/372

Covid-19: Social murder, they wrote—elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant | The BMJ
▻https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n314

Murder is an emotive word. In law, it requires premeditation. Death must be deemed to be unlawful. How could “murder” apply to failures of a pandemic response? Perhaps it can’t, and never will, but it is worth considering. When politicians and experts say that they are willing to allow tens of thousands of premature deaths for the sake of population immunity or in the hope of propping up the economy, is that not premeditated and reckless indifference to human life? If policy failures lead to recurrent and mistimed lockdowns, who is responsible for the resulting non-covid excess deaths? When politicians wilfully neglect scientific advice, international and historical experience, and their own alarming statistics and modelling because to act goes against their political strategy or ideology, is that lawful? Is inaction, action?1 How big an omission is not acting immediately after the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on 30 January 2020?

At the very least, covid-19 might be classified as “social murder,” as recently explained by two professors of criminology.2 The philosopher Friedrich Engels coined the phrase when describing the political and social power held by the ruling elite over the working classes in 19th century England. His argument was that the conditions created by privileged classes inevitably led to premature and “unnatural” death among the poorest classes.3 In The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell echoed these themes in describing the life and living conditions of working class people in England’s industrial north.4 Today, “social murder” may describe the lack of political attention to social determinants and inequities that exacerbate the pandemic. Michael Marmot argues that as we emerge from covid-19 we must build back fairer.5

Early initiation of prophylactic #anticoagulation for prevention of #coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in patients admitted to hospital in the United States: cohort study | The BMJ
▻https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n311

Objective
To evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States.

Design
Observational cohort study.

Setting
Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system.

Participants
All 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation.

Main outcome measures
The main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion.

Results
Of 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions
Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.

Le gouvernement vient de faire paraître un DGS urgent sur les variants Anglais / Sud Africains et Brésiliens.
L’inquiétude n’est plus trop sur l’anglais mais sur les deux suivants.
Comme je vous le disais hier manifestement les anglais ont perdu.

Les variantes :
– Anglais : #N501Y_V1
– Sud Africain : #N501Y_V2
– Brésilien : #N501Y_V3

▻https://twitter.com/BioHospitalix/status/1358447404878622724

#covid-19 #coronavirus #variantes

What we know about #covid-19 reinfection so far | The BMJ
▻https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n99

#Reinfection or #reactivation?
[...]

Research conducted at the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford purports that many of the cases of reinfection may actually be reactivation.5 Mossong points out that coronaviruses give long infections and their large genomic structures could cause them to remain in the body at low enough levels to remain undetected but ready to strike once more. “They could last longer in different parts of the body than respiratory areas,” Mossong told The BMJ, pointing to persistent loss of smell and taste as possible evidence that the virus remains within the body, replicating at a low level, for a long time.

What do the new #variants mean for reinfection?

SARS-CoV-2 variant B.117, first identified in the UK, has been shown to be more transmissible than previous variants, sparking a fresh wave of restrictions in the UK. But whether those who have already recovered from the virus are at risk is another unknown.

“I don’t know how likely that is to increase the chance of reinfections,” Hunter told The BMJ. He assumes that reinfections will be more likely with the new strain because of an absolute increase in the number of infections in general but hopes they will be less likely and less virulent than first infections.

Yet the emergence of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant, P.1, may throw that into question. A pre-print paper tracking the likelihood of being infected with the new variant, which emerged in #Manaus, Brazil, in late 2020, indicates that it “eludes the human immune response” triggered by previous variants. Reinfection is therefore likely.

“The question is how much genetic drift or change can happen in the virus, such that your immune system doesn’t recognise it anymore and doesn’t mount a protective immune response,” says Tuite, who spoke before the P.1 variant surfaced. Vaccine manufacturers have made assurances that their vaccines will stand up to the new B.117 variant, which according to Tuite suggests it hasn’t changed enough to make people more prone to reinfection because of the virus itself. (Vaccine reactions can be different to natural immune responses, although it’s too early to say what the differences are in the case of covid-19. Vaccine triggered immune responses are more consistent and could even be more powerful than those triggered naturally according to some studies.6)

#vaccins #vaccination

Covid-19: Norway investigates 23 deaths in frail elderly patients after vaccination | The BMJ
▻https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n149

Doctors in Norway have been told to conduct more thorough evaluations of very frail elderly patients in line to receive the Pfizer BioNTec vaccine against covid-19, following the deaths of 23 patients shortly after receiving the vaccine.

“It may be a coincidence, but we aren’t sure,” Steinar Madsen, medical director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA), told The BMJ. “There is no certain connection between these deaths and the vaccine.”

The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.

“There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,” Madsen said. “We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease,” he emphasised. “We are now asking for doctors to continue with the vaccination, but to carry out extra evaluation of very sick people whose underlying condition might be aggravated by it.” This evaluation includes discussing the risks and benefits of vaccination with the patient and their families to decide whether or not vaccination is the best course.

More than 20 000 doses of the vaccine have been administered over the past few weeks in Norway and around 400 deaths normally occur among care home residents every week.