COVID-19 antivirals and vaccines (Megathread)

[Enthalpy]

Strange, don't lie to favour your misconceptions.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Absorption would make sense.

Adsorption is a surface effect.

Indeed, typo on my part, my apologies.

[13mh13]

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The virus particles are effectively disassembled, as CharonY said, so how likely will there be any immunologically-recognizable remnants after that process?

Right. And, ttbomk, that's one way in which synthetic vaccines are constructed: from viral " immunologically-recognizable remnants".

And some yearly flu vaccines are effectively administered this way:

[CharonY]

36 minutes ago, 13mh13 said:

And some yearly flu vaccines are effectively administered this way:

What you need are antigenic elements, you cannot easily isolate them from people. Or rather it is far easier to propagate it, and then create an inactivated form rather than injecting humans samples which are hopefully inactive (but may also carry other nasty stuff).

6 hours ago, studiot said:

The experts tell us that the reason why washing hands is so effective against CV is that the virus particle  is held together by a fatty blob.
washing with soap/detergent/surfactant attacks this blob and  so the virus falls apart.

Given this information I was wondering about the possibility of introducing a suitable surfactant into the lungs of seriously affected patients to reduce the concentration of virus and give their own defences a  better chance.

Pulmonary lavage is not common but has been done for other purposes.

https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1465-9921-6-138

So much of it is surface removal, too. However, considering that cell are constantly pumping out virus particles, also into the bloodstream and there are mechanisms for cell-to-cell transmission, I doubt that any physical removal would really provide a net benefit. A lavage is mostly used for sampling (at least afaik, we use to obtain lung fluid samples not sure whether there are other medical reasons.).

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Enthalpy said:

Experts are seldom thrilled by suggestions made by outsiders, but outsiders bring most progress. Yes, ideas are badly scarce,. And on the Internet, you find the same people as in companies, with the same skills but not as grossly misused.

Think at the Steinway. The production of fullerenes or graphene. The chipcard. The contactless chipcard. Many solutions for the Fukushima disaster. Paypal. SpaceX. Tesla. And so on and so forth.

Waiting for experts, or worse for known experts, to solve everything and bring all innovation is a recipe for stagnation. It's also contrary to observation.

 

There's good and not so good in this but IMHO it certainly doesn't deserve a downvote.

 

On the other hand

4 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm quite sure that medical researchers with years of experience and expertise will be thrilled to see all these suggestions from random people on the internet. I bet they have been really struggling to come up with ideas.

 

Would you also have refused to give Noether a hearing on tha basis that she had no formal qualifications ?

 

Now we have fair and honest balance we can say

2 hours ago, Strange said:

So we will leave it there.

 

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Would you also have refused to give Noether a hearing on tha basis that she had no formal qualifications ?

She was studying at a time where it was generally prohibited for women and ultimately produced a dissertation. She also taught at university in her 20s. I.e. her whole career was rather academic (not to mention private life, being the daughter of a mathematician).

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

She was studying at a time where it was generally prohibited for women and ultimately produced a dissertation. She also taught at university in her 20s. I.e. her whole career was rather academic (not to mention private life, being the daughter of a mathematician).

So ?

Remember also that I was offering balance.

But if you think Strange was right then

What abour De Havilland?

What about Charles Parsons ?

What about Columbus ?

 

Back to the present.

What about the UK government published specification for ventilators ?
It has direct bearing on the De Havilland question.

 

Edited March 24, 2020 by studiot

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Remember also that I was offering balance.

Well balance should still be factual. I do not know De Havilland but Parsons received engineering training at an engineering firm after his studies in mathematics. I do not want to derail it further but if one needs to dig back two centuries and still not find plenty of examples it does somehow indicate the rarity of such achievements, no?

Meanwhile there are countless unnamed, non-famous with training labouring away to provide all the basic information we have on this and other diseases (at times, at personal risk) which are summarily dismissed because obviously what they do is too mundane and boring. Instead, we long for stories of the untrained underdog saving humanity by having flashes of genius that are misunderstood by those actually working on it. It sure is a great Hollywood story but it sure ain't what's happening.

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well balance should still be factual. I do not know De Havilland but Parsons received engineering training at an engineering firm after his studies in mathematics. I do not want to derail it further but if one needs to dig back two centuries and still not find plenty of examples it does somehow indicate the rarity of such achievements, no?

Meanwhile there are countless unnamed, non-famous with training labouring away to provide all the basic information we have on this and other diseases (at times, at personal risk) which are summarily dismissed because obviously what they do is too mundane and boring. Instead, we long for stories of the untrained underdog saving humanity by having flashes of genius that are misunderstood by those actually working on it. It sure is a great Hollywood story but it sure ain't what's happening.

Clearly they teach a different version of History in your country.

Quote

I do not know De Havilland ........but if one needs to dig back two centuries

If you do not know the story of De Havilland (or apparently Parsons and Turbinia and the famous experts of the that time)

or the current British Government specification for emergency ventilators (as broadcast today) for covid-19 sufferers  why attempt to devalue others by such comment ?

