FDA Waives Antibody Test Reviews, and It's Causing Problems

With the coronavirus pandemic, the FDA has been working to speed up the availability of tests across the US. They have done this by skipping the usual quality checks they do to make sure tests are not faulty. This has, obviously, caused some problems. Many antibody tests used to determine whether a person has been exposed to the virus are being released into the market without being checked for accuracy, and too many false-positives have been the result. The antibody tests do not determine whether or not a person has the COVID-19 virus, but it checks for antibodies that would indicate exposure. The problem with the false positives is that people now want to know whether or not they have the virus, especially if they end up being asymptomatic. This means that more people are now wanting the actual tests for coronavirus, which we all know are in incredibly short supply.
While I understand what the FDA is trying to do, it seems to be having a counter-affect, and causing almost more of a panic. Health providers in New York are actually being warned against using these antibody tests due to their inaccuracy. I think that this kind of approach the FDA is taking may be more beneficial in other areas of working against this pandemic. For example, with the vaccine everyone is hoping will come faster than actually possible. It usually takes up to 7 years to produce a marketable vaccine, so many companies, such as our local Gilead, are working to make and test their experimental vaccines despite not having been approved by any drug companies. I think that in a time like this, it might be advisable to allow well-known and trusted drug companies to pass the time-consuming tests in order to help people all over the world.

How do you feel about the antibody test problems? Should the FDA have waived the tests?
Do you think testing experimental drugs without approval from drug approval companies is too dangerous?

Source 1
Source 2

The Pandemic and Opioid Addiction

Link: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/27/820806440/opioid-addiction-is-a-disease-of-isolation-so-pandemic-puts-recovery-at-risk

Social distancing has meant increased isolation for everyone, and that has come at an especially high cost for those trying to recover from addiction, since isolation contributes to depression and anxiety, both of which are considered underlying causes for drug use.

To make matters worse, many treatment options for addiction are shutting down. These include inpatient and outpatient facilities, as well as halfway houses. This is because they are unable to currently meet physical distancing guidelines. Telehealth is a possible alternative, but it isn't always covered by insurance.

In addition to that drug users who have lost their homes may have trouble adhering to social distancing guidelines, and they also might be more susceptible to COVID 19, due to weakened immune systems.

Questions:

1. How do you think opioid treatment should be handled in the wake of coronavirus?

Brazil's President Stomping on Indigenous Tribes

Deforestation has been an ongoing problem for decades now, and one of the most vulnerable locations right now is the Amazon Rainforest. We are all aware of the recent fires that were contributing to the destruction of the rainforest, but natural disasters like this are not the only thing to worry about. President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro has been pushing commercial development of the Amazon rainforest since he ran for president in 2018. Not only is this concerning for the natural environment, which is already struggling with pollution and survival, but there are many indigenous tribes that live in the amazon rainforest, isolated from the modern world. By commercializing this land, Bolsonaro is pushing these people into today's society, and away from the lives they had been living. Bolsonaro has said "the indigenous person can't remain in his land as if he were some prehistoric creature," and "where there is indigenous land, there is wealth underneath it."
I personally am appalled by President Bolsonaro and his pushing of the commercialization of the Amazon rainforest. I think that indigenous tribes have every right to maintain the lifestyle they have lived for however long, and that encroaching on their culture and pushing them out of their home is criminal. I'm also very upset because the Amazon rainforest is one of the major oxygen-producers on earth, and that by destroying it, the human race itself is being damaged. There's also the pollution aspect, which would only become worse if the rainforest was used for industry.
If you want to watch a super cool video about some indigenous tribes in the Amazon rainforest, click here (it's in Spanish partly but there are subtitles).

How do you feel about this issue?

