Oh definitely. It is clear as day at this point that anyone who has glucose management issues is at higher risk and if a person is obese they are either diabetic or pre-diabetic. In addition- and this is no small factor- fat cells in and of themselves are inflammatory and place an inflammation load on to the body in the best of times. That is why- or a partial explanation- obesity is linked to so many other diseases beyond just heart disease. All these people running around saying that they or so and so are "healthy even though they are obese" are misguided. No they are not. A vaccine nevertheless would help, it just can't do the whole job for them.
Quite so, as discussed. COVID-19: Hospitalization significantly higher for those overweight Professor Hamer said: "The impaired glucose and lipid metabolism (how the body uses types of fat and sugar) appears to be a plausible cause: the links between obesity and COVID-19 infection may be more complex than simple mechanical aspects of excess fat on the diaphragm." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-covid-hospitalization-significantly-higher-overweight.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nts-test-positive-months-after-virus-recovery Ah.. Bugger. Indication that the virus can reactivate itself in previously ill patients. This will be very rare I guess but it has implications.
There were some early indications of this months ago in Korea. I think it was dismissed as shoddy testing at the time
https://scitechdaily.com/single-dos...nfection-in-mice-works-better-than-injection/ Interesting. Vaccine delivery via nose seems particularly effective. Better get the chemtrail planes warmed up to defeat the trump humper anti-vaxxers. On thing I know for sure that when he loses the hastily prepared vaccines he oversaw will become democrat poison in his tweets.
COVID-19 Vaccine May Pit Science Against Politics https://www.npr.org/sections/health...d-19-vaccine-may-pit-science-against-politics Under normal circumstances, it could take years — if not decades — to bring a new vaccine to market. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed all that. In May, the Trump Administration launched Operation Warp Speed with the goal of delivering initial doses of a safe and effective vaccine by January, 2021 --shortening the development time from years to months. Some worry that to meet that ambitious schedule, the Administration might cut important scientific corners. They fear that President Trump could announce an "October surprise"-- declaring that a vaccine works before it has passed scientific muster in order to enhance his reelection chances. After all, the President ballyhooed supposed virtues of hydroxychloroquine when most scientists thought the drug was not helpful, and maybe downright dangerous in treating or preventing coronavirus infections. This week, the FDA granted authorization for using convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID-19, a move some say was done under political pressure from the White House. FDA officials have maintained that all their decisions are based on science, not politics. In June, the agency released guidance for what it would require before granting any kind of approval for the COVID-19 vaccine. The guidance states that at a minimum, the FDA wants to see any vaccine tested in thousands of people so that any relatively rare side effects can be caught, and to see if the vaccine is actually preventing disease. The agency also says the vaccine doesn't have to prevent 100% of disease to get a green light; just 50% would be sufficient. How long it would take to show that depends on several factors, including how fast volunteers can be enrolled in trials and how much virus is circulating where the trials are taking place. Certainly it's a process that would take months. The Trump Administration has vowed to cut red tape to speed the approval process, and the normal process does require a lot of data and a lot of paperwork. But the FDA has also said it would consider granting something called an Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA, to the makers of a vaccine candidate that appeared to be safe and effective. That's where critics worry political influence could creep in. "The EUA rules are loose," says Paul Offit, a vaccine developer at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Usually, the FDA would rely on the independent scientists on that committee to advise it about important decisions concerning new therapies and vaccines. Offit worries the FDA could be pressured into issuing an EUA with little or no scrutiny of that decision. It's a concern echoed by the leadership of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and HIV Medicine Association. In a letter to the FDA, they write, "We want to underscore that it is critical that FDA ensures sufficient safety and efficacy data are available and have been reviewed by internal as well as independent experts prior to granting an EUA." FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn has tried to assure skeptics that won't happen. He wrote an editorial dated Aug. 7, 2020 in the medical journal JAMA. "The physician leadership of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (including the authors of this Viewpoint) unequivocally state that candidate COVID-19 vaccines will be reviewed according to the established legal and regulatory standards for medical products," Hahn wrote. The editorial continues: "Given the widespread potential use of a COVID-19 vaccine, transparent discussion at FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will be needed prior to vaccine authorization or licensure to ensure clear public understanding of the evidence supporting vaccine safety and efficacy." Even if the evidence is made public, there could still be a robust scientific debate over whether a vaccine is ready for approval. Opinions will vary about just how convincing the data are, and whether the reported effectiveness is really adequate to rein in the pandemic. The shorter the time allotted for testing, the less likely there will be ironclad evidence that a vaccine is effective. What's more, the fewer people in whom the vaccine is tested, the less likely the testing will reveal rare but fatal side effects. Shorter testing periods also mean there's less certainty about how long any protective effect from a vaccine will last. So there are bound to be critics of any decision the FDA makes. Paul Offit says making the right decision is critical. "We have two ways out of this pandemic. One is hygienic measures — which we don't seem very good at — and two is the vaccine," he says. "Don't screw this up. The vaccine is our best way out of it at this point. And to shake the American confidence further with either an unsafe or ineffective vaccine would be, I think, a disaster." At least two other countries seem to have slighted science in making decisions about vaccines. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Aug. 11 that regulators in that country would approve a Russian-made vaccine — long before it had undergone the kind of evaluation scientists say is essential. China also reportedly began giving an unproven vaccine to its citizens in July.
