Coronavirus News & Updates

[Khafee]

Pangolin immune system may hold clues to COVID-19 treatment
May 8, 2020

Research suggests the new coronavirus moved from bats to pangolins sold in a Chinese market, and jumped to humans. Photo courtesy of HealthDay News


They're small spiny mammals that look like anteaters with scales.

And pangolins -- which some credit with playing a role in the emergence of the new coronavirus -- might hold clues to fighting COVID-19.

Genetic research into the new coronavirus has suggested that it originated in bats, found its way into pangolins sold at Chinese "wet markets," and then migrated into humans.

So why doesn't the virus sicken and kill pangolins?

In a new study, researchers at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria analyzed the genomic blueprint of pangolins and compared it to other mammals including humans, cats, dogs and cattle.

In most mammals, certain genes detect when a virus enters the body, triggering an immune response against the invader.

But pangolins lack two of these virus-sensing genes, the research team reported in the May 8 issue of the journal Frontiers in Immunology. Whether or not that difference shields the creatures from COVID-19 isn't known, but warrants further investigation.

The Austrian scientists believe their findings are important because it means that while pangolins can be carriers of the new coronavirus, they may have ways to keep its nastier effects at bay.

Learning more about this evolutionary advantage in pangolins may suggest possible treatments for coronavirus in humans, the team said.

"Our work shows that pangolins have survived through millions of years of evolution without a type of antiviral defense that is used by all other mammals," study co-author Dr. Leopold Eckhart said in a journal news release.

"Further studies of pangolins will uncover how they manage to survive viral infections, and this might help to devise new treatment strategies for people with viral infections," Eckhart added.

In humans, the new coronavirus can cause an inflammatory immune response called a cytokine storm, which results in more severe illness.

An overactivated immune system can be moderated, however, "by reducing the intensity or by changing the timing of the defense reaction," Eckhart said.

Drugs that suppress gene signaling might therefore be a possible treatment option for severe cases of COVID-19, Eckhart said. But there's a hitch: Any immune-suppressing drug could make patients more vulnerable to other infections.

So, "the main challenge is to reduce the response to the pathogen while maintaining sufficient control of the virus," Eckhart said.

 

[Zeeman]

My friend here in Toronto.
Imagine if vaccine is invented by a Pakistani Muslim scientist !!!!


Development of COVID-19 Vaccine:

It is a great privilege bestowed on my parent organization DELTA HEALTH out of New York that we have been selected to partner with a biotechnology company to develop a very promising novel formulation of a vaccine for COVID-19. I have been honoured to lead the clinical program and develop the clinical trials for the vaccine development. I would request all of you to please pray for the success of the development of the vaccine which is expected to benefit millions of people around the world!

 

[Zeeman]

India under Modi is limited to people of upper caste Hindus ,BJP /RSS members , and certain upper and middle class. Muslims , lower class and Sikhs not considered as indians or humans anymore.

Smoke, mirrors and Modi: A grand illusion of governance

Emotion and grand political statements may normally distract and attract voters. In a crisis, they are poor substitutes for governance.

scroll.in

 

[Khafee]

How Deadly Are The Two (Yes, Two) Coronavirus Strains?
The difference between the L-Strain and S-Strain amounts to two specific amino acids—sort of like a change of two lines of code in a computer program.
by Sebastien Roblin

Here's What You Need To Remember: “Rapidly growing local outbreaks get sampled intensively and result in overrepresentation of some variants. This happened early on around the Wuhan Seafood market and now with the Italian outbreak. Any statistical inference needs to account for such sampling biases and just taking values at face values will result in wrong, misleading, or downright dangerous inferences.”

On March 3, 2020, Dr. Xiaolu Tang and his colleagues at Peking University and other institutions published a study in the National Science Review which caused a stir in a world preoccupied by the inexorable spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019). From cases identified in China and abroad, he and his colleagues had identified two distinct strains of the virus.

According to the study, which you can read here, the so-called S-Strain is the original, “ancestral” strain of the disease mutated from a coronavirus transmissible between bats. The second, L-Strain, by comparison, evolved from the S-Strain but appears to spread more quickly because it predominated in early cases of the disease identified in Wuhan.

But in a twist, when he analyzed a later, wider sample set he found that the older S-Type appeared to be spreading more frequently than in the initial outbreak.

In this article we’ll delve into why that may be happening and also why experts warn it’s unclear that the differences between the two strains are significant.

