A Tale of Two Illnesses

We in the U.S. are currently battling two major illnesses that may change the social fabric, customs and morality of our country for years to come if not forever.  Both are very different but certainly intertwined.  Together they will test our strength as a nation.

The first of these is Covid-19. While as a whole the country seems to be doing better handling this pandemic, we are by no means out of danger.  More illness and death is yet to come.  However, keep in mind that as time goes on and more and more people are exposed to the virus more herd immunity will occur, and that is really what we need in order to overcome the threat of pandemic. We achieve that “herd immunity” in two ways (see The Dilemma of Immunity).  One way is by immunization.  The second way is through naturally occuring infection.  This means that as more and more people are exposed to the virus naturally in the environment and recover, then fewer and fewer people are left susceptible to the virus.  The corollary to this concept is that people who have had the disease and recovered would be unlikely to spread the disease to the remaining others who might still be susceptible.  Hence there will be less communicability as time goes on.  This may seem obvious, but it is an important concept and probably as important as immunization if not more so.  However, there are some caveats to be considered here.  For example, we are assuming with good reason that having had the infection confirms immunity. While this is likely it has not yet been completely validated at this point. Neither has it been validated that the immunity will be lifelong.Another issue which remains open yet is whether the virus will mutate to such a degree that prior immunity will no longer be effective as often happens with the influenza virus for which new vaccines are required on a yearly basis.  Of course the alternative is also possible; namely,  that the virus will mutate and become in and of itself less infectious as time goes on.  We will likely have a vaccine (or vaccines) for Covid-19 early next year and newer antiviral medications will likely be developed in the months ahead as well.  Also, very importantly,  other medications to treat the lethal inflammatory sequelae of the virus will soon be developed thanks to our robust pharmaceutical industry.  All of this should save lives. However, other new viruses and infectious agents will also likely come to our shores in time to come, and we will need to be better prepared for this future possibility.  Please see my previous blog about what we have learned from this pandemic (seeWhat Have We Learned From Covid-19).  In the meantime our experience with Covid-19 has had dramatic effects on how we live our lives and conduct our business.  There is no more hand shaking. Social gatherings are limited.  People walk around in fear of getting a dreaded illness, which by the way, has a mortality rate far lower that initially projected.  People are wearing face masks in situations where there is no rational reason to do so (see Pandemic). Uncertainty about our economic future and security is causing fear and panic in the population leading to unreasonable doubts about our survival as a nation.  We will survive the Covid-19 pandemic and other infectious disease threats that may follow. Not only will we survive these threats, but will will do well once we learn how to cope with them.

The greater threat to our health, both individually and as a nation, is the emergence of various anarchist groups threatening to overthrow our government and the rule of law without which no society can survive.  The widespread violence and destruction that we are now seeing and the inability of local governments, particularly those in left wing democratic cities, to control this is a greater risk to the health and wellbeing of the nation as a whole compared to any viral pandemic. We can face pandemics together as one nation and do what is necessary to overcome them if we put petty politics aside and use good judgement.  Instead, what we see happening is our politicians using this pandemic as a political tool to destroy the opposition putting power before country.  Beyond this we see some of our elected leaders, principally socialist democrats, on a state and local basis permitting, condoning and even encouraging rioting and destruction.  There is absolutely no doubt that we have social problems that need to be urgently addressed, but destroying the country is not the healthy way to do so.  The wanton destruction of private property, the desecration of  monuments, the attacks on law abiding citizens does nothing but create more fear and hostility at a time when what we need is unity.  The health of the nation and its citizens depends on it.  To destroy our government and our institutions, as the leftists and particularly the anarchists want to do, is like seeing a sick patient in the hospital who has an excellent chance of recovery and saying he has to be euthanized because he is not worth saving.

What Have We Learned From Covid-19

Hopefully we are drawing to a close of the Covid-19 pandemic or at least getting it under better control although the recent rioting the country has experienced may be leading to a new wave of infections far worse than the resurgence that was previously predicted. Nonetheless, the pandemic seems to have slowed down a bit for now so now may be the time to reflect on the state of the pandemic and some lessons that we may have learned.

