COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[bhobba]

The big emitters are (nearly) all rich.

Yes I goofed and forgot abort the US and China. I should have said - India.

To contain such an outbreak the governments spend significant resources on isolation and treatment of the cases, luckily. No death in first world countries yet (~100 cases).

The US is an obvious anomaly here. They will spend resources on isolating and helping those they know about, but its dysfunctional medical system discourages many from seeking medical help so the system knows about them. I have said for a long time the US medical system is crazy. The silly thing is if it wasn't for vested interests it could be a lot better. But its not perfect here in Aus either. Get this one - normally, ie outside of hospital, X-Rays are free - the government reimburses the full cost, and they do not even charge the patient. But go into a private hospital and guess what - no reimbursement - you must pay and your insurance only partly covers it. I had to pay over $2000.00 just for x-rays and one MRI scan alone. And believe me they hit you for every little thing. When I left they gave me, without my consent, a diabetes kit with a packet of Jelly Beans to bring up sugar lows. I personally use honey for that. No asking or anything - check ring - $1.50 for what a chemist sells at 50 cents. Small change, but its maddening.

Thanks
Bill

 

[jim mcnamara]

We are going geopolitical and semewhat anecdotal. Which is okay, but not in the Biology forum. Moving to General Discussion.

 

[chemisttree]

Now a Nature report states that Remdesivir and the generic chloroquine are effective against nCoV.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0

They are starting double blind trials in China so that the “effectiveness” can be scientifically demonstrated. If it works out, we will have two drugs already available on the market that can beat this thing! I’m starting to feel optimistic!

Expect results by sometime in April.

quoted from the report:

“Chloroquine is a cheap and a safe drug that has been used for more than 70 years and, therefore, it is potentially clinically applicable against the 2019-nCoV.”

The first US case was treated with Remdesivir after the patient began to develop pneumonia.

“at a period consistent with the development of radiographic pneumonia in this patient, clinicians pursued compassionate use of an investigational antiviral therapy. Treatment with intravenous remdesivir (a novel nucleotide analogue prodrug in development10,11) was initiated on the evening of day 7, and no adverse events were observed in association with the infusion. Vancomycin was discontinued on the evening of day 7, and cefepime was discontinued on the following day, after serial negative procalcitonin levels and negative nasal PCR testing for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

On hospital day 8 (illness day 12), the patient’s clinical condition improved...”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001191?query=featured_home

This patient has since been discharged and has joined the ranks of the “cured.”

 

[chemisttree]

Thinking of chloroquinine triggered a distant memory of O-chem professor teaching us about the use of quinine to treat malaria. He had worked on a total synthesis for Sch###’s as a lower cost alternative to its cinchona bark natural source. He mentioned that quinine was used as the bittering agent in tonic water. So, googling antiviral activity of quinine gets me here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168170218302375

Quinine inhibits RNA reproduction against at least one virus.

Oh man! Could it be that perhaps maybe could be that gin and tonic could help cure nCoV? I can imagine a gin and tonic drip while going through this!

 

[kadiot]

To contain such an outbreak the governments spend significant resources on isolation and treatment of the cases, luckily. No death in first world countries yet (~100cases).

Wait, let's learn some lessons here...is the quarantine area a problem? Why not use passenger vessels or cruise ships...then stationary on the shore?

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/...-for-14-days-10-positive-for-coronavirus.html

 

[kadiot]

It’s confusing - China imposed self lockdown on January 23 to prevent further spread of the virus and the rest of the world doing travel bans and quarantine measures - is this for real ? Am I missing something here ?

It’s quite difficult to explain to the public. We have travel ban but WHO says it’s wrong to impose such move ?

https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/2/6/World-Health-Organization-China-travel-ban-novel-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR1-ZM_8lcjAANHrrFgaKK-gbJCAVb3fLL-rEbY9g4J-pO3F2TeAqnb4Iz4

 

[chemisttree]

Wait, let's learn some lessons here...is the quarantine area a problem? Why not use passenger vessels or cruise ships...then stationary on the shore?

Top ten reasons not to use cruise ships as quarantine hospitals.