Mutating Viruses
COVID-2019 is an RNA virus, which means it uses ribonucleic acid to encode its genetic material instead of DNA. RNA viruses, which include viruses like Ebola, influenza, rabies, and even the common cold, tend to mutate extremely frequently because their polymerase enzymes used for reproduction aren’t as good at “proofreading” for errors when transcribing genetic code. The constant mutations make RNA viruses more of a moving target which annually require new vaccines to cure.

Still, that means it’s not intrinsically remarkable that there are already multiple strains of COVID-2019 circulating according to scientists. Furthermore, mutations cut both ways—they can make viruses less deadly as well as more deadly, or may even have no significant effect. And a “successful” mutation—one that improves the virus’s odds of propagation—isn’t necessarily one that makes it more deadly.

The difference between the L-Strain and S-Strain amounts to two specific amino acids—sort of like a change of two lines of code in a computer program. However, the report’s authors concede they’re not sure what impact the changes have (“the concerned amino acid…plays a yet undefined role in the viral life cycle.”)

Scientists claim that for now the difference is small enough that a treatment against one strain will likely remain effective against the other.

Aggressive L-Strain and Ancestral S-Strain?
Nonetheless, Xiaolu’s study suggests there may be different traits in the two strains.

The initial sample consisted of strains isolated Wuhan—the city where the COVID-2019 outbreak began—prior to January 7, 2020. He found 26 L-Type strains and just one S-Type. The paper characterizes the L-Strain as being “more aggressive and spread more quickly.”

In fact, it states the S-Type is the original, “ancestral” form of COVID-2019, while the L-Type is a mutation. Reportedly, the L-Strain genome diverges only 4 percent from the bat coronavirus designated RaTG-13.

By contrast, “our mutational load analysis indicated that the L-type had accumulated a significantly higher number of derived mutations than S-type.”

Here’s where the narratives become more complicated. In a subsequent sample of cases identified after January 7 elsewhere in China (save for one) and in foreign countries, he counted 72 L-Types and 29 S-Type viruses. That means the older S-Strain actually appeared to become more common, not less, than the supposedly more aggressive L-Strain.

In his words: “…the S type, which is evolutionarily older and less aggressive, might have increased in relative frequency due to relatively weaker selective pressure.”

What explains that paradox? Xiaolu’s hypothesis is that it all comes down to human intervention—namely that measures taken to contain COVID-2019 by humans may have impacted L-Strain infections more than S-Strain, selecting in favor of the latter.

Xiaolu doesn’t elaborate much on how intervention might have affected the two strains’ relative success in propagating. Perhaps the L-Strain’s symptoms manifested faster or more dramatically, allowing persons with the L-Strain to be identified and isolated faster while the less mutated S-Strain cases remained under the radar for longer.

Xiaolu’s study also found another peculiarity: a 63-year-old Chicagoan who returned from a visit to Wuhan carrying both strains of the disease, resulting in heteroplasmy.

Skeptics: When is a Strain a Strain?
However, some medical experts question whether the difference between the two strains are large enough to be significant, and whether Xiaolu’s limited available sample is broad enough to be representative, and thus confirm that the two strains have meaningfully different characteristics.

You can read a letter written by four virologists here expounding on these criticisms, claiming the study could lead to “dangerous misinformation,” as well as the response from Chinese researchers explaining their reasoning.

Dr. Scott Weaver, director of the Institute for Human Infections and Immunity, said in a Q&A session organized by the Texas Medical Center “I think, in reality, there’s very little evidence so far that there’s any meaningful difference between those strains. […] It’s too early to know if… these two differences have any effect on the way the virus replicates and causes disease.”

“The differences between the two identified strains are tiny. In fact, they can’t really be considered to be separate ‘strains,’” virology professor Dr. Ian Jones of the University of Reading told The New Scientist. “In all practical terms, the virus is as it was when it originally emerged. There’s no evidence it is getting any worse.” (Other scientists in the same article, however, support the use of the term “strain”.)

Biologist Richard Nehrer argues in a tweet that apparent differences between L-strain and S-strain were “most likely a statistical artefact” that un-representative of the disease as a whole:

“Rapidly growing local outbreaks get sampled intensively and result in overrepresentation of some variants. This happened early on around the Wuhan Seafood market and now with the Italian outbreak. Any statistical inference needs to account for such sampling biases and just taking values at face values will result in wrong, misleading, or downright dangerous inferences.”

But some medical experts seemingly infer more from Xialou’s study.

For example, Dr. James Todaro tweeted “The mild [S-strain] is becoming more prevalent compared to January. This makes sense. The strain that dominates/spreads is the one that allows people to remain social and travel—not the one that kills.” He concludes the milder S-Strain will propagate, resulting in more humans surviving the virus and developing immunity against both types.