First, it is clear that we were by no means well enough prepared for an event such as this. We had had warnings that something like this might happen, but we failed to recognize the warning signs. SARS, MERS and the H1N1 viruses were the warning signs that a worse virus was likely to occur at some point in the future, and it did so in the form of SARS-CoV-2.

The orginal  SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) broke out in 2002. SARS first affected people in southern China, but it eventually spread to 29 countries. It apparently started in animals, but then spread to humans. There were at least 8,000 cases world wide, and it killed about 800 people giving it a death rate of about 10%. The SARS virus is very similar to the current  SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes the illness that we now call Covid-19, but by 2003 there were only 8 laboratory confirmed SARS cases in the US. H1N1, otherwise known as the swine flu, is a different type of virus more closely related to the influenza virus. Between 2009 and 2010 it caused 60.8 million infections in the US and 12,469 deaths. Another coronavirus (MERS-Cov virus) first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012 also caused a severe respiratory illness known as the Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome with (MERS). Only two people in the US have been know to come down with this virus and both survived. 

The U.S. should take Covid-19 as a warning and start preparing for the next pandemic as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this is likely to occur. Spontaneous mutations of the Sars-CoV-2 virus and introduction of new viruses from the wild into human populations are just a couple of reasons why this might happen. Given the interconnectivity of people traveling throughout the world, the spread of a new contagious virus in a pandemic fashion is very likely to occur. Shi Zhengli, a Chinese virologist, has warned that we are now dealing with the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to impending viral epidemics.

This should tell us that we need to expand work on antiviral agents that will have as broad a spectrum as possible in terms of antiviral coverage especially since vaccines take a long time to develop and are not effective once the virus has taken hold in a patient. Think of vaccines  as preventive treatments, but treatments that may need to be changed frequently since the vaccines are often very type specific. We also need to develop better pharmacologic agents that will block entry of the virus into the cell so that it does not have a chance to propagate within the cell,  and treatments that interfere with the replication of the virus if it indeed manages to enter the cell.  Furthermore, we need to work on developing treatments for effects that the virus has on the body if it manages to enter the cells and replicate. This is what triggers intense inflammatory reactions such as the “cytokine storm” and “the multisystem inflammatory syndrome.”  So from a patient management point of view we need to work on three things: better antiviral agents with a broad spectrum of coverage; the ability to adapt manufacturing processes for vaccines quickly because the virus will change and new ones will appear; better regimens for treatment of the effects of the virus once it enters the body. Of course all of the above has to be achieved in such a way that we are never dependent on a foreign country, much less a potential adversary, to supply us with the medicines, vaccines or anything else needed for us to treat another pandemic. 

We learned that social distancing, as controversial as it may be,  likely had great impact on the mitigating the spread of Covid-19, and it is a practice that in all likelihood should be implemented again quickly as soon as the next pandemic arises.  The current pandemic showed us that certain areas of the country were more impacted than others for a variety of reasons that we are still being investigated. 

Very importantly this pandemic was also a lesson in logistics that should not be forgotten, and it goes hand in hand with the evidence that not all parts of the country were similarly affected by this virus. There has to be mobility in terms of the delivery of healthcare in any crisis situation we may face in the future so that we can deliver medical personnel, equipment and medications where they are needed. This includes the ability to to get mobile hospitals up and running anywhere in the country they may be needed. We demonstrated some of that capability when the Javits Center in New York was converted into a hospital, the hospital ship Comfort arrived in New York and Samaritan’s Purse set up camp in Central Park to help out with the hospital bed shortage. However, for reasons that are as yet puzzling and distressful, none of these facilities was used effectively in terms of terms of relieving the overwhelming burden of the those city hospitals that were inundated with Covid-19 patients.  For future medical catastrophes, which are sure to come, we need to be able get mobile hospitals up and running quickly wherever they may be needed. 





