Covid19-Sources

Unsere monatliche Statistik wertet alle über eine Krankmeldung registrierten Fehltage von beschäftigten Mitgliedern der teilnehmenden Betriebskrankenkassen für den jeweiligen Berichtsmonat aus. Über eine interaktive Oberfläche haben Sie die Möglichkeit, sich Zeitverläufe der Krankenstände differenziert nach ausgewählten Merkmalen filtern und anzeigen zu lassen.

Managing the COVID-19 pandemic has required the implementation of public health mitigation measures to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Airborne transmission via particles of different sizes, generally called droplets and aerosols, was recognized very late by public health organizations in part due to limited direct evidence of infectious virus in air samples. SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in indoor air samples in various settings, but to this day only a few studies reported infectious virus particles in bioaerosols. Well-defined methods to monitor indoor air remain essential to inform on the risks of acquisition in the community and occupational environments and to evaluate mitigation methods. The quantity and infectivity of viral particles collected from air is strongly influenced by the samplers, the environmental context, the time of sampling and sample storage before cell culture requiring level 3 containment laboratory. In this study, we sought to assess the possibility of isolating infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus particles in a retrospective analysis of aerosol samples. We collected air samples in individual airborne isolation hospital rooms with negative pressure and 12 air changes/hour occupied by patients with acute COVID-19 in fall 2020 in Quebec, Canada when the Alpha variant was circulating but not yet detected in Quebec and before vaccines were available. Thirty samples were collected in 10 different rooms using two types of samplers selected based on previous reports, namely 37mm closed-face cassettes with 0.8μm polycarbonate filters (SKC, Eighty Four) with a flow rate of 10L air/min or a condensation growth tube (CGT) air sampler (Series 110A Liquid Spot Sampler, Aerosol Devices) with a nominal flow rate of 1.5L air/min, located at 2-3m from the patient's bed with sampling duration of 4.75-20h to cover sporadic events generating viral aerosols (Fig. 1A and B). Samples eluted in Viral Transport Media (VTM) were stored at -80°C. SARS-CoV-2 RNA (ORF1b) was detected by quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) in 9/22 (40.9%) cassettes and 2/8 (25%) Spot Sampler samples with concentration ranging from 129 to 2056 genomes equivalent/m3 air (Fig. 1B). We interrogated for the presence of replicating virus in four samples (two Spot Sampler and two cassettes) collected from the same patient room among the highest RNA concentrations detected (Fig. 1B). The samples had been stored 14 months before carrying out the cell culture experiments. We first confirmed that our cell culture design clearly differentiated between replicating and non-replicating virus. VERO E6 cells were inoculated with 150 pfu (chosen based on the mean copy number of the air samples analyzed) of replicating or β-propiolactone (BPL)-inactivated SARS-CoV-2/SB2 isolate (obtained from Dr. Samira Mubareka, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada). Signs of cytopathic effects (CPE) attributable to SARS-CoV-2 replication (Fig. 1C), cellular expression of spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins (Fig. 1D), and production of de novo virions quantified via the median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) were observed at 3 days of infection with the replicating virus (Fig. 1E), while none of these parameters turned positive 2 hours after inoculation, or when using BPL-inactivated SARS-CoV-2. Having confirmed that only actively replicating virus led to positive read-outs, we proceeded with the analysis of air samples. As air samples contained low SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels (Fig. 1B), two successive cycles of infection of VERO E6 cells were carried out to maximize the amplification of the virus and therefore the detection of viable particles (Fig. 1F). One sample (#23), collected using the Spot Sampler, induced detectable CPE, with destruction of the monolayer inferior to that observed after infection with 150 pfu of SARS-CoV-2/SB2 isolate (Fig. 1G), cellular S and N expression (Fig. 1H) and de novo production of infectious virions (Fig. 1I). The titer of virions after 2 cycles of infection was of 6.32 × 107 TCID50/mL, which is 5.67 times lower than the titer observed after infection with 150 pfu of SARS-CoV-2/SB2 isolate (Fig. 1I). TCID50 analysis also allowed the detection of virions (3.57 × 102 TCID50/mL) in the supernatant of cells infected with sample #22 after 2 rounds of infection, while neither CPE nor S and N expression were observed (Fig. 1G–I). Neither of the two samples collected with the cassette produced detectable CPE, viral proteins expression or de novo virions (Fig. 1G–I). We combined measurement of virus-induced CPE, immunoblotting of viral proteins and titration of infectious virions as read-outs to provide clear demonstration of the infectivity of the virus. Immunoblotting against viral proteins confirmed the identity of SARS-CoV-2 in sample #23. RT-qPCR of N performed on the supernatant at day 3 of the second inoculation (not shown), further confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2. No SARS-CoV-2 N RNA was detected in sample #22 making it impossible to infer on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in this sample. The only sample from which we successfully retrieved virus capable of replicating in cell culture was collected using the Spot Sampler. This is consistent with previous reports suggesting that CGT samplers allow collection of airborne SARS-CoV-2 and at least partially preserve virion infectivity. Patient's (45-year-old female known only for diabetes) characteristics that may have influenced aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2 were no immunization against COVID-19, symptomatic for 7 days including severe cough, and requirement of oxygen administration by nasal canula (2L/min) on the day of air sampling. No aerosol generating procedure occurred during air sampling. A nasopharyngeal swab collected 48h prior to the air sampling was positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Fig. 1B). In conclusion, we provide much needed additional evidence for the presence of replicating SARS-CoV-2 virions in bioaerosols. Our results highlight the possibility to recover replicative virus particles in air samples after freezing at -80°C in VTM and storage for several months. Our results are important as they provide rationale for retrospective evaluation of the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in samples collected during the different waves since 2020.