Dr. Nicole Saphier similarly told Fox News “The ‘L’ strain tends to be the more lethal or severe strain, while the ‘S’ strain seems to have more mild symptoms… So what we are seeing is actually more of the mild strain of the virus because it doesn't actually want to kill the host.”

However, Dr. Jones told Newsweek that misinterprets “aggressive” to mean the L-Strain is more likely to kill, whereas Xiaolu was actually describing an increased rate of transmission.

“What they mean is that the virus transmits more easily, not that it causes worse disease,” he said.

From my own reading of Xialou’s paper, I see no mention of increased severity or mortality for the L-strain, but I do see explicit mention of increased transmissibility: “…our results suggest the L might be more aggressive than the S type due to the potentially higher transmission and/or replication rates.”

Indeed, Xiaolu et al. have added an addendum to their piece: “We now recognize that within the context of our study the term “aggressive” is misleading and should be replaced by a more precise term ‘a higher frequency’. In short, while we have shown that the two lineages naturally co-exist, we provided no evidence supporting any epidemiological conclusion regarding the virulence or pathogenicity…”

Another article by Science magazine discussing the tracking of COVID-2019 strains in Europe similarly concludes that over-interpreting the limited pool of available data poses the risk of leading to inaccurate conclusions.

Thus, the safest interpretation is that S-strain predates the L-Strain, but that—based on a very limited initial data set—the older strain may have increased in frequency after the initial outbreak.

Scientists will certainly seek to track the frequency of COVID-2019 strains, and study them and future mutations for characteristics that could affect transmissibility and severity. But until more data is available, it’s important not to over-interpret the fragmentary evidence available.

 

[Falcon29]

@mtime7

What's new bud? Has your state relaxed stay at home orders yet? Our state is realizing a decrease in cases over the past two weeks and we may begin to ease our way back into a semi normal state.

 

[Khafee]

View attachment 12836
How Deadly Are The Two (Yes, Two) Coronavirus Strains?
The difference between the L-Strain and S-Strain amounts to two specific amino acids—sort of like a change of two lines of code in a computer program.
by Sebastien Roblin

Here's What You Need To Remember: “Rapidly growing local outbreaks get sampled intensively and result in overrepresentation of some variants. This happened early on around the Wuhan Seafood market and now with the Italian outbreak. Any statistical inference needs to account for such sampling biases and just taking values at face values will result in wrong, misleading, or downright dangerous inferences.”

On March 3, 2020, Dr. Xiaolu Tang and his colleagues at Peking University and other institutions published a study in the National Science Review which caused a stir in a world preoccupied by the inexorable spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019). From cases identified in China and abroad, he and his colleagues had identified two distinct strains of the virus.

According to the study, which you can read here, the so-called S-Strain is the original, “ancestral” strain of the disease mutated from a coronavirus transmissible between bats. The second, L-Strain, by comparison, evolved from the S-Strain but appears to spread more quickly because it predominated in early cases of the disease identified in Wuhan.

But in a twist, when he analyzed a later, wider sample set he found that the older S-Type appeared to be spreading more frequently than in the initial outbreak.

In this article we’ll delve into why that may be happening and also why experts warn it’s unclear that the differences between the two strains are significant.

Mutating Viruses
COVID-2019 is an RNA virus, which means it uses ribonucleic acid to encode its genetic material instead of DNA. RNA viruses, which include viruses like Ebola, influenza, rabies, and even the common cold, tend to mutate extremely frequently because their polymerase enzymes used for reproduction aren’t as good at “proofreading” for errors when transcribing genetic code. The constant mutations make RNA viruses more of a moving target which annually require new vaccines to cure.

Still, that means it’s not intrinsically remarkable that there are already multiple strains of COVID-2019 circulating according to scientists. Furthermore, mutations cut both ways—they can make viruses less deadly as well as more deadly, or may even have no significant effect. And a “successful” mutation—one that improves the virus’s odds of propagation—isn’t necessarily one that makes it more deadly.

The difference between the L-Strain and S-Strain amounts to two specific amino acids—sort of like a change of two lines of code in a computer program. However, the report’s authors concede they’re not sure what impact the changes have (“the concerned amino acid…plays a yet undefined role in the viral life cycle.”)

Scientists claim that for now the difference is small enough that a treatment against one strain will likely remain effective against the other.

Aggressive L-Strain and Ancestral S-Strain?
Nonetheless, Xiaolu’s study suggests there may be different traits in the two strains.

The initial sample consisted of strains isolated Wuhan—the city where the COVID-2019 outbreak began—prior to January 7, 2020. He found 26 L-Type strains and just one S-Type. The paper characterizes the L-Strain as being “more aggressive and spread more quickly.”

