaration is just one of several measures taken as Australia’s second most populated state grows more concerned over the pandemic situation it faces. All of Melbourne has entered Stage 4 lockdown, which goes into effect from 6 p.m. Sunday.

“If you’ve got that many cases – and they’re not just in metropolitan Melbourne, they’re in regional Victoria as well – if you have that many cases of community transmission you must assume you have even more and on that basis you can no longer be confident that you’ve got a precise understanding of how much virus is there,” Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews said during a press briefing.

“You have to err on the side of caution and go further and harder.”

The lockdown includes a nightly curfew from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., and only allows for one resident from each household to go shopping within three miles of their homes, according to the Guardian.

Residents also are restricted to one hour of daily exercise with no more than two people together.

Victoria recorded over 700 cases on Thursday of last week, giving rise to alarm within the government. The numbers dipped near the end of the week, with only 397 recorded on Saturday, but the increase to almost 700 again overnight pushed the state government to act.


The new rules will remain in place until at least Sept. 13, and Andrews promised more changes would be coming as well, the BBC reported.

“Today is about a series of changes that relate to how we live our lives,” Andrews added. “Tomorrow I’ll make further announcements about how we work.”

Victoria has found itself at the center of Australia’s pandemic, with its 11,557 cases making up the bulk of Australia’s roughly 17,000 total infections. The state also recorded 123 deaths, again making up over half of the roughly 200 deaths across the country.

The spike in Melbourne has proven to be a major setback in the country’s otherwise positive progress in combating the spread of the virus.




  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..


I Understand...