NIH-funded study suggests need to boost CD8+ T cell response after infection.

The evidence continues to point to the Huanan Market. The ongoing debate, though, is fueling bad policy.

Das Coronavirus dringt über die Schleimhäute in den Körper – ein neuer Impfstoff soll es genau dort bekämpfen. Appliziert wird er direkt in die Nase. In Tierversuchen wirkt das Vakzin besonders gut.

The term “lockdown” has become a powerful and perverted word in the infodemic about democracies’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown, as used in public discourse, has expanded to include any public health measure, even if it places little to no restriction on social mobility or

We read with interest the article by Zhong et al.1

XBB.1.5 will likely increase the frequency of COVID eye infections

Interessante Statistik von der Toronto School of Cities zur #Normalitätssimulation: Während die meisten Menschen „mit dem Virus leben“, zeigt sich, dass die Innenstädte in den USA und Kanada im Herbst 2022 immer noch viel weniger Aktivität verzeichnen als vor der Pandemie. pic.twitter.com/CXKjIji0Ww— @dm_ms@mstdn.science (@dm_ms) April 17, 2023

Is the tendency to share with other people linked to political orientation? And in which way? In a new study, researchers from the IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, ...

Rekordmange blir sykmeldt fordi de er for slappe og trette til å jobbe. I fjor gikk 1,3 millioner dagsverk tapt, ifølge tall fra NAV. Årsaken er trolig senvirkninger av covid-19.

Nature Reviews Rheumatology - The full picture of post-COVID-19 autoimmune diseases and their prevalence is lacking despite numerous case reports and small series. Two studies that use large...

Nature Communications - There is limited data on within-host SARS-CoV-2 genetic diversity and how it is affected by vaccination. The authors analysed intra-host sequence diversity and found that...

Different SARS-CoV-2 variants can differentially affect the prevalence of Post Covid-19 Condition (PCC). This prospective study assesses prevalence and severity of symptoms three months after an Omicron infection, compared to Delta, test-negative and population controls. This study also assesses symptomology after reinfection and breakthrough infections . Methods: After a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, cases were classified as Omicron or Delta based on ≥ 85% surveillance prevalence. Population controls were representatively invited and symptomatic test- negative controls enrolled after a negative SARS-CoV-2 test. Three months after enrolment, participants indicated point prevalence for 41 symptoms and severity of four symptoms. Permutation tests identified significantly elevated symptoms in cases compared to controls. PCC prevalence was estimated as the difference in prevalence of at least one elevated symptom in cases compared to population controls. Findings: At three months follow-up, five symptoms and severe dyspnea were significantly elevated in Omicron cases (n = 4138) compared to test-negative (n= 1672) and population controls (n= 2762). PCC prevalence was 10·4% for Omicron cases and 17·7% for Delta cases (n = 6855). Prevalence of severe fatigue and dyspnea were higher in reinfected compared to primary infected Omicron cases, while severity of symptoms did not significantly differ between Omicron cases with a booster or primary vaccination course. Interpretation: Three months after Omicron, prevalence of PCC is 41% lower than after Delta. Reinfection seems associated with more prevalent severe long-term symptoms compared to a first infection. A booster prior to infection does not seem to improve the outcome of long-term symptoms.