In fact, it states the S-Type is the original, “ancestral” form of COVID-2019, while the L-Type is a mutation. Reportedly, the L-Strain genome diverges only 4 percent from the bat coronavirus designated RaTG-13.

By contrast, “our mutational load analysis indicated that the L-type had accumulated a significantly higher number of derived mutations than S-type.”

Here’s where the narratives become more complicated. In a subsequent sample of cases identified after January 7 elsewhere in China (save for one) and in foreign countries, he counted 72 L-Types and 29 S-Type viruses. That means the older S-Strain actually appeared to become more common, not less, than the supposedly more aggressive L-Strain.

In his words: “…the S type, which is evolutionarily older and less aggressive, might have increased in relative frequency due to relatively weaker selective pressure.”

What explains that paradox? Xiaolu’s hypothesis is that it all comes down to human intervention—namely that measures taken to contain COVID-2019 by humans may have impacted L-Strain infections more than S-Strain, selecting in favor of the latter.

Xiaolu doesn’t elaborate much on how intervention might have affected the two strains’ relative success in propagating. Perhaps the L-Strain’s symptoms manifested faster or more dramatically, allowing persons with the L-Strain to be identified and isolated faster while the less mutated S-Strain cases remained under the radar for longer.

Xiaolu’s study also found another peculiarity: a 63-year-old Chicagoan who returned from a visit to Wuhan carrying both strains of the disease, resulting in heteroplasmy.

Skeptics: When is a Strain a Strain?
However, some medical experts question whether the difference between the two strains are large enough to be significant, and whether Xiaolu’s limited available sample is broad enough to be representative, and thus confirm that the two strains have meaningfully different characteristics.

You can read a letter written by four virologists here expounding on these criticisms, claiming the study could lead to “dangerous misinformation,” as well as the response from Chinese researchers explaining their reasoning.

Dr. Scott Weaver, director of the Institute for Human Infections and Immunity, said in a Q&A session organized by the Texas Medical Center “I think, in reality, there’s very little evidence so far that there’s any meaningful difference between those strains. […] It’s too early to know if… these two differences have any effect on the way the virus replicates and causes disease.”

“The differences between the two identified strains are tiny. In fact, they can’t really be considered to be separate ‘strains,’” virology professor Dr. Ian Jones of the University of Reading told The New Scientist. “In all practical terms, the virus is as it was when it originally emerged. There’s no evidence it is getting any worse.” (Other scientists in the same article, however, support the use of the term “strain”.)

Biologist Richard Nehrer argues in a tweet that apparent differences between L-strain and S-strain were “most likely a statistical artefact” that un-representative of the disease as a whole:

“Rapidly growing local outbreaks get sampled intensively and result in overrepresentation of some variants. This happened early on around the Wuhan Seafood market and now with the Italian outbreak. Any statistical inference needs to account for such sampling biases and just taking values at face values will result in wrong, misleading, or downright dangerous inferences.”

But some medical experts seemingly infer more from Xialou’s study.

For example, Dr. James Todaro tweeted “The mild [S-strain] is becoming more prevalent compared to January. This makes sense. The strain that dominates/spreads is the one that allows people to remain social and travel—not the one that kills.” He concludes the milder S-Strain will propagate, resulting in more humans surviving the virus and developing immunity against both types.

Dr. Nicole Saphier similarly told Fox News “The ‘L’ strain tends to be the more lethal or severe strain, while the ‘S’ strain seems to have more mild symptoms… So what we are seeing is actually more of the mild strain of the virus because it doesn't actually want to kill the host.”

However, Dr. Jones told Newsweek that misinterprets “aggressive” to mean the L-Strain is more likely to kill, whereas Xiaolu was actually describing an increased rate of transmission.

“What they mean is that the virus transmits more easily, not that it causes worse disease,” he said.

From my own reading of Xialou’s paper, I see no mention of increased severity or mortality for the L-strain, but I do see explicit mention of increased transmissibility: “…our results suggest the L might be more aggressive than the S type due to the potentially higher transmission and/or replication rates.”

Indeed, Xiaolu et al. have added an addendum to their piece: “We now recognize that within the context of our study the term “aggressive” is misleading and should be replaced by a more precise term ‘a higher frequency’. In short, while we have shown that the two lineages naturally co-exist, we provided no evidence supporting any epidemiological conclusion regarding the virulence or pathogenicity…”

Another article by Science magazine discussing the tracking of COVID-2019 strains in Europe similarly concludes that over-interpreting the limited pool of available data poses the risk of leading to inaccurate conclusions.

