Newborns infected with a novel novel coronavirus: viral load 51,000 times higher than other patients

With the emergence of novel coronavirus vaccine, this thought that the epidemic will be better, but did not think that the mutant novel coronavirus is coming again, the United States a newborn body detected a new variant of the virus.

According to foreign media reports, a new variant novel coronavirus was found in a newborn with severe COVID-19 received by Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, US, and its viral load was much higher than that of other patients.

Researchers said the new strain of the virus came from a severely ill newborn born in September last year at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, the United States, after sequencing the virus genome of the sample recently discovered the new strain.
Astonishingly, the viral load of the sample was 51,418 times higher than the other samples.

It is unclear how high the risk of transmission of the new variant is, but other studies of the novel coronavirus variant in children have found eight additional cases of the variant in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.

Roberta Debiasi, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, noted that the mutated virus has an entirely new structure of the spike protein, which may make it more infectious.

It is not clear whether the new mutation is related to the high viral load in newborn samples, but it is presumed that they are closely related.
Of course, this could also be a coincidence, so further study of the mutated virus is needed.

Children with CoviD-19 had a lower incidence of severe illness, and these younger children were less likely to be infected with novel coronavirus, according to the data.
At present, the mechanism of the effect of novel coronavirus on children and infants remains to be further studied.

But in the past five months, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Association of Children’s Hospitals, there has been a “dramatic increase” in the number of children infected with novel coronavirus. Severe cases in children are rare but persist, and there are serious and long-term side effects, including brain damage.

South Korea extends UK flight ban for another two weeks to guard against entry of mutant novel coronavirus

On February 24 news, South Korea central prevention epidemic countermeasure this department expresses on 24 days, to prevent mutation coronavirus to pass into territory strictly, the ban that Han government decides to take in the light of British flight extends two weeks again to next month 11 days.

South Korea has suspended flights to and from the UK since December 23 and has extended the measure several times.
The mutant novel coronavirus found in the UK was found in 94 countries and territories as of December 15, according to WHO data.
Of the 128 mutated cases in South Korea, 109 were infected with the strain found in Britain.

A new strain of Covid-19 virus has been found in Nigeria, spreading to many countries

A new strain of COVID-19 virus, known as B.1.525, has been found in Nigeria and has spread to several other countries, and has not yet been classified as a strain of concern, the director of Nigeria’s Centre for Disease Control, Ikowizu, said in Abuja on February 22.
It has been reported that the B.1.525novel coronavirus variant contains a gene variant called E484K, which has been found in countries including Brazil, South Africa, Denmark and the United States.

Is it bacteria or viruses?Mycoplasma pneumoniae should not be ignored

Pneumonia is a disease with a high incidence in clinical practice, mostly caused by various pathogenic bacteria infection.
Symptoms include cough, sputum, fever, chest pain and so on, which require anti-infection treatment against pathogenic bacteria.
The pathogenic bacteria that causes pneumonia is bacterium for the most part, have pneumoniae streptococcus, staphylococcus aureus, haemophilus influenzae, pseudomonas aeruginosa, pneumoniae klebsiella to wait commonly.
Atypical pathogenic bacteria include mycoplasma, chlamydia, Legionella and so on.
Viral pneumonia is common in influenza virus, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and so on.
A small number of pneumonia is caused by fungal infections such as Candida, Aspergillus and Cryptococcus.
Only to find out the cause of better treatment, here we introduce a mycoplasma pneumoniae.
Most pneumonia caused by mycoplasma pneumoniae are caused by mycoplasma pneumoniae. Mycoplasma fermentum has been isolated from alveolar lavage fluid of some immunodeficiency patients and patients with respiratory tract infection, and is considered to be a pathogenic pathogen of respiratory tract.
Mycoplasma pneumoniae was first described in the 1960s and had been mistaken for a virus until then.
20% of community acquired pneumonia was caused by Mycoplasma pneumoniae, especially in school-age children, middle-aged and young adults.
In recent years, it has been found that the strain can cause local epidemics in the elderly and children.
Mycoplasma pneumoniae has an incubation period of 2-3 weeks, is commonly transmitted within families, and can remain in the respiratory tract for several months after infection.
The most common clinical manifestation is bronchitis, even acute laryngitis, and about 1/3 of patients will progress to pneumonia;
In addition, it can cause serious extrapulmonary complications in some people, such as meningitis, myelitis and pericarditis.
Mycoplasma pneumoniae could not be clearly observed by conventional light microscopy. Due to the lack of Gram staining on the cell wall, it could not be stained. DNA fluorescence staining and acridine-orange staining were helpful for diagnosis, but did not have specificity.
At present, the rapid detection methods in clinical mainly include serological detection and nucleic acid detection.