More on masks….and the Confusion Surrounding Their Use

So much has already been written and discussed about the appropriate use of masks during this pandemic, but it still remains a confusing topic especially for those who are not front line care givers, first responders or in high risk occupations.  For those of us who are, the need to wear all the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) including the N-95 face masks and the like is quite clear.  The risk of exposure for such individuals is great, and therefore so is the the need for protection.  However, for those who are not on the frontline wearing a mask may simply be an expression of  an unreasonable fear or perhaps confusion about what should be done to protect oneself and others in a low risk environment.  A lot of this fear and confusion may be perpetuated by governmental authorities who feel that they need to control in every aspect what we do as individuals because ordinary people are not really capable of making sound judgements regarding their own care.  Dr. Fauci says he wears a mask because he wants to protect himself as well as others and also because he wants to make a mask a “symbol” for people to see that it’s “the kind of thing you should be doing.” However, do we really need a symbol in place of real information about what we should be doing and why so we can make our own sensible judgements?  Or, is the promotion of this “symbol” just something to help enforce compliance with a lot of rules and regulations that at this point in the pandemic are of questionable value?  Countless times I have seen people riding alone in cars with face masks on, riding bicycles on country roads or walking along deserted streets with face masks on.  Just recently I saw a woman leave her suburban house to walk down her driveway to her mailbox with mask and gloves on to pick up her mail with no one within a hundred feet of her.  I don’t think the use of a mask in situations such as these reflects symbolism or appropriate protectiveness to any degree.  Instead, I think this type of behavior reflects a paranoia engendered by the media and to some extent by governmental bodies which are confused, but none the less determined, to control our activities by telling us what we need to do even though there may be little or no proof that what they are telling us is indeed correct.  So having said all of this let’s take another realistic look at how and when masks might be used in the daily lives of ordinary people and not those of first responders, front line care givers or workers in high risk occupations.  To do so let’s also take a realistic look at how this virus spreads realizing that there is still a lot that needs to be learned. 

First, the virus can indeed spread between people interacting in close proximity.  For example, speaking, coughing, or sneezing can spread the virus from an infected individual to an uninfected individual.  However, the key words here are “close proximity.”  Usually that means within 6 to 9 feet of each other.  In light of this evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (for example, grocery stores, pharmacies, subways, buses, public buildings, etc. ) especially in areas where there is significant evidence of disease spread.  However, keep in mind that simple cloth masks will only help prevent large droplet transmission and not small airborne viral particle transmission.  So simple cloth masks may help somewhat in certain circumstances where close proximity is an unavoidable issue because large droplets will be retained by the cloth mask.  However, small airborne viral particles will not be retained by a cloth mask, nor will a cloth mask filter out such particles and prevent them from being inhaled by someone else.  So for the person with the virus who is coughing the cloth mask will help stop the droplets containing the virus from settling on another person, but it will not stop the tiny airborne viral particles themselves from being dispersed to others.  For the person who is not infected and wearing a cloth mask, the cloth mask will only help prevent the large droplets from reaching that individual but not the tiny airborne viral particles themselves. To help prevent airborne viral particle transmission which would be necessary in situations of close contact, an N-95 mask or better would be needed. Therefor, it makes very little sense to wear a mask of any kind when you are out and about away from people like when going for a walk or bike ride on country road, driving in your car alone, walking along a beach, etc.


More on Other Modes of Transmission

The coronavirus can live for hours to days on surfaces like countertops and doorknobs, but how long it survives depends on a number of factors like the texture of the surface, heat and humidity.  There is also evidence for fecal oral transmission.  A lot still has to be learned about how long this virus can survive outside the body, but as of now it seems that you are much more likely to catch it directly from another person than from surfaces.

Finally a Word About Mutation of the Virus


Viruses can mutate and that can cause a problem in terms of vaccines and treatments. However, mutation is not always a bad thing. Sometimes mutations can lead to a weakening of the virus so that it eventually dies out. The Sars C0V -2 virus seems to have a slower mutation rate than the influenza virus so that may be a good thing for vaccine development.  

The World Health Organization

WHO and the Covid-19 Pandemic

What did the leader of the World Health Organization know and when did he know it?