Way too lengthy to read---and---get off the same old crap narrative please. You are showing yourself to be a fool.
Thank you for confirming your inability to read..... or learn. I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you properly.
Scientists see downsides to top COVID-19 vaccines from Russia, China https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-19-vaccines-from-russia-china-idUSKBN25R19H High-profile COVID-19 vaccines developed in Russia and China share a potential shortcoming: They are based on a common cold virus that many people have been exposed to, potentially limiting their effectiveness, some experts say. CanSino Biologics’ (6185.HK) vaccine, approved for military use in China, is a modified form of adenovirus type 5, or Ad5. The company is in talks to get emergency approval in several countries before completing large-scale trials, the Wall Street Journal reported last week. A vaccine developed by Moscow’s Gamaleya Institute, approved in Russia earlier this month despite limited testing, is based on Ad5 and a second less common adenovirus. “The Ad5 concerns me just because a lot of people have immunity,” said Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “I’m not sure what their strategy is ... maybe it won’t have 70% efficacy. It might have 40% efficacy, and that’s better than nothing, until something else comes along.” Vaccines are seen as essential to ending the pandemic that has claimed over 845,000 lives worldwide. Gamaleya has said its two-virus approach will address Ad5 immunity issues. Both developers have years of experience and approved Ebola vaccines based on Ad5. Neither CanSino nor Gamaleya responded to requests for comment. Researchers have experimented with Ad5-based vaccines against a variety of infections for decades, but none are widely used. They employ harmless viruses as “vectors” to ferry genes from the target virus – in this case the novel coronavirus - into human cells, prompting an immune response to fight the actual virus. But many people already have antibodies against Ad5, which could cause the immune system to attack the vector instead of responding to the coronavirus, making these vaccines less effective. Several researchers have chosen alternative adenoviruses or delivery mechanisms. Oxford University and AstraZeneca (AZN.L) based their COVID-19 vaccine on a chimpanzee adenovirus, avoiding the Ad5 issue. Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ.N) candidate uses Ad26, a comparatively rare strain. Dr. Zhou Xing, from Canada’s McMaster University, worked with CanSino on its first Ad5-based vaccine, for tuberculosis, in 2011. His team is developing an inhaled Ad5 COVID-19 vaccine, theorizing it could circumvent pre-existing immunity issues. “The Oxford vaccine candidate has quite an advantage” over the injected CanSino vaccine, he said. Xing also worries that high doses of the Ad5 vector in the CanSino vaccine could induce fever, fueling vaccine skepticism. “I think they will get good immunity in people that don’t have antibodies to the vaccine, but a lot of people do,” said Dr. Hildegund Ertl, director of the Wistar Institute Vaccine Center in Philadelphia. In China and the United States, about 40% of people have high levels of antibodies from prior Ad5 exposure. In Africa, it could be has high as 80%, experts said. HIV RISK Some scientists also worry an Ad5-based vaccine could increase chances of contracting HIV. In a 2004 trial of a Merck & Co (MRK.N) Ad5-based HIV vaccine, people with pre-existing immunity became more, not less, susceptible to the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers, including top U.S. infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a 2015 paper, said the side effect was likely unique to HIV vaccines. But they cautioned that HIV incidence should be monitored during and after trials of all Ad5-based vaccines in at-risk populations. “I would be worried about the use of those vaccines in any country or any population that was at risk of HIV, and I put our country as one of them,” said Dr. Larry Corey, co-leader of the U.S. Coronavirus Vaccine Prevention Network, who was a lead researcher on the Merck trial. Gamaleya’s vaccine will be administered in two doses: The first based on Ad26, similar to J&J’s candidate, and the second on Ad5. Alexander Gintsburg, Gamaleya’s director, has said the two-vector approach addresses the immunity issue. Ertl said it might work well enough in individuals who have been exposed to one of the two adenoviruses. Many experts expressed skepticism about the Russian vaccine after the government declared its intention to give it to high-risk groups in October without data from large pivotal trials. “Demonstrating safety and efficacy of a vaccine is very important,” said Dr. Dan Barouch, a Harvard vaccine researcher who helped design J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine. Often, he noted, large-scale trials “do not give the result that is expected or required.”