Deliberately infecting people with novel coronavirus, UK approves new crown challenge trial

On the 17th of this month, the UK government approved the world’s first novel coronavirus control trial (known as the New Coronavirus Challenge Study), which plans to infect up to 90 volunteers in a rigorous laboratory setting to gain important information about the virus.
Novelty as the research may sound, the concept behind it has a long history, dating back to the late 18th century.
However, the challenge of novel coronavirus is still being debated: is it necessary?
What unique insights does it offer?

Writing | Luo Dinghao

Nearly 90 healthy adults in the UK are about to embark on a journey.
Instead of a normal journey, they will be in London’s Royal Free Hospital, where they will face a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and each will be rewarded with around £4,500 (£4,500).
The process is straightforward: The 90 warriors will take on the Novel Coronavirus challenge, putting their health at risk and offering scientists a shortcut to research.

At this very moment, the number of novel coronavirus infections worldwide continues to rise. The total number of infections has so far exceeded 100 million, including more than 27.8 million in the United States.
Vaccination, on the other hand, is not far behind, with more than 180 million people worldwide having received at least one dose of the new crown vaccine as of December 18.

At the same time, many variants of the novel coronavirus are rapidly emerging, thanks to its own characteristics and large infection base.
Last December alone, the world witnessed two high-impact variants (B.1.1.7 in the UK and B.1.351 in South Africa), and many new and potentially influential strains have emerged during the recent winter outbreak.
All this means that the vaccines developed by scientists need to be replaced quickly, which will require more clinical trials.

The UK government approved the world’s first trial of the new crown challenge on 17 January.
In the first phase, up to 90 volunteers will be exposed to the virus in the P3 virus laboratory to determine the minimum dose of the virus that can infect humans.
The aim of this phase is to provide the basis for future research into vaccine and drug challenges.
Once the minimum dose of infection is known, scientists can conduct further tests to confirm the effectiveness of potential vaccines and drugs.

But many people and scholars remain skeptical of the study.
Further discussion of this controversial human trial requires an understanding of the historical and ethical implications behind it.

To infect humans

The “Challenge Study”, to be conducted in the UK, may sound novel, even daunting, but the concepts behind it are old and have made great contributions to human society many times over.

Studies like the Challenge study, collectively known as controlled human infection, or CHI, are designed to expose healthy, low-risk human subjects to the virus in a tightly controlled environment.
Together with candidate vaccines or drugs, CHI tests can provide a great deal of information about the disease itself and treatment options in a short period of time.

The history of the CHI test dates back to the late 1700s, when Britain was plagued by the variola virus.
In the early days of the smallpox epidemic, the most commonly used prevention and control method is “human pox vaccination” : smallpox patients on the pustules broken, and then with a knife will flow out of the pus swab under the skin of the seed.
Since smallpox usually only wreak havoc through the lungs, the virus inoculated under the skin does not actually cause serious damage. Most patients will become immune to smallpox after experiencing mild symptoms.
But it was also important to note that deaths still occurred because the inoculation was still with the real smallpox virus.

ON MAY 14th 1796 Edward Jenner, the “father of vaccines”, carried out his world-famous “vaccination experiment” in Berkeley, a small town in south-west England.
The experiment was inspired by the folklore that a person who had been infected with cowpox could not get smallpox again.
Ms. Jenner inoculated 8-year-old James Phipps under the skin with pus from a cowpox puss belonging to a milkmaid, Sarah Nelmes.
Over the next few days, Phipps experienced a brief, low-grade fever.
Over time, Jenner gave Phipps multiple subcutaneous injections of the smallpox virus, but Phipps showed no signs of illness, and Jenner concluded that Phipps’s vaccinia had successfully protected him against smallpox.
To verify the vaccine’s effectiveness, Jenner gave the same vaccine to 23 other subjects.
The results showed that vaccination did provide immunity against smallpox.
Jenner said this method as “vaccination” (vaccination), etymology is Latin for “vacca”, meaning “cow”.