Reinfections worse than first time COVID. More breathing difficulty, tiredness (Long COVID) after repeat COVID. Boosters waned/offered limited protection against long term symptoms.Study from National Institute for Public Health, Netherlands.1/2https://t.co/dHbgACnDwz pic.twitter.com/7auoJQLwDL— Rajeev Jayadevan (@RajeevJayadevan) April 8, 2023

Thought COVID was done with the surprises? Not yet, apparently. Those itchy, red eyes you have that you assumed were just the start of allergy season? It could very well be something called “Arcturus” instead. XBB.1.16, a subvariant of the Omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus that has acquired that unusual stellar label, appears to be spreading quickly in some…

Nature - A human–SARS-CoV-2 protein interaction map highlights cellular processes that are hijacked by the virus and that can be targeted by existing drugs, including inhibitors of mRNA...

Indoor superspreading events are significant drivers of transmission of respiratory diseases. In this work, we study the dynamics of airborne transmission in consecutive meetings of individuals in enclosed spaces. In contrast to the usual pairwise-interaction models of infection where effective contacts transmit the disease, we focus on group interactions where individuals with distinct health states meet simultaneously. Specifically, the disease is transmitted by infected individuals exhaling droplets (contributing to the viral load in the closed space) and susceptible ones inhaling the contaminated air. We propose a modeling framework that couples the fast dynamics of the viral load attained over meetings in enclosed spaces and the slow dynamics of disease progression at the population level. Our modeling framework incorporates the multiple time scales involved in different setups in which indoor events may happen, from single-time events to events hosting multiple meetings per day, over many days. We present theoretical and numerical results of trade-offs between the room characteristics (ventilation system efficiency and air mass) and the group’s behavioral and composition characteristics (group size, mask compliance, testing, meeting time, and break times), that inform indoor policies to achieve disease control in closed environments through different pathways. Our results emphasize the impact of break times, mask-wearing, and testing on facilitating the conditions to achieve disease control. We study scenarios of different break times, mask compliance, and testing. We also derive policy guidelines to contain the infection rate under a certain threshold.

Even younger people who had mild COVID-19 showed persistent cognitive impairments.

The mechanism of Long Covid (Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19; PASC) is currently unknown, with no validated diagnostics or therapeutics. SARS-CoV-2 can cause disseminated infections that result in multi-system tissue damage, dysregulated inflammation, and cellular metabolic disruptions. The tissue damage and inflammation has been shown to impair microvascular circulation, resulting in hypoxia, which coupled with virally-induced metabolic reprogramming, increases cellular anaerobic respiration. Both acute and PASC patients show systemic dysregulation of multiple markers of the acid-base balance. Based on these data, we hypothesize that the shift to anaerobic respiration causes an acid-base disruption that can affect every organ system and underpins the symptoms of PASC. This hypothesis can be tested by longitudinally evaluating acid-base markers in PASC patients and controls over the course of a month. If our hypothesis is correct, this could have significant implications for our understanding of PASC and our ability to develop effective diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Our governments and healthcare systems are rolling back COVID protections while largely ignoring the devastating effects these actions will have on reproductive health inequities.

an AI researcher going back to school for immunology

Although treatment with AXA1125 did not improve the primary endpoint (τPCr-measure of mitochondrial respiration), when compared to placebo, there was a significant improvement in fatigue-based symptoms among patients living with Long COVID following a four week treatment period. Further multicentre studies are needed to validate our findings in a larger cohort of patients with fatigue-dominant Long COVID.

Although health outcomes continued to improve, our study suggested that SARS survivors still suffered from physical fatigue, osteoporosis, and necrosis of the femoral head 18 years after discharge, possibly related to plasma metabolic disorders and immunological alterations.

