Airborne COVID-19

Here is an abstract to a review (first link below) of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a repurposed drug against COVID-19. I'll just quote the abstract and then comment on parts of it. The skinny is to overall be skeptical of news reports citing health experts. They get expertise from scientific evidence, and even today the evidence on the use of these drugs against COVID-19 is sparse and conflicting. This means their expertise is potentially inapplicable to many aspects of the virus, and should be considered opinion, not expertise. Also, news reports about science or medicine are rarely spot on. They almost always are spun to sell the news and involves misunderstanding and misinterpretation (because journalists are not usually scientists). It is especially important to realize you should engage a higher level of skepticism as the media has already demonstrated politicization of these drugs, and has already adversely influenced medical opinion. Abstract: "The p...

We’ve recently heard Nancy Pelosi call the novel coronavirus the Trump Virus. What we’ve seen the Democrats say and do this year is way beyond unconscionable. And now to start a catchphrase like that – the whole behavior on the left is just disgusting.  A second virus in the same family is again coming out of the same city (Wuhan) in China (brand new in 2003) with that country’s only level 4 bio lab that we helped fund including funding sent in 2014 (Obama years) to study bat viruses (the genetics of this coronavirus was confirmed to come from those in bats). If we attribute anyone or anywhere to the virus, it would be China or Wuhan China.  Moreover, but secondary to this discussion is, why did these two viruses from the same place coincidentally appear just before a presidential election of a Republican incumbent? The first one, SARS (SARS-CoV) appeared late 2003 before the 2004 Presidential election with G. W. Bush as the incumbent POTUS. Now it’s Trump as the incumbent (SA...

I speculated hydroxychloroquine won't help if given too late such as when pneumonia is already setting in or even shortness of breath. I also speculated giving it too early may help the virus build-up inside you, meaning there's a small window of usefulness. Regardless, the evidence suggests the dangers are well known, so it is not a dangerous drug. There are just too many unknowns, such as why the immune systems of some don't seem to "get it" until too late. If we have symptoms then our immune system is activated for it. But maybe because it starts to use existing antibodies that are mismatched and the immune system does nothing else until it goes nuts when it hits the lungs. We all do have experience with exposure to viruses in the coronavirus family. Below is the new study showing it did help reduce mortality. You decide. "Our results do differ from some other studies," Zervos told a news conference. "What we think was important in ours ... is th...

RE: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html Fox News reported the above news report as twisting the facts and an outright lie. But this article was written to address the debate of whether children spread the virus or not. The study clearly shows that children do spread the virus though they are the lowest risk to COVID-19. This is contrary to the flu and other respiratory illnesses where young children are as vulnerable as oldest adults. There is nothing magical about children other than their immune systems aren't nearly as developed as adults. One explanation I found that seems plausible is the reason why anyone dies from the virus, which is they don't actually die from the virus itself. They die from complications brought on by their overzealous immune system. Since children's immune systems are underdeveloped, perhaps their immune response is simply not dangerous. Or perhaps adults already have some antibodies to other coronavi...

Just sharing my thoughts on the impact of Ultraviolet (UV) light in sunlight on deactivating the Coronavirus. I've read articles and news reports saying sunlight doesn't kill the virus. I think they wrote such simply because Trump said it did. They mentioned the various wavelengths of UV light and how only the shortest are effective at deactivating the virus. They only offered an opinion about its lack of effectiveness against SARS-CoV2 citing past studies loosely relevant to back various points of their opinion. But they did not themselves study the effect of sunlight on the virus. There are three bands (range of wavelengths) of UV light identified based on their interactions with biological material. Understand that a band is a range of wavelengths. The shorter wavelengths are the most dangerous to genetic material. However, the shorter the wavelength the easier it is absorbed in the stratosphere. So the claims are that sunlight doesn't kill the virus. I disagree. Our ski...

The question of whether masks help prevent the spread of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has no simple answer. We have to keep in mind that the important part of the question is “help”. We aren’t expecting to go out into the world bio-lab certified. We just want to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. OSHA and others poopoo wearing masks because the virus is so small it goes right through the mask. It is true that the size of the porous routes of most masks is larger than the virus. Thus, masks do not provide “adequate filter performance”. But what is considered adequate? Again, we’re just wanting to slow the spread not make you safe to kiss someone's lips. That is why social distancing comes with mask-wearing. You see, the virus isn’t flying around on tiny little wings. It doesn't fly through the mask like it wasn’t there. The virus hitches a ride in the water droplets of our breath, AKA aerosolized. It has no choice but to reside in the water droplets due to the surf...