Or do you think this is irrelevent to the discussion?

 

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

Now we have fair and honest balance we can say

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So we will leave it there.

 

 

[CharonY]

Just now, studiot said:

Clearly they teach a different version of History in your country.

What part do you object to? The only one I can think of is that the persons in question (other than Columbus of course) were born in the 19th century and lived to the 20th. But every person I was familiar with in that group had formal academic education and in the cases of the engineer, additional training on top. I am therefore not sure what the point. Medical professionals have academic training followed by residencies. How is that different? Clearly I am not understanding your point here.

Back to OP, self medication is not a good idea, apparently.

 

Quote

A Phoenix-area man is dead and his wife is under critical care after the two took chloroquine phosphate in an apparent attempt to self-medicate for the novel coronavirus, according to hospital system Banner Health.

 

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What part do you object to? The only one I can think of is that the persons in question (other than Columbus of course) were born in the 19th century and lived to the 20th. But every person I was familiar with in that group had formal academic education and in the cases of the engineer, additional training on top. I am therefore not sure what the point. Medical professionals have academic training followed by residencies. How is that different? Clearly I am not understanding your point here.

Back to OP, self medication is not a good idea, apparently.

 

 

It's incredible that people listen to Trump to that extent.

[yunus shukor]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

The experts tell us that the reason why washing hands is so effective against CV is that the virus particle  is held together by a fatty blob.
washing with soap/detergent/surfactant attacks this blob and  so the virus falls apart.

Given this information I was wondering about the possibility of introducing a suitable surfactant into the lungs of seriously affected patients to reduce the concentration of virus and give their own defences a  better chance.

Pulmonary lavage is not common but has been done for other purposes.

https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1465-9921-6-138

see

Perino J, Crouzier D, Spehner D, Debouzy JC, Garin D, Crance JM, Favier AL. Lung surfactant DPPG phospholipid inhibits vaccinia virus infection. Antiviral Res. 2011;89:89–97.

from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3247641/#R52

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, yunus shukor said:

see

Perino J, Crouzier D, Spehner D, Debouzy JC, Garin D, Crance JM, Favier AL. Lung surfactant DPPG phospholipid inhibits vaccinia virus infection. Antiviral Res. 2011;89:89–97.

from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3247641/#R52

The limitation of that study is that the virus had to be pre-treated with the surfactant to become less virulent. In the follow-ups I also only see co-treatment or in vitro assays.  It is unclear how you would employ it in an in vivo situation. If the virus is already in, there is a good change it won't do any good (or you may have pump so much into the patient that it becomes harmful). 

 

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's incredible that people listen to Trump to that extent.

It is sad that folks forgo the health information provided by the same administration. 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The limitation of that study is that the virus had to be pre-treated with the surfactant to become less virulent. In the follow-ups I also only see co-treatment or in vitro assays.  It is unclear how you would employ it in an in vivo situation. If the virus is already in, there is a good change it won't do any good (or you may have pump so much into the patient that it becomes harmful). 

 

It is sad that folks forgo the health information provided by the same administration. 

Yeah because that administration aren't relaying verbatim what their experts are telling them, unlike Boris who is clearly just a mouthpiece for them, which is as it should be.

[yunus shukor]

turns out there are in vivo studies

Numata, M., Mitchell, J. R., Tipper, J. L., Brand, J. D., Trombley, J. E., Nagashima, Y., ... & Voelker, D. R. (2020). Pulmonary surfactant lipids inhibit infections with the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus in several animal models. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 295(6), 1704-1715.

 

see references therein

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, yunus shukor said:

turns out there are in vivo studies

Numata, M., Mitchell, J. R., Tipper, J. L., Brand, J. D., Trombley, J. E., Nagashima, Y., ... & Voelker, D. R. (2020). Pulmonary surfactant lipids inhibit infections with the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus in several animal models. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 295(6), 1704-1715.

 

see references therein

Sorry, I was not clear above. They actually also used in vivo models in the previous studies, however in all cases (including the study in the quote) the viral particles were treated with the surfactant or they were co-administered with the surfactant . I.e. it is not that the animals were treated and then infected or rescued by treatment, which would be important for practical use.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah because that administration aren't relaying verbatim what their experts are telling them, unlike Boris who is clearly just a mouthpiece for them, which is as it should be.

Yeah, although at the beginning he made certain suggestions such as somhow protecting elderly and then let the infection sweep. Which was dismantled pretty quickly by health officials and then he backtracked. But at least he is not doubling down and thereby risking lives.

[13mh13]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

What you need are antigenic elements, you cannot easily isolate them from people. Or rather it is far easier to propagate it, and then create an inactivated form rather than injecting humans samples which are hopefully inactive (but may also carry other nasty stuff).

You're putting words in my mouth ... maybe in my nose!