Here the authors report the formation of toxic clumps of protein, similar to amyloid assemblies found in Alzheimer’s disease and suggest their possible role for some of the neurological symptoms of long-COVID.

WHO is the FAMILY XBB.1* ?(XBB.1, XBB.1.5, XBB.1.9, XBB.1.16, ...)(layman terms)Since the emergence of the BQ.1* we said, that the pandemic has changed its face, and that it is necessary to analyze the emergence of variants by family and not by singular variant. pic.twitter.com/2SPSSNkObg— Emmanuel (@ejustin46) April 15, 2023

Background Respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, can infect the eyes or pass into the nose via the nasolacrimal duct. The importance of transmission via the eyes is unknown but might plausibly be reduced in those who wear glasses. Previous studies have mainly focussed on protective eyewear in healthcare settings. Methods Participants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales responded to a questionnaire on the use of glasses and contact lenses. This included frequency of use, purpose, and likelihood of wearing a mask with glasses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage with Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2), weekly questionnaires to self-report positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike). A multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, income and occupation, was used to identify odds of infection depending on the frequency and purpose of using glasses or contact lenses. Findings 19,166 Virus Watch participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore glasses. A multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using glasses always for general use (OR 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, p = 0.002) compared to those who never wore glasses. The protective effect was reduced in those who said that wearing glasses interfered with mask wearing. No protective effect was seen for contact lens wearers. Interpretation People who wear glasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection highlighting the importance of the eye as a route of infection. Eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings. Funding The research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care’s Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. Funding from the HSE Protect study, GOSH Children’s Charity and the Great Ormond Street Hospital BRC supported the involvement of CO in the project. Evidence before the study Despite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes, very few countries have advocated eye protection to reduce transmission amongst the public and, except when providing close care for those known or suspected to be infected, is variable and based on case-by-case assessment of exposure risk. The mechanism, but not the extent, of the transmission route through the eyes is well described in the literature, with several studies reporting detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the tear film, conjunctiva and conjunctival sac. There have been a small number of hospital based observational studies suggesting that eye protection may help prevent COVID-19 infection. A literature search was carried out on 23rd February 2022 across Medline and Embase using the search terms ‘eyewear’, ‘glasses’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘SARS’, ‘transmission’ and ‘infectivity’, providing 105 manuscripts. Of these, only eight investigated the risk of infection associated with eye protection, all in hospital settings or followed a cohort of healthcare workers. Among the studies was a systematic review that identified 5 observational studies from 898 articles that were screened. The cohort study with the largest sample size, 345 healthcare professionals, demonstrated a relative risk of 10.25 (95% CI 1.28–82.39; P = 0.009) for infection when not using eye protection. No studies of the potential protective effect of glasses wearing, for visual correction, in community settings were identified. Added value of this study The Virus Watch study is a prospective community household study across England and Wales. 19,166 participants responded to the monthly questionnaire on glasses and contact lens use, assessing reported frequency, the purpose of use and how likely they were to wear a mask with glasses. Infections were identified in data linked to the Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 testing), weekly surveys seeking self-reports of polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow device results and, in a subset of 11,701, self-collected capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike - nucleocapsid antibodies were taken as evidence of prior infection as these are unaffected by vaccination). Our multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, household income and occupation, demonstrated 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported always using glasses for general use compared to those who never wear glasses. The protective effect was not observed in those who strongly agreed with the statement, ‘I am less likely to wear a face covering when I have my glasses on because my glasses steam up’. Counterfactual analysis of contact lenses did not suggest a protective effect regardless of frequency of use. Implications of all the available evidence The findings of this study demonstrate a moderate reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those who always wear glasses compared to never. Unlike other studies, our results are representative of a community setting, adjust for potential confounders and provide a counterfactual analysis with contact lenses. This extends the current evidence to community settings and validates proposed biological mechanisms of eye protection reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement The research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care's Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. Funding from the HSE Protect study, GOSH Children's Charity and the Great Ormond Street Hospital BRC supported the involvement of CO in the project. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study has been approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee. Ethics approval number - 20/HRA/2320. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Nature Communications - The development of direct-acting antivirals to combat COVID-19 remains an important goal. Here the authors design covalent inhibitors that target the papain-like protease...

Inhibitor molecule disrupts the infection mechanism of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.