After Jenner’s “vaccination test,” similar CHI tests followed.
In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, scientists conducted the infamous hepatitis virus research at Willowbrook State School in the United States, exposing School students to the virus without proper consent.
This study successfully revealed the existence of two different hepatitis viruses, A and B, but because of the ethical conflict it caused, researchers had to find a way to standardize the CHI test.

In recent decades, with the development of medical ethics research, CHI tests have gradually become more standardized, and the control and supervision have become more perfect.
In 2018, published in the journal lancet infectious diseases, a reiew from Leiden University (Universiteit Leiden), the University of Tubingen in Germany (Universitt Tubingen) and the University of Liverpool in England (Liverpool University) of five scientists are summarized in the last few decades CHI test, and found that the recent CHI tests have passed strict scientific supervision, most subjects are given explicitly agreed to test,
The number of serious adverse events (SAE) was extremely low.
For example, in several influenza and malaria CHI trials conducted from 1990 to 2014, involving a total of about 6,000 subjects, there were only four cases of SAE.
This shows not only that the treatments or vaccination regimens offered by the CHI trials are effective on their own, but also that the subjects enrolled in these studies were carefully screened out of applicants who might have been harmed by the trials.
Some pathogens infect only humans, making animal models time-consuming, laborious and pointless.
In some CHI trials, with the help of volunteer subjects, scientists have successfully created human models of human pathogens, such as human rhinoviruses, providing critical information for their treatment and prevention.

Roestenberg et al.
The Lancet Infect.
Dis.

All of this evidence suggests that CHI tests are not only increasingly regulated, but also offer unique insights that animal models cannot.

Challenge the new champions

But even amid this optimism, the novel coronavirusCHI trial is proving difficult.
First of all, different from influenza virus and rhinovirus, novel coronavirus is spread in human only for more than 1 year, we have not yet had a clear understanding of its physiological effects, do not know whether the virus can cause long-term, still lasting sequelae after recovery.
Second, some scholars have suggested that CHI testing may no longer provide important insights at a time when the recent mass vaccination campaign has begun to pay off, and the number of new diagnoses in Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States and many European countries is declining.

But the pros argue that there is plenty of evidence that novel coronavirus does little to affect young, healthy adults, and that many people get better quickly after experiencing mild symptoms.
And unlike earlier CHI trials, the New Crown Challenge provides volunteers with a detailed description of the experiment and is only included if the subjects give their consent.
In addition, the recent emergence of novel coronavirus variants has spurred demand for new vaccines that can prevent the infection of mutant strains, and some researchers believe that CHI trials can quickly confirm the effectiveness of these new vaccines, replacing conventional phase III clinical trials.
Nir Eyal, director of the Center for Population Bioethics at Rutgers University, said the new crest trial would require only a few hundred volunteers, making it much faster than a phase III trial with tens of thousands of people.
This means that challenge tests can quickly verify the effectiveness of vaccines and treatments, or dramatically reduce the impact of a mutant strain.

Even so, many scholars are skeptical about the New Crown Challenge experiment.
Matthew Memoli, an immunologist atthe Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States, said that only a good understanding of Novel coronavirus could properly assess the risk of a challenge trial;
There is not enough information to support plans for a challenge trial.
Other researchers noted that even one death could make it harder to approve future CHI trials for other diseases, even though the risk of death in healthy subjects was extremely low if the challenge trial was carried out rushly.
As a result, some people believe that the audit and supervision authorities need to think twice before carrying out the new crown challenge trial.

In the world’s first trial of the new crown challenge, approved by the UK government, researchers will try to reduce the discomfort of their subjects.
Once the subjects became infected, they were given treatment drugs such as Remdesivir and Regn-CoV2, which quickly alleviated symptoms and kept the subjects healthy.
The goal of this stage is to determine the minimum dose of virus required for infection.
After that, scientists will conduct further tests to confirm the effectiveness of potential vaccines and drugs.

It’s important to note that this is a preliminary study, using a strain called Novel Coronavirus that was popular in Europe last summer, not a recent variant.
But the success of this preliminary study could pave the way for new crown challenges to be tested against mutant strains.
As Christopher Chiu, the leader of the preliminary study, put it, the researchers are also “considering which new crown variant to test next.”
However, this pilot study alone could provide us with the question “What is the lowest dose of virus necessary to cause infection?”
“How exactly does the immune system behave in the early stages of infection?”
“And” What’s the difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients?”
And so on.