10. Being seasick on top of nCoV sick is NO FUN.
9. Who’s going to clean up THAT MESS?
8. The buffet isn’t allowed anymore.
7. The authorities aren’t willing to give command over to a captain.
6. A big ship like that is going to get in the way of commerce.
5. Need to book rooms at least two months in advance.
4. Nobody would ever use that ship again for travel while a popup hospital could be repurposed.
3. Hard to find workers willing to work at sea.
2. Bad optics for cruise ship operators.
1. That’s plan “B”

 

[Ygggdrasil]

It’s confusing - China imposed self lockdown on January 23 to prevent further spread of the virus and the rest of the world doing travel bans and quarantine measures - is this for real ? Am I missing something here ?

It’s quite difficult to explain to the public. We have travel van but WHO says it’s wrong to impose such move ?

https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/2/6/World-Health-Organization-China-travel-ban-novel-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR1-ZM_8lcjAANHrrFgaKK-gbJCAVb3fLL-rEbY9g4J-pO3F2TeAqnb4Iz4

Research done on travel bans suggest that they could delay, but not stop the spread of pandemic diseases. For example, the WHO performed a meta-analysis on studies of past influenza outbreaks and concluded:

The results of our systematic review indicate that overall travel restrictions have only limited effectiveness in the prevention of influenza spread, particularly in those high transmissibility scenarios in which R0 is at least 1.9 (Box 2). The effect size varied according to the extent and timeliness of the restrictions, the size of the epidemic, strain transmissibility, the heterogeneity of the travel patterns, the geographical source and the urban density of international travel hubs. Only extensive travel restrictions – i.e. over 90% – had any meaningful effect on reducing the magnitude of epidemics. In isolation, travel restrictions might delay the spread and peak of pandemics by a few weeks or months but we found no evidence that they would contain influenza within a defined geographical area.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/

While travel bans don't provide much benefit, there are a number of negatives associated with the imposition of travel bans:

Even if it were feasible to keep Coronavirus out through travel bans, these measures can make us less safe. Travel bans can penalize countries that report cases, which may in turn reduce countries’ willingness to share information about their outbreaks. Travel bans may also interrupt the flow of essential supplies upon which we depend to control the epidemic. China is a large producer of critical medicines and personal protective equipment — it is in our best interest to stay positively engaged with China in responding to this epidemic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/03/fighting-coronoavirus-with-travel-bans-is-mistake/

Travel bans can also restrict the flow of supplies and experts to sites of outbreaks, which can also harm efforts to contain epidemics.

Here's another news article that links to additional research on the topic: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...st-travel-bans-tied-to-coronavirus-backed-by/

 

[kadiot]

Research done on travel bans suggest that they could delay, but not stop the spread of pandemic diseases. For example, the WHO performed a meta-analysis on studies of past influenza outbreaks and concluded:https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/12/14-135590/en/

I wonder if there are other studies conducted on the same subject and came up with different findings.

While travel bans don't provide much benefit, there are a number of negatives associated with the imposition of travel bans:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/03/fighting-coronoavirus-with-travel-bans-is-mistake/

Travel bans can also restrict the flow of supplies and experts to sites of outbreaks, which can also harm efforts to contain epidemics.

Maybe they have own channel or usual transport for supplies and medical expert go in than back must self-quarantine.

Here's another news article that links to additional research on the topic: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...st-travel-bans-tied-to-coronavirus-backed-by/

Only Canada followed the WHO's advice. The rest of the world does not agree. Approach is variable from country to country. I’d like to believe that worst case scenario is the best . It’s logical to stonewall a country. It’s basic.

 

[mfb]

Delaying the spread can come with benefits like a better availability of treatment options - and that way it might prevent an outbreak elsewhere.

 

[bhobba]

Now a Nature report states that Remdesivir and the generic chloroquine are effective against nCoV.

I was, and still am, in no doubt modern science and commitment of all involved will basically hit this thing for a 6 - we have learned so much even in just the last few years eg UQ's new method of creating a vaccine ultra fast. Like what happened with Ebola we also have extremely committed people willing to even put their own life on the line - we have the tools and the courage.

Thanks
Bill

 

[kadiot]

Fact-check please:

"Good news! The registration for clinical trials on the antiviral drug Remdesivir has been approved, and the first batch of pneumonia patients infected by the novel Coronavirus are expected to start taking the drug Thursday"http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/06/c_138758836.htm

 

[chemisttree]

Fact-check please:

"Good news! The registration for clinical trials on the antiviral drug Remdesivir has been approved, and the first batch of pneumonia patients infected by the novel Coronavirus are expected to start taking the drug Thursday"

Still waiting to see if they will do the same for chloroquine.