Thus, the safest interpretation is that S-strain predates the L-Strain, but that—based on a very limited initial data set—the older strain may have increased in frequency after the initial outbreak.

Scientists will certainly seek to track the frequency of COVID-2019 strains, and study them and future mutations for characteristics that could affect transmissibility and severity. But until more data is available, it’s important not to over-interpret the fragmentary evidence available.

@Zeeman Doc, Plain English, If you can?

 

[space cadet]

@mtime7

What's new bud? Has your state relaxed stay at home orders yet? Our state is realizing a decrease in cases over the past two weeks and we may begin to ease our way back into a semi normal state.

We are opening back up, cases are still rising. Hopefully the old folks will stay home, except our mayor apparently isn't following his own rules, him and some other old folks were pictured together at the country club having drinks. I hope you are well and young, the people in their 20's and 30's without pre existing conditions, I think should have been allowed to just continue on with their lives.
Be safe brother

 

[space cadet]

@Zeeman Doc, Plain English, If you can?

Yes, would like to here from Doc on this.
Several weeks ago listening to talk radio, they had Doctor OZ on to give updates on Coronavirus, one of the things he said was that the strain that they have in NYC was the deadliest strain that seems to be passed most easily. Now I here reports that 60% of cases in the US came from travel from New York

 

[Zeeman]

@Zeeman Doc, Plain English, If you can?

Sir virus mutates means it changes its DNA/-RNA or lipid coat etc
..... sometimes virus are very alike.... you must have heard of flu virus version each year... they are basically the same but different versions .... like F16A/B/C.....some are deadly and some are so so

Mutations are not all bad .... sometimes they render virus less harmless and sometimes more. The problem is vaccine.... you are running after one strain and long behold another strain shows up. There is no guarantee it will be effective against all strains ....

 

[Zeeman]

The problem is if their DNA/RNA coding changes . Virus acts by using lipid markers ( lock and key sort of mechanism ) and then gain access to inside of normal cell and then replicates and make lots of copies of itself or produce harmful proteins that go on to damage other cells. Either way multiple strains are the real headache ...

 

[Zeeman]

Indian lockdown is going to continue. With every week of lock down we will see more economic downfall. Two weeks ago Indian were celebrating that Pakistan economy is expected to contract 1.5 percent.
Today reports state that Indian economy is projected to contract .4 percent ..... and with continuing lock down they have not even touched their bottom yet. Very soon they will beat us in sha Allah .

Modi’s drama today of his stimulus package is simply not doable .... he has packages old wine in a shiny bottle and presenting as a premium drink. Good luck.
Again Infia is attacking China and hoping to cash into Western desire for an alternative supply chain.

Modi unveils $266bn stimulus package to revive Indian economy

Prime minister sees opportunity to cash in on China’s damaged reputation

www.google.ca

 

[space cadet]

COVID-19 expert: Coronavirus will rage 'until it infects everybody it possibly can'

Michael Osterhom, an infectious disease researcher, warns up to 70 percent of people might become infected by COVID-19 unless a vaccine works.

www.usatoday.com

COVID-19 expert: Coronavirus will rage 'until it infects everybody it possibly can'
Ken Alltucker
USA TODAY

A high-profile infectious disease researcher warns COVID-19 is in the early stages of attacking the world, which makes it difficult to relax stay-at-home orders without putting most Americans at risk.

Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the initial wave of outbreaks in cities such as New York City, where one in five people have been infected, represent a fraction of the illness and death yet to come.

"This damn virus is going to keep going until it infects everybody it possibly can," Osterholm said Monday during a meeting with the USA TODAY Editorial Board. "It surely won’t slow down until it hits 60 to 70%" of the population, the number that would create herd immunity and halt the spread of the virus.

Even if new cases begin to fade this summer, it might be an indicator that the new coronavirus is following a seasonal pattern similar to the flu.

During the 1918 flu pandemic that sickened one-third of the world's population, New York City and Chicago were hit hard in the first wave of illness that largely bypassed other cities such as Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis and Philadelphia. The second wave of illness was much more severe nationwide.

If COVID-19 retreats only to return in the fall, the number of cases could peak and overwhelm hospitals that must deal with cases of flu and respiratory viruses. Furthermore, Asian nations such as South Korea and Singapore, lauded for strict controls and rapid testing to avoid damage during the first wave, might be vulnerable to a second wave of infections, he said.

"It’s the big peak that’s really going to do us in," he said. "As much pain, suffering, death and economic disruption we’ve had, there’s been 5 to 20% of the people infected, ... That’s a long ways to get to 60 to 70%."