I"M GONNA DROP THE ISSUE AFTER THIS POST  -- and if no one gets it, no one gets it! END OF LINE.

The nasal spray is synthetic way of getting scientifically-created/isolated viral fragments (vaccines) into humans/animals.

If one has naturally gotten over say a flu, breathed out dead/weak fragments to others of my species (not immune), I may communicate that "vaccine". I orig called it a "Another type of Herd Immunity" before that thread was merged into this megathread.  That was my theory ... maybe a pet theory.

END OF LINE.

[yunus shukor]

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, I was not clear above. They actually also used in vivo models in the previous studies, however in all cases (including the study in the quote) the viral particles were treated with the surfactant or they were co-administered with the surfactant . I.e. it is not that the animals were treated and then infected or rescued by treatment, which would be important for practical use.

Yeah, although at the beginning he made certain suggestions such as somhow protecting elderly and then let the infection sweep. Which was dismantled pretty quickly by health officials and then he backtracked. But at least he is not doubling down and thereby risking lives.

Thanks for the observation

The authors did suggest a possible way/reason for administering the surfactant

"This observation raises the possibility that administration of these lipids to individuals with an established and active infection may significantly reduce the successful transmission of infectious particles to other members of the same household."

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, yunus shukor said:

Thanks for the observation

The authors did suggest a possible way/reason for administering the surfactant

"This observation raises the possibility that administration of these lipids to individuals with an established and active infection may significantly reduce the successful transmission of infectious particles to other members of the same household."

Yes, that is what you normally do as an impact statement. However, such studies have been conducted since at least the 2000s. While it does not mean that it is not worthwhile pursuing,  it probably does mean that it is difficult to translate it into an effective treatment. I have not checked whether any trials have been conducted but it is not uncommon (actually far more common) that promising preliminary studies do not translate well into clinical utility. 

[studiot]

At the risk of starting another silly argument, I would like to ask

 

Does anyone have any information as to the effect of sunlight (UV) and heat on covid-19. ?

How far is it degraded by these two agents?

 

 

14 hours ago, yunus shukor said:

turns out there are in vivo studies

Numata, M., Mitchell, J. R., Tipper, J. L., Brand, J. D., Trombley, J. E., Nagashima, Y., ... & Voelker, D. R. (2020). Pulmonary surfactant lipids inhibit infections with the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus in several animal models. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 295(6), 1704-1715.

 

see references therein

 

Thanks for all the information you provided. +1

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

At the risk of starting another silly argument, I would like to ask

 

Does anyone have any information as to the effect of sunlight (UV) and heat on covid-19. ?

How far is it degraded by these two agents?

It's a different strain, but I found a study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14631830

 

"Viruses stayed stable at 4 degrees C, at room temperature (20 degrees C) and at 37 degrees C for at least 2 h without remarkable change in the infectious ability in cells, but were converted to be non-infectious after 90-, 60- and 30-min exposure at 56 degrees C, at 67 degrees C and at 75 degrees C, respectively. Irradiation of UV for 60 min on the virus in culture medium resulted in the destruction of viral infectivity at an undetectable level."

 

I don't know how to read that last sentence — the destruction was undetectable, or the infectivity was undetectable?

Also, 60 min seems like a long time in terms of using UV to sanitize surfaces.

 

(For anybody thinking that warm weather will help, 56 degrees is quite toasty.)

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's a different strain, but I found a study

Thank you. +1

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Also, 60 min seems like a long time in terms of using UV to sanitize surfaces.

 

I think it is because it is roughly the recommended time to run the UV light on bio benches. Kind of a default setting.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think it is because it is roughly the recommended time to run the UV light on bio benches. Kind of a default setting.

That makes sense to me, because if you're going to do a bio experiment you need to be absolutely sure that you have no contamination, or else your experiment is going to fail. What would be useful for studiot's question (and I am also curious) would be a study for shorter exposures, or to answer the question similar to the study about the various surfaces — how does the population vary over time, so people would know if e.g. a 5-minute exposure would be useful for sanitizing surfaces. 

[CharonY]

I vaguely remember such data but am not sure whether it was about viruses. I am going to have a look.

 

Edit, took a quick look and while it is not the paper I had in mind, but there is one on SARS-CoV-1. UV radiation source was placed 3 cm above the sample. UVA (365nm) emitted 2133 µW/cm², UVC(254nm) 4016 µW/cm². Note TCID50 is a measure of viral titer (by assessing the titer at which 50% of the host cells show cytopathic effects). So it looks that in most cases a short exposure will result in incomplete inactivation, especially under less ideal conditions.

 

Edit forgot to add: Darnell et al. 2004 J Vir Met 121:1 85-91.

They also looked at temperature: at 56 C much was inactivated after 20 min, but active viral particles could still be found for at least 60 min.

60C most inactivated after 4 min, but still incomplete after 60 min.

75C authors claim full inactivation after 40 min.