 

[DEvens]

There is no possible way to compare those two numbers to nCoV. Not a good idea to compare time series data to final counts. China started building two special hospitals when the official case count was in the low thousands! If the infection rates were accurate, how come a city like Wuhan with available hospital bedspace of greater than 40,000 is swamped by the then number of around 2,000?

View the time series data here:
https://ncov.r6.no/

Looks to me like nCoV is much worse than SARS.

There is substantial uncertainty right now. It is by no means clear that the reporting is accurate for any of the numbers.

When people die at home, it is not clear that they are tested. So the deaths might be significantly under reported. At the same time, it seems that some people when infected have quite mild symptoms. So the infected rate could be significantly under reported. So the mortality rate could be quite drastically high or low.

Regarding the website linked here. At the bottom is a graph showing infections and deaths broken between all of China, and China excluding Hubei (the province where Wuhan is). The deaths outside Hubei were reported as 75 on Day 24, and 11 on Day 25. What's that? Did 64 people mistakenly get declared dead? Or their location on death mistaken? What's up with that?

 

[chemisttree]

File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”

What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/

 

[kadiot]

File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”

What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/

They are just into intellectual property. What is wrong with documenting what you know? It does not take your time from the curing? If America did it, we see nothing wrong with it.

 

[member 656954]

File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”

What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/

That article does not best describe this situation. WTO rules gives China the right to declare an emergency and compel a company to license a patent to protect the public. China would then be required to pay a fair market value license fee, so they are not 'stealing' it.

The Chinese Government is quarantining 60-odd million people in Hubei province to try and slow the spread of nCoV for everyone's benefit so your 'no good deed' sentiment seems to me uncharitable.

 

[chemisttree]

That article does not best describe this situation. WTO rules gives China the right to declare an emergency and compel a company to license a patent to protect the public. China would then be required to pay a fair market value license fee, so they are not 'stealing' it.

The Chinese Government is quarantining 60-odd million people in Hubei province to try and slow the spread of nCoV for everyone's benefit so your 'no good deed' sentiment seems to me uncharitable.

If they weren’t stealing it then they could just operate under WTO rules and declare the emergency as you have mentioned. They have not chosen that path and are instead patenting it in China. Patenting on top of another patent, one which specifically identifies the Coronavirus family for applicability, is stealing the patent. Providing your valuable intellectual property that has cost your company many many millions of dollars at no cost (very charitable) only to have the patent stolen for “national interest” certainly qualifies as accurate and the action by the Chinese authorities is most certainly not charitable. It IS an outrage.

 

[chemisttree]

They are just into intellectual property. What is wrong with documenting what you know? It does not take your time from the curing? If America did it, we see nothing wrong with it.

This is way beyond “documenting what you know.” The first patient in the US was treated with Remdesivir, successfully, after all. If someone in America tried to patent a claim in some else’s foreign patent only because they proved it to be true in a case they identified, it would be denied as would be expected. When has “America” done this? You know of a case?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

File under, “No Good Deed.” China has filed a patent against Gilead’s patented Remdesivir anti-viral medication for use in treating nCoV. The Wuhan Institute claims to have made the application out of “national interest” and won’t exercise their patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work with China to curb the contagion. In other words, “let us make it in China license-free or we’re just going to steal it from you!”

What an outrage!
https://time.com/5778216/china-patent-coronavirus-drug/

It's worth being a bit more precise with the claims here. "China" did not apply for the patent, the Wuhan Institute of Virology did. Your claim is akin to saying that actions by, say the University of Wisconsin, represents the position of the US govnerment.

Furthermore, anyone can file a patent and make any claims they want. The real test is whether the Chinese government grants the patent. Other sources are skeptical whether the Chinese government will grant the patent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

As there is significant prior art (e.g., Gilead’s own patent applications including CN108348526A entitled “Methods for treating arenaviridae and coronaviridae virus infections”) it is unclear if the China National Intellectual Property Administration will grant a patent.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wuhan-institute-virology-applies-patent-gilead-s-remdesivir

 

[chemisttree]

It's worth being a bit more precise with the claims here. "China" did not apply for the patent, the Wuhan Institute of Virology did. Your claim is akin to saying that actions by, say the University of Wisconsin, represents the position of the US govnerment.