Still, there are key differences between COVID-19 and the flu. The average incubation period for the new virus is five days, compared with just two days for the flu, according to a Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy report comparing the pandemics.

The longer incubation period and a higher transmission rate suggest the COVID-19 virus spreads more easily than the flu.

There were nearly 80,000 deaths and more than 1.3 million confirmed novel coronavirus cases in the U.S. at noon Monday, according to the Johns Hopkins University data tracker. New York state has been hit the hardest with more than 26,000 deaths, and preliminary antibody testing suggests about 20% of New York City-area residents have been infected.

Worldwide, more than 283,000 people have died and 4.1 million have been infected.

Osterholm said only an effective vaccine can slow the virus before a large enough segment of the population becomes infected and develops some level of immunity. Even if a vaccine works, Osterholm said, it's unknown whether it would be durable enough to confer long-lasting protection from SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Most states are easing stay-at-home orders though patchwork measures that vary from one to the next. Georgia began opening in late April amid national criticism, allowing tattoo parlors, bowling alleys and hair and nail salons to reopen with restrictions. California has taken a slower, phased approach, allowing some retailers and manufacturers considered low-risk to resume operations.

Governors worry about the economic harm social distancing measures have caused with shuttered businesses and the growing ranks of jobless Americans. Unemployment has reached 15% nationwide, and a Trump administration economic adviser warned unemployment could soon reach 20%.

Osterholm acknowledges that the nation "can't lock down for 18 months" and said political and business leaders need to find a way to resume activities while adapting to a virus that won't soon disappear. He doesn't believe there has been enough of a frank assessment on the economic harm the virus will cause over coming months and its disruption to international supply chains.

"We all have to confront the fact there’s not a magic bullet, short of a vaccine, that’s going to make this go away," he said. "We’re going to be living with it. And we’re not having that discussion at all."

 

[Khafee]

The ventilators Russia sent the US are sitting unused in a New York warehouse — and they're known to catch fire
Mike Eckel, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
May 15, 2020

A firefighter is disinfected after distinguishing a fire at the St. George Hospital, where at least five people were killed by fire in the intensive care unit, in St. Petersburg, Russia. The blaze in the hospital could have been caused by one of the ventilators catching fire in the intensive care unit for patients with COVID-19 or by a short-circuit failure.
(Valentin Egorshin / Sputnik via AP)

It was billed as a gesture of goodwill, a way to start improving toxic relations between Moscow and Washington as both countries battle the coronavirus. But the shipment of ventilators and other supplies was plagued by confusion and mixed messages from the start.

Was it humanitarian aid? Was it a purchase of equipment that the United States was capable of manufacturing itself? Who paid for it? Did anyone realize that the Russian companies involved might fall under U.S. Treasury Department sanctions? Was the Kremlin seeking a propaganda victory? Was it mocking the United States?

Now it turns out that the 45 ventilators were never used in the United States -- and some of them were the same model that may have caused fires that killed several COVID-19 patients in Russia, prompting Russian regulators to issue an unusual suspension order for their use at a time when such machines are badly needed.

From the beginning, the shipment was portrayed by the Kremlin as a magnanimous gesture. State media broadcast stories about it, including footage of the Antonov cargo jet being loaded with boxes, printed with the words "From Russia With Love." Along with the ventilators came masks, gloves, and other medical supplies.

Russia's ambassador to the United States called it a "humanitarian mission."

"We are sure that the U.S., if necessary, will also assist us and we will gladly accept the aid. Without any politicization," Anatoly Antonov said in a Facebook post.

A day after the shipment arrived in New York City, U.S. President Donald Trump praised his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, and was asked about whether he feared it could be seen as a propaganda ploy.

"I'm not concerned about Russia and propaganda, not even a little bit," Trump told reporters at the White House on April 2. "There is a lot of medical, very high-quality stuff that I've accepted. It may save a lot of lives and I will take it every day."

But further questions arose when the U.S. State Department contradicted Russian officials, saying that in fact the supplies were not a donation but a purchase. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova then added another wrinkle, confirming the shipment was a purchase but that Washington and Moscow had split the costs.

A medical specialist is seen in a window after a fire, which killed five novel coronavirus patients in an intensive care unit, at a hospital in Saint Petersburg, Russia May 12, 2020. The cause of the fire is suspected to be linked to the same model of ventilators that Russia sent to the U.S. in April. (REUTERS/Anton Vaganov)

Sanction busters?
Moreover, she revealed that Russian costs were borne by the Russia Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the $10 billion sovereign wealth fund set up by the government to attract investment into Russia.