First, let’s look at some background information about the World Health Organization and it current director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

What is the mission of the World Health Organization (WHO)?  According to its charter it is supposed to “aim for the attainment by all peoples of the highest standard of health.”  It’s object is “to improve peoples’ lives and reduce the burden of disease,” and it is supposed to be the “coordinating authority on international health.” However, regarding the coronavirus pandemic it has failed miserably in its stated objectives. Much of the responsibility for this failure can be laid at the feet of its current Director General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.  He is not a physician though he has a master’s degree in immunology and PhD in community health from colleges in Great Britain. He is Ethiopian and served as minister of health in Ethiopia from 2005-2012 and then minister of foreign affairs for Ethiopia from 2012-2016 following which he became Director General of the World Health Organization in 2017. It should be noted that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who apparently according to Ethiopian tradition prefers to be addressed as “Tedros,” won the election for Director General of the World Health Organization largely because of the support of China which may explain why the WHO has seemingly become a tool of China in regard to the current coronavirus pandemic. It should be noted that the U.S., Canada and the UK supported British physician, Dr. David Nabarro for this position. The U.S. has been by far the largest financial supporter of the WHO for decades.

Tedros’ tenure as Director General of the WHO and before that as health minister for Ethiopia has not been without controversy.  The most recent of which has been his handling of the coronavirus pandemic (see below). While minister of health in Ethiopia he was accused by some of his country men of covering up Cholera epidemics. The organization “Human Rights Watch” also criticized Tedros during his campaign for the Who Director General position accusing him of being a proponent of an authoritarian regime in Ethiopia that persecuted its political opponents (Tedros). At one time he appointed Zimbabwe dictator Roger Mugabe as a goodwill ambassador for WHO. His appointment of a Russian to head WHO’s tuberculosis program was also regarded as controversial because of Russia’s poor history of tuberculosis management. Putting aside some of the controversial issues regarding his tenures as health minister and foreign affairs minister for Ethiopia, let’s focus in on how his actions concerning the coronavirus led to a worldwide pandemic.

How WHO’s Actions Promulgated  the Coronavirus Pandemic.

To do so Let’s look at the timeline beginning when the virus first arose in China.

  • Various reports suggest that the first case arose in Wuhan, China in early December or perhaps as early as November
  • December 30, 2019 an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital alerted other physicians about the emergence of a SARS like illness. He was subsequently detained by police. Reports indicate that China also took measures to prevent information about the human to human transmission of the disease from being disseminated by people in its medical and scientific communities.
  • In late December 2019 the Wuhan Health Commission reported 27 cases of viral pneumonia.
  • On December 31 the Taiwan government contacted WHO and expressed its concern that that there was human to human transmission of this virus. WHO ignored this report in deference to China because Taiwan is not an official member of the WHO and China does not acknowledge Taiwan’s independence. 
  • January 1, 2020 Wuhan official close the Hunan wet market in an apparent attempt to blame the wet market as the source of the infection as opposed to the virology lab in Wuhan. We now know that it is much more likely that the virus somehow escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology either accidentally (or intentionally if  you suspect that China has some ulterior motives).
  • Beginning in January  2020 China begins a campaign to acquired more medical supplies in anticipation of the pandemic occurring.
  • By January 14 the WHO is still reporting that investigations by the Chinese found no clear evidence of human to human transmission. This is the official position that the Chinese maintained until January 21 in spite of protests to the contrary by some of its own physicians and scientists. However, internal documents obtained by Associated Press indicate that Chinese officials knew a pandemic was occurring much earlier (AP) .
  • The Chinese New Year was on January 25th. Many Chinese returned to Wuhan in January to celebrate the holiday after which they returned back to various parts of the world where they were living and working carrying the virus back with them to be disseminated throughout the world.
  • Jan 23 China puts Wuhan in lockdown. Chinese nationals can apparently leave Wuhan for other parts of the world, but are prohibited from flying to other parts of China in an obvious attempt to prevent the spread of the virus within China.
  • Jan 21 First Case Confirmed in the US.