Note:

In fact, Edward Jenner’s title as the “father of vaccines” has long been controversial.
John Fewster realized in 1768 that vaccinia infection made people immune to the smallpox virus, and for more than a decade researchers from Britain and continental Europe investigated the possibility of using vaccinia as a smallpox vaccine.
This article describes it in detail.

[Note 2] Knowledge of hepatitis viruses has improved greatly since then, and five major hepatitis viruses (hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, hepatitis D and hepatitis E viruses) have been classified.

[Note 3] This is controversial. Most of the scholars who support the CHI trial are conservative and support that the CHI trial should be viewed as a supplement to, rather than a complete replacement for, phase III trials.

A new variant novel coronavirus has been found in Japan, with more than 90 cases reported

Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases said Monday that a novel coronavirus strain has been found in the country, which is different from those previously found in the UK, South Africa and other countries.
The mutated virus may weaken the immune response, but it is not more infectious.
According to data released by Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases, as of early February, 91 cases of the mutant novel coronavirus infection have been detected in the Kanto region, including two cases detected in airport tests.

The new coronavirus in the United Kingdom and the United States have merged, and this can be done

  Humans shouldn’t really be finished. . . According to the test of a new coronavirus patient by scientists, they found that the new crown virus Kent B117 from the United Kingdom actually merged with the California variant B1429 from the United States, resulting in a new type of new crown virus. This virus will have stronger transmission and penetration, and is likely to cause some current vaccines to be ineffective.

  It is relatively rare to have a combination of viruses. It is still unclear whether the two viruses are synthesized in the patient’s body (in this case, thank goodness, as long as this patient is done), or the combination has been completed and the infection was transmitted to this patient.

  At present, the number of vaccination in the UK has exceeded 15 million, entering a new stage. If this syncytial virus spreads on a large scale in the UK, it is likely to cause previous vaccination efforts to fall short.

  For everyone in the UK, you must be very concerned about when life will return to normal. According to the current situation of the epidemic situation, by mid-April, the number of infections may drop below 1,000. At the same time, due to large-scale herd immunity and universal vaccination, it is likely that the mortality rate will be reduced to zero by then.

  Isn’t it surprising that after a year, Britain is really about to achieve herd immunity? It turned out that the Prime Minister was serious when he started joking. Finally, let’s talk about how you got fat during this time?

The United States has rejected the WHO’s assertion, insisting that the virus came from Wuhan

The U.S. government is reviewing a World Health Organization report released Tuesday, according to a February 9 fact sheet on the White House website.
The world health organization expert group arrived in China last month, is China’s wuhan COVID – 19 source investigation, after the world health organization (who) after visiting survey to determine COVID – 19 viruses could not have come from the so-called lab, however, the White House is now going to reassess the conclusion by the world health organization, is the White House isn’t going to admit that the world health organization expert group, the results.

The US insists that the Covid-19 virus came from Wuhan

Earlier, the US State Department spokesperson said that no reasonable person would believe that the Covid-19 virus came from anywhere else, which means that the US has determined that the Covid-19 virus came from Wuhan, China, and is determined to hack China.

When the Covid-19 virus appeared, the United States had repeatedly said that the Covid-19 virus was the Chinese virus Wuhan virus, claiming that the Covid-19 virus originated from China and claiming compensation from China. Such unrealistic accusations by the United States would only become an international laughing stock.
After Biden took office, he quickly asked the United States not to allow the use of the Wuhan virus, China virus, but still some anti-China politicians turned a blind eye to it.

World Health Organization clears China

On the afternoon of February 9th, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Chinese experts on the investigation of the source of Covid-19 virus officially held a press conference in Wuhan.
The World Health Organization notes that the Covid-19 virus can be transmitted directly from animals to humans or by intermediate hosts.
The food chain is also a route of transmission, and frozen foods in particular provide a suitable environment for transmission, but at the moment, the possibility of laboratory leakage is basically zero.

After the WHO expert team came to Wuhan, China, they went to the South China Seafood Market, Wuhan Institute of Virology and other places for investigation, and found no conclusive evidence to prove that the initial location of Covid-19 virus was in the South China seafood market.
Russian experts say the Chinese laboratory is so well equipped that it is hard to believe that Covid-19 could have leaked from there.

A clown is doomed to failure in the end

The World Health Organization (WHO) sent a panel of experts from several countries to produce an authoritative report.
The United States has repeatedly claimed that the Covid-19 virus originated in Wuhan, China. Now the WHO panel has conclusively concluded that at this stage, the United States has admitted that the WHO report is nothing more than a slap in the face. It is not possible for the United States to do this.