And, of the 45 ventilators that were included in the shipment, many were supplied by the Urals Instrument-Engineering Plant, a factory owned by a company called Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern, or KRET.

KRET, in turn, is owned by Rostec, a massive state conglomerate that encompasses some of Russia's best-known military and technology manufacturers.

Both RDIF and Rostec have been hit with sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department. RDIF -- along with its former parent company, state-owned Vnesheconombank -- was targeted in 2015 as part of Western sanctions to punish Russia for its seizure of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula the previous year. Rostec was sanctioned for similar reasons.

An RDIF spokesman told RFE/RL last month that the existing U.S. sanctions did not apply to the fund in this case.

A spokesman for the U.S. Treasury Department, meanwhile, provided a similar explanation, but also suggested that U.S. authorities might provide exemptions to existing sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

"It does not appear the exporter of the humanitarian deliveries received from the Russian government is a sanctioned or blocked person under the Russia/Ukraine related sanctions authorities," the spokesman told RFE/RL. "To the extent that such sanctions apply, Treasury has authority to license U.S. persons to engage in transactions that are consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security interests."

The value of the overall shipment was not revealed by either the United States or Russia at the time of the shipment’s delivery.

However, an ABC News report on May 1 said that Russia had billed the United States $660,000 for the supplies. A record of the supplies, which was provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is coordinating the U.S. government response to the pandemic, said they included a total of 4,000 M-95 masks -- military-grade masks used to protect against biological and chemical agents. The agency said the shipment also included 15,000 respirators, 30,000 surgical gloves, and 400,000 pieces of medical clothing, and other smaller items.

At least 15 of the ventilators were identified as Aventa-M models, while 25 were made by a different Russian manufacturer; the origin of five others was unclear.

Using publicly available price lists, RFE/RL determined that the ventilators together would probably cost at least $1 million on a nondiscounted retail basis.

'Abundance Of Caution'
At the time of the shipment's arrival, neither U.S. federal officials nor state officials in New York or New Jersey -- the two worst-hit U.S. states -- revealed where exactly the supplies would be utilized and how.

On April 20, a U.S. government official familiar with the logistics of the shipment told RFE/RL that the items were not being distributed, and were sitting unused in New York City-area warehouses.

FEMA spokeswoman Janet Montesi said on May 12 that the ventilators had never been distributed to U.S. hospitals because the number of COVID-19 cases in the region had stabilized.

"The flattening curve meant these ventilators were not needed," she said in a statement that was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

"Out of an abundance of caution, the states are returning the ventilators to FEMA," she said.

Montesi did not elaborate on what was meant by "an abundance of caution."

However, hours earlier, Russian safety investigators said Aventa-M ventilators appeared to have been responsible for deadly fires at two separate medical facilities in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

On May 13, Russia's health-industry regulator announced it was ordering that the use of all Aventa-M ventilators manufactured after April 1, 2020, be suspended, citing the two fires.

It was unclear why the agency said only devices made after April 1 -- the date of the Russian shipment's arrival in the United States -- would be suspended from use, nor was it clear if the devices would be recalled in Russia.

The Ural facility is one of Russia's main manufacturers of ventilators and related medical equipment. The Russian government recently announced a major order for thousands of new ventilators, as the country struggles with a climbing number of cases and hospitalizations.

No one at the press service for the health-industry regulator, Roszdravnadzor, answered calls from RFE/RL seeking further comment.

Russia now has the second-highest number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the world, after the United States.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on April 15, Trump suggested that the U.S. government would be reciprocating the Russian gesture.

"I think Russia is going to need ventilators. They're having a hard time in Moscow. We're going to help them," Trump said in a televised briefing.

A month later, it's unclear if that's still the plan.

After a phone call on May 7, the Kremlin said that Trump had offered to send a shipment of medical equipment to Russia. The White House put it slightly differently, saying Trump told Putin that the United States was "ready to provide assistance to any country in need, including Russia."

Copyright (c) 2020. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free

 

[Khafee]

PM Imran, other world leaders call for eventual coronavirus vaccine to be ‘free of charge for all’
May 16, 2020

UNITED NATIONS: Past and present world leaders, including Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan, have urged that any eventual coronavirus vaccines and treatments should be made available to everyone free of charge.

The call was made in an open letter signed by more than 140 presidents, prime ministers and other prominent figures saying that the vaccine should not be patented while the science should be shared among nations, according to UNAIDS, the UN agency fighting against the deadly HIV/AIDS virus, which initiated the petition.

The signatories requested that governments unite behind a “people’s vaccine” against COVID-19, marking the most ambitious position yet set out by world leaders on what has become the most urgent quest in modern science.