At no point through all of this did the World Health organization under Tedros leadership raise any warning signs about the coming pandemic. Instead, it took the World Health Organization until March 11, 202 to declare the pandemic (WHO).








The Dilemma of Immunity

While we await the development of  vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 virus here are a few things to consider. First, will this virus be very much like the influenza virus meaning will it have a yearly variation or mutation requiring a new vaccine every year ?  The answer to this is very likely “yes” since in many respects this virus is like the influenza virus.

Second, how effective will the vaccine be? There are likely to be several different variations of this vaccine produced in the U.S. and elsewhere. It is very likely that we will not know for quite some time which will be most effective.

Third, there is the whole question of herd immunity. Most epidemiologists would agree that anywhere between 40-60% of a given population has to be immune either by prior exposure and subsequent immunity (so-called “naturally acquired immunity”) or immunity acquired through immunization. Since this virus is highly contagious, it is likely that the percentage of immune individuals in a society would have to be on the higher side in order to prevent or limit the likelihood of epidemic spread. Remember that in order for the virus to survive it needs to propagate. It does so by infecting the cells of a susceptible individual, replicating in those cells, spreading to other cells in that individual, and then moving on to infect other individuals in a community as the infected individual sheds viral particles one way or the other.

The fourth point to consider is the following, and herein the lies the dilemma. If we acknowledge that we need 40% to 60% of the population as a minimum to be be immune either by vaccination or naturally acquired infection in order to stop the spread of the virus, then by limiting naturally acquired infection by social distancing we may actually be increasing the susceptibility of our population as a whole to the virus as time goes on especially if the vaccines which we are banking on fail to provide the degree of protection that we anticipate. If these things happen, then we may actually end up prolonging the pandemic rather than shortening it. Remember the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-1919 occurred in two waves and only stopped when enough people world wide had acquired the infection and developed immunity. There was no vaccine at that time. Presumably as this happened the virus had fewer hosts to invade and within which to replicate.  As replication decreased there was less virus being shed into the environment so fewer and fewer people came into contact with the virus gradually allowing for its extinction and thereby putting an end to the Spanish Flu pandemic.  Either something of that kind happened or there was a spontaneous mutation of the virus which made it less lethal and infectious. 

This is not say we should not be working vigorously on vaccines for SARS CoV-2. We should definitely be doing so, but keep in mind that naturally acquired immunity may really be what saves us in the long run. This is essentially the route that Sweden has taken in allowing herd immunity to take place in an albeit partially controlled manner. They did not go into a draconian lockdown, but encouraged social distancing to minimize rate of exposure so as not to overwhelm their health care system all at one time. It seems to be working for them although some would disagree with their approach and results. Only time will tell whether their approach really did work for them and whether it is applicable to other countries around the world. Each country and population may be different.  There may not be a “one size fits” all approach that will ultimately work for the entire world. In the meantime work on a vaccine, or vaccines continues, as does the work to find therapeutics both to prevent viral replication and to treat the destructive  inflammatory processes caused by the infection itself. 


Capital Hill and the Politics of the Pandemic

Where Do We Go from Here?

Yesterday we heard from our scientific leaders and our leaders in Congress about plans for handling the Covid-19 pandemic, but it still seems that we are just feeling our way as we go along. To a large extent that may be all that we can do.  However, are we really emphasizing what we should be emphasizing ? There are some basic facts that we do know about this pandemic even though there is a lot that we do not know. For example, we know that this coronavirus is more communicable that the influenza virus and potentially more deadly. Based on the history of prior flu pandemics we know that this pandemic is likely to last one and half to two years assuming that there are no major mutations of the virus. Also, based on past history we know that the pandemic will not be over until somewhere between 60-70% of the population is immune either because of vaccination or naturally occurring infection. We know that a vaccine will take a least a year to develop, but it is also likely that it will take much longer to really find out if the vaccine is effective. In addition, it is likely that there will be different vaccines by different developers, and it will take some time before we know which is best. One other thing we really don’t know yet about this pandemic is whether infection or vaccination will confer long term immunity, and this makes it even more imperative that medications be developed to treat the active infection and its sequelae such as the so -called “cytokine storm” and the new Covid -19 related “Pediatric Multi-System Inflammatory Syndrome.”