Except that in this case it does. Wuhan Institute of Virolology is not some independent local think tank, its actually called Wuhan Institute of Virolology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. It is most certainly the Chinese government’s Academy and referring to it as “China” is as accurate as it gets.

https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0003010/

 

[member 656954]

It IS an outrage

I am not going to deny your right to feelings of outrage, @chemisttree. I just don't share it in this case.

If you're a history buff, you might find the idea of China (or its proxy) snaffling US IP very ironic. Peter Andreas chronicles the US Government's wholesale IP theft in his book “Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America”, though back then - the late 18th and early 19th centuries - the main victim was Britain.

Clearly, times change, but I have no doubt that if a foreign company had IP that would help America in a crisis such as this, it would be appropriated without a second thought, esp, if that might save thousands. This is clearly a hypothetical question, but I am interested in whether you would feel outrage in such circumstances.

 

[OmCheeto]

...The first patient in the US was treated with Remdesivir, successfully...

Weird, if it was successful, that Gilead's stock price budged, almost imperceptibly.

Am I missing something here?

ps. I find it funny that "GILD", Gilead's stock ticker tag, means "gold". (etymologically, anyways)
Imagine having the patent on the only defense against something potentially deadly affecting billions of people.
Cha-Ching!

 

[chemisttree]

Weird, if it was successful, that Gilead's stock price budged, almost imperceptibly.

View attachment 256781

Am I missing something here?

VERY unusual that Gilead is almost unique in its non-performance. The Chinese Central Bank has been injecting massive amounts of cash into their market and markets around the world have been rocked by... record highs? I also wonder, “why not Gilead too?”

 

[chemisttree]

...but I have no doubt that if a foreign company had IP that would help America in a crisis such as this, it would be appropriated without a second thought, esp, if that might save thousands. This is clearly a hypothetical question, but I am interested in whether you would feel outrage in such circumstances.

Of course I would. Do you have any modern examples of a US governmental academy, Department, representative doing something like this for reasons of “National Interest?” For any reason? I mean without going all the way back to the late 1700’s.

If you’re not a history buff, it would be worthwhile to remember the times back them. Britain had just lost a bitterly-fought war and was capitalizing on its immense seapower, seizing US flagged ships and cargo on the high seas bound for France and enslaving (they called it “impressment”) the crew. There was no WTO, no global economy, no cooperation between major powers for IP rights and on and on... And it (impressment) caused a war, of course. I’m not surprised that in that environment that IP theft against Britain was rampant. But if it were to happen today I would be outraged.

 

[mfb]

Of course I would. Do you have any modern examples of a US governmental academy, Department, representative doing something like this for reasons of “National Interest?” For any reason? I mean without going all the way back to the late 1700’s.

Rocket technology after WW II, rocket technology during the cold war?
The US government continues to spy on everyone and everything, and it is quite obvious that this information is used. More recent specific examples are rarely known publicly for obvious reasons.

 

[chemisttree]

A Royal Caribbean cruise ship was detained in a NJ port while the CDC screened 27 passengers who recently traveled from China. A family of 4 was hospitalized; one family member tested positive for the (regular) flu.

The ship has been cleared but still Royal Caribbean and Nowegian Cruises have banned anyone with a Chinese, Hong Kong, or Macao passport. Yikes! This is getting serious!

 

[chemisttree]

Rocket technology after WW II, rocket technology during the cold war?

I’m all ears. What rocket technology? Paperclip?
Paperclip was spoils of a war declared on the US by Germany.

 

[mfb]

Oh great, you found a new label for it. I'm sure you'll also find a new label for Russian rocket technology used by the US. Okay... pointless to continue this discussion.

 

[member 656954]

Of course I would.

I hoped for such, but assumptions must be tested.

In terms of the OP, IP theft is lurching us off-topic, but it happens daily, everywhere. Just a few domestic examples include Anthony Levandowski being charged with 33 counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets from Google, Zillow Group filing an IP infringement suit against competitor Urban Compass, and Apple purportedly having stolen IP related to their Watch tech.

In terms of your specific question, I'd say the NSA qualifies as a US government agency that has knowingly violated intellectual property rights over an extended period, and numerous small businesses accused the Government of stealing their IP seven or so years ago. The CLOUD Act has been cited by EU members as a mechanism for the US Government to engage in espionage, though I don't feel it has been set up for that purpose and it probably is a blunt instrument for such.

Sadly, theft seems to form part of the human condition, but if mitigating circumstances ever apply, surely the situation that triggered this whole discussion is an example.