When the Covid-19 epidemic broke out, the United States turned to China many times to divert the pressure of the epidemic, but this approach did little to help the United States fight against the Covid-19 epidemic, and ultimately only made more Americans die to pay for the government’s inaction.

South China seafood market, virus research institute is not the source of the virus!

WHO: The virus was most likely transmitted to humans through animals as intermediate hosts. There is no evidence that the virus escaped from the Wuhan laboratory…

It has been more than half a year since the outbreak of Niangang on a global scale. From 2020 to 2021, the shadow of Niangang has been hanging over the whole world…

The first outbreak of the epidemic in Wuhan, China, once boarded the center of the storm, a variety of rumors one after another!
Wuhan, a heroic city, has not only borne the great trauma brought by novel coronavirus, but also been constantly framed by foreign media.

In May 2020, the WHO made a decision to investigate the source of the virus, and the mission was conducted in October.
In January 2021, 17 experts from China and other 10 countries and 17 experts from the United Nations organization composed of novel coronavirus traceability group finally entered Wuhan……

For the past two weeks, the 34-member team of experts has made field visits to fresh markets, health departments and virus laboratories in and around Wuhan.

Now, the World Health Organization has finally “washed” the charges of Wuhan!!

Yesterday (Feb. 9, 2021) afternoon, Novel Coronavirus trace press conference held in Wuhan, the World Health Organization experts said there is no evidence that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan laboratory, and there is no evidence that the South China seafood market is the source of the virus.
Novel coronavirus probably passed from animal to human by host.
Experts no longer pursue laboratory hypotheses.
Experts also stressed that the origin of the new crown has only just begun…

The virus is most likely

It is transmitted to humans through animals as intermediate hosts

Speaking at a press conference in Wuhan, Dr Ben Embarek, head of the WHO’s Novel Coronavirus Traceability Group, said the investigation did not gain new insights, but deepened what was already known.
During a four-week investigation in China, the WHO panel failed to clarify how the novel coronavirus had spread to people.

While there are four hypotheses for the origin of novel coronavirus, Embarrek said the most likely is that it passed to humans through animals as intermediate hosts.
Three other hypotheses about the origin of the new coronavirus are: a specific animal is transmitted directly to humans, with no intermediate host;
Through frozen food;
Laboratory related incidents.

However, the team was unable to identify the animal as the intermediate host.
Experts say it is only a preliminary understanding and more research is needed.
Experts say the evidence suggests the virus may have come from a natural host.
“But Wuhan is not a large bat concentration, so the initial outbreak in Wuhan is unlikely to be bat-to-human. It could have been transmitted by other animals.”
More research should be done on bat samples, as well as on other potential host animals.

As for frozen foods, Ben Embarek said, “We know that viruses can survive freezing, but we don’t really know if they can be transmitted to people, under what circumstances and how they might happen.”

There’s no evidence that

The southern Chinese market is the source of the virus

According to experts, a certain scale of infection occurred among people in Wuhan in December 2019, and many of the early cases were linked to the South China seafood market, which can only prove that the market is one of the transmission points of the virus.
According to the current information, it is impossible to determine how the novel coronavirus was introduced into the South China seafood market.

Experts also said the initial infections were partly linked to seafood markets in southern China, partly to other markets and partly not to any market at all.

The virus can’t

It was leaked from the lab

As for rumors that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan lab, Ben Embarek said, “While accidents do happen…
But no laboratory anywhere in the world has published or conducted research using this virus or its close relatives “, so it is “very difficult to explain the introduction of the virus into human populations” using this hypothesis and further research is not recommended.
“It is very unlikely that anything will leak from there,” he said, citing the safety regulations of the Wuhan Virus Laboratory.

In an interview after a field visit to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Ben Embarek said, “The person you suspect is actually running a well-controlled lab and everything is in good order.
We saw everything, we heard everything.
It’s hard to imagine anything leaking out of there.”

In an interview, he clarified that “there is no basis for Western claims of laboratory leaks”.

Novel coronavirus tracing the origin just began, the conclusion that the world health organization and Chinese joint investigation group announce newest, let carry on the back a year the Wuhan of disgrace, finally “wash” his accusation!

Of course, the origin of novel coronavirus is important, but now for the global people, to be able to get herd immunity as soon as possible through the vaccine, to restore the normal life before the epidemic is the most important thing!