So where do we go from here? Instead of spending trillions of dollars on fiscal stimulus packages, concentrate on TESTING. The sooner we have the ability to provide universal testing both for the presence of the virus and for antibody titers to detect prior infection, the sooner we define who is at risk and who has presumably had the infection and is likely to be immune. We have come a long way in terms of testing both for antibody and actual virus, but the sooner we have universal testing the sooner we can get everyone back to work and resume a more normal societal pattern. Identify those who have the virus and are presumably carriers. Isolate them as best we can until they are clear of the virus. That should slow transmission. Identify those who have had the virus and are presumably immune. Allow them to go back to work and maintain mitigation practices. Allow those who test negative to also go back to work while they likewise continue mitigation practices. If we do this, we can slow progression of the pandemic until we have better anti-viral treatments and vaccines. We can get people back to work,  and we can begin to resume more normal lives. If we don’t do this, we hasten the onset of economic catastrophe and the collapse of our way of life. 

The importance of getting the country back on its feet as quickly as possible cannot be overestimated. That means letting people go back to work, resume normal activity as much as possible and socialize. Testing is the the way to do this while we develop vaccines and treatments. If we don’t do this soon, will have no economy, no stability, no future and no country. We have the resources to ramp up testing and that is definitely what we should be doing at this point. Testing should become so easy that we can go to the drug store or our local doctor and get the test for both the antibody and the virus any time we want. Instead of spending trillions on subsidies and loans, let’s spend a large portion of that money on the testing we need. We have definitely increased the testing over the past few weeks, but we can do much more.  Testing needs to become so easy that any one at any time can get it done. We have the testing technology down. We just need to mass produce the tests. It can be done. Let’s spend the money needed to do that instead of pouring all the money into subsidies and bailouts. Once we do that, we will have gone a long way toward solving the problem of who can go back to work and who can enter society.  Identify those who are risk, especially the elderly and those with predisposing conditions, and isolate them when needed to protect them. Identify those who have had the illness and are potentially immune so they can go back to work. Identify those who are carriers and sequester them until the carrier state is resolved. While we are doing all of this, we continue to work on vaccines and improve them. We continue to work on antiviral medications and the medications needed to treat the various conditions associated with this infection. Spend our money on doing these things, and we will come out winners in the long run with much less of a national debt.  If we delay the testing and identification, the pandemic will last longer than it should while our economy and country continue to suffer.




Wherein Lies the Truth ?

As we follow the course of this pandemic the real truth about several issues remains elusive. In large part this is because so relatively little is know about this “novel coronavirus.”  However, in addition there appear to be elements of misinformation given to us by  our scientific leaders either because of their own lack of judgement, inability to understand what was really going on, failure to use sound common sense in dealing with this pandemic, unwillingness to read the signs emanating from China, or perhaps (hopefully not) underlying ulterior motives leading them toward decisions that may not be in the best interests of all.

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32), but at this point in time what is the the truth about this virus and how it is really being managed? So far it seems that we are being led by scientific experts who are sometimes flying by the seat of their pants, sometimes lying to us for one reason or the other, or sometimes doing both while they try to persuade us that they know what is going on and what is best for us. Many of our political leaders do not seem to be much better than their scientific counterparts when it comes to leading this fight against the virus as evidenced by the disjointed and confusing approach that many are taking. Likewise our “TV doctors”  often contribute to the confusion by latching on to the “latest scientific study” as a breakthrough development and “gamechanger” when in reality these studies are often poorly done, misinterpreted or just not providing the answers we need. Let’s take a look at some specific examples from around the country that really highlight the confusion we are living with day to day as we deal with this pandemic.