They demanded that all vaccines, treatments and tests be patent-free, mass produced and distributed fairly.

Prime Minister Imran Khan underscored the need to work together to beat the virus.

“We must pool all the knowledge, experience and resources at our disposal for the good of all humanity,” he said.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called for scientific research to be shared among the countries and that the vaccine be patent-free.

“Nobody should be pushed to the back of the vaccine queue because of where they live or what they earn,” he said, in the joint UNAIDS/Oxfam letter.

Other signatories include former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown, former President of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo, and former Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark, who also headed the UN Development Programme (UNDP) for many years.

Government and national leaders also joined the UN agencies and international financial institutions on Thursday, in calling for water, sanitation and hygiene to be prioritized in the battle against the virus.

Confirming that the three areas – together with physical distancing – are first lines of defence, and central to stemming the virus from spreading, they pointed out that handwashing required access to running water in sufficient quantities.

“Our response plans – at national, regional and global levels – must, therefore, prioritize water, sanitation and hygiene services,” they said in a joint statement.

Under the premise that we are only as healthy as the most vulnerable members of society, no matter the country, the global leaders requested that all three be made available to everyone, “eliminating inequalities and leaving no one behind”.

They also advocated for working collaboratively with every partner to improve water and sanitation services, saying that “everyone has something to offer to protect populations from COVID-19.”

It is essential to ensure that water and sanitation systems are resilient and sustainable to protect the people’s health and support national health systems, according to the signatories.

They also stressed the need to provide countries with financial support so they could adequately respond to the crisis.

“Funding envelopes need to be maintained with no diversion away from the commitments and priorities set for the water, sanitation and hygiene sector,” they stated.

They also called forcefully for the delivery of accurate, transparent information, based on scientific advice that enables everyone to act accordingly.

“Resilience to future crises depends on actions taken now, as well as on policies, institutions and capacity put in place during normal times,” they concluded. “As leaders, this is our chance to save lives.”—APP

 

[Khafee]

Pakistan gets license to make medicine for coronavirus patients: Dr Zafar
May 15, 2020

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has got license to make newly developed medicine for treating the coronavirus patients, Dr Zafar Mirza, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on National Health Services announced on Friday.

The drug named Remdesivir will soon be manufactured locally under license from Gilead Sciences Inc, an American research based pharmaceutical company, he said addressing a press conference at the National Command and Operation Centre (NCOC).

“This is a major success on public health and diplomatic front, as under the agreement Pakistan will supply this medicine to 127 developing countries hit by the coronavirus pandemic.”

Remdesivir will be registered on fast track basis by Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) after fulfilling legal requirements. Remdesivir was granted emergency use authorization by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) on May 1, and approved by the Japanese authorities on May 8, Dr Zafar said.

“The production could commence as early as eight weeks, after necessary regulatory approvals are obtained, and the manufacturer is confident that it will produce sufficient quantities over time to serve the needs of the patients in Pakistan and abroad.”

Dr Mirza said globally only two countries, including Pakistan, have been allowed to manufacture this medicine.

He said that on May 12, Pakistani manufacturer BF Biosciences Limited, a subsidiary of Ferozsons Laboratories Limited, successfully concluded its voluntary licensing agreement with Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the manufacture and sale of ‘Remdesivir’ under Gilead’s Global Patient Solutions Program to supply the product to affected developing countries.

The Gilead has signed non-exclusive voluntary license agreements with five South Asian manufacturers including BF Biosciences Limited from Pakistan. Under the agreements, the companies have a right to receive a technology transfer of the Gilead manufacturing process for Remdesivir to enable them to ensure product quality and to scale up production quickly.

Dr Mirza pointed out it was for the first time that a manufacturer from Pakistan had been included in a global supply solution of this nature.

The development represents an important step forward for Pakistan on the health, economic and diplomacy fronts. It would help provide citizens and frontline healthcare workers access to the latest treatment for the pandemic.

It also represented an important export opportunity for the country’s pharmaceutical sector at a critically important period. Export of the drug to the developing world at this time of need would also position Pakistan to play its rightful role on the global stage of public health, he added.

The government appreciates this important licensing step by Gilead Sciences, and pledged to support the urgent availability of Remdesivir, he assured.

Advisor to Prime Minister on Commerce Abdul Razaq Dawood said that the local manufacture of Remdisivir by BF Biosciences Limited represents an important export opportunity for the country’s pharmaceutical sector at a critical period.

He said that export of the drug to the developing world at this time of need would also position Pakistan to play its rightful role on the global stage of public health.—APP