Here are three areas where the truth is hard to find

First, to paraphrase Hamlet  “to mask, or not to mask, that is the question.”  Initially, we were told that we did not need to wear masks unless we were health care providers taking care of sick patients and that really only N-95 masks would be helpful. Furthermore, we were told that wearing masks would actually be worse than not wearing masks because we would end up touching our faces which was more likely to cause us to acquire the virus. Then we were told that the n-95 masks had to be reserved for the health care workers who would more likely need them than the ordinary citizen. Now we are by told that that any cloth mask would work (really to prevent transmission to others) and that we should use them when we go places where social distancing cannot be maintained. Yet the general public is so confused that people are wearing them when they are driving alone in their cars, and walking or jogging on empty streets. The problem here is that none of this is really based on hard science. It would make sense that wearing a cloth mask would help prevent droplet transmissions from you to another individual with whom you might come into contract. However, if you walk into a room where someone with Covid-19 has just had a sneezing fit a cloth mask is not likely to provide you with much protection from breathing in suspended airborne virus particles in that enclosed space.  The problem here once again is that we really don’t have enough accurate information about the characteristics of this virus in terms of  inhalational and surface transmission. So an N-95 mask would be the best to protect you from breathing in infected air. A cloth mask would probably not provide much protection to you except for some droplet protection if you are near someone coughing or sneezing.  It might provide some protection to someone else if you are the sick one coughing or sneezing by reducing droplet transmission from you. So what do we do? We do the best we can under the circumstances. Use an N-95 in confined spaces like food shopping or pharmacy  if you got it. Otherwise use a cloth mask or some other mask, but when you are in open spaces it does not seem to be necessary to use any mask.

Second, next consider the question about where this virus arose. Casting aside the Chinese assertion that the virus was made in the U.S. and brought to China by some U.S. soldiers,  we were first told by the authorities in this country and elsewhere that the virus originated in a “wet market” in the city of Wuhan in China where bats were sold, and that the bats were presumably the carriers of the virus and if not the bats than the pangolins that were also sold at the market. Then were were told that the virus did not originate in the wet market but that it was being studied in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that a worker there accidently acquired it and passed it on to others. An obvious suspicion has been raised by some politicians and people in the media that this virus may have been genetically modified in the Wuhan Virology Laboratory to make it more infectious and virulent. This hypothesis has been denigrated by most scientists who say that this could not be done.  They insist that this a natural evolution of this virus. Yet, there are a few scientists who say that this is indeed possible, and that it was in fact done. Not being a geneticist or virologist myself I really cannot weigh in on this except to say that it would seem logical that something of this kind could in fact be done by manipulating the RNA of the virus. Could CRISPR technology or some other technology possibly be used to alter the nucleic acid sequence of an RNA virus? If so, perhaps this coronavirus was indeed modified in the laboratory to become more lethal and infectious. One has to ask the question why this virus, which presumably originated in bats living in caves in the Yunnan province of China many miles to the southwest of Wuhan, suddenly became a horrible pathogen in Wuhan when the there was no preceding epidemic amongst people living in the Yunnan Province in close proximity to the bat caves. This casts some doubt on the idea that this was a “spontaneous evolution” that occurred in this coronavirus because it would be logical to have seen evidence of a widespread infection in the Yunnan province where the bat caves are located before the infection spread in Wuhan City in Hubei Province. This was simply not the case. So we are left again wondering whether this virus was modified or somehow engineered in the lab at Wuhan.

Third, what is the real story behind hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin? At the beginning of this pandemic there were a flurry of reports about the effectiveness of this combination of drugs in treating Covid-19. Now the enthusiasm seems to have waned because of reports of some toxicity and lack of effectiveness when the data was looked at more closely. The chief complaint regarding the latter centered around the lack of large well controlled, randomized clinical trials. None the less it is hard to discount the large number of anecdotal reports and studies, which as flawed as they may be, purport to show the effectiveness of these drugs in patients with Covid-19. It is likely that the final word on treatment is not yet in as far as these drugs may be concerned. Remdesivir has now stolen the spotlight, yet it is generally acknowledged that this drug is not a “blockbuster” in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Many other drugs are being evaluated about which we hear relatively little, but in the meantime Gilead Sciences will make a fortune. It also makes one wonder whether anyone on the task force has connections to and an interest in Gilead.


More to come….