Source

*Cardi B voice* CORONAVIRUS - Breaking the Economy

As we all know, COVID-19 has been affecting people all over the world, especially financially, as many people are being laid off as they can no longer work right now. Obviously, this is going to have some kind of affect on the economy. The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. federal government is on track to spending $4 trillion more than they collect in revenue. This means that all the money the federal government has made in this past year is $4 trillion dollars less than what they are planning on spending! The U.S. government is already in debt (if you want to see it and cry, click here), so this is personally very concerning. I know that many people are freaking out because this economic crash and unemployment rating is looking like what we saw during the Great Depression in the 1930s. President Trump made an announcement in the last week saying he wanted to push more money into the economy with a $1.2 trillion dollar "rescue-plan" that would include giving direct payments of $1000 to most Americans.
I personally don't know what the best solution here is. I think that supporting struggling Americans should be the #1 priority, but that's also an expensive way to think.
What do you think about Trump's proposal?
(sensitive question) How are you and your family being affected by this economic crash?
People losing their jobs due to the pandemic connects to the different types of unemployment we've been talking about recently in class. What type of unemployment do you think this is and why?

Source 1
Source 2

"Zoombombing"

Videoconference app, "Zoom" has become especially popular in the last few months during the stay at home orders for coronavirus. Zoom is used for school, business meetings, college informationals, concerts(?)  etc. (you already know).

Recently however, "Zoombombing," incidents have been revealing the weak security of the platform. Incidents of zoombombing are usually internet trolls with harmless pranks, however, incidents of hateful speech and harassment have escalated on the platform. An example of this is when a user hacked into the conference call of the American Jewish Community in Paris and made racial remarks and additionally changed their background to a crude GIF (Source 1).

In addition to hateful speech, multiple issues of pornography have arisen. Users have a default setting in which they are able to screen share any content from their screen without permission from the host. As a result, in the popular singer, "Lauv's" public branded partnership meeting with "Chipotle," a user  persistently shared extremely graphic images. When the user was blocked, they were able to easily create new accounts and enter again.

I didn't know about Zoom before quarantine, and that's probably because the platform was initially made with the intention of being used as an "enterprise technology tool, not a consumer social tool"(Source 2). Naturally, it has adapted into being both, and Zoom now is valued at 29 billion dollars. With Zoom's sharp rise and popularity, I'd like to see them use their money to revise and update the privacy settings of conference calls. Especially if the platform is being used nationwide in schools, screen sharing should be limited to only certain participants, and events should be made invitation only.

Questions:
1. Is there an alternative video conferencing platform that could be used instead of Zoom?
2. Should Zoom meetings be made invitation-only?
3. What are some other issues you face/in general with Zoom? (if any).

Sources:
Source 1
Source 2

California Flattening the Curve - Coronavirus

On Wednesday at a news conference, governor Gavin Newsom explained, "in terms of the curve in California bending: It is bending, but it's also stretching." This is good news because in comparison to the predicted number of cases made in mid-March, the number of cases are significantly lower. University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that the number of available hospital and ICU beds as well as incubators will be sufficient enough for patients.

This flattening of the curve is most likely due to California's stay at home order. California was the first state to issue the order in its 9 Bay Area counties. Professor John Swartzberg, a professor of infectious diseases at UC Berkeley said that the immediate shelter in place saved California from the worst projected outcomes. 

Although the curve is flattening in California, the shelter in place should not be lifted for another month or so. The"bending" of the curve indicates that the rate of new cases per day are decreasing. But because it is also "stretching," the number of new cases per day remains constant. It will be extremely crucial this month to continue social distancing in order to flatten the curve even more. 

Questions:

1. Should we lift the shelter in place at all before a vaccine is available?

2. Do you believe governor Newsom and the state of California reacted well to the virus, or should they have reacted differently/sooner?

3. At what point do you think the shelter in place should be lifted?

Source:

Source 1

EARN IT Act

Link(s) used for research:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2020/03/30/the-cybersecurity-202-cybersecurity-experts-slam-child-protection-bill-that-risks-rolling-back-encryption/5e80cfd5602ff10d49ad761a/

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-your-privacy-could-be-threatened-by-a-bill-to-protect-children/

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/3/21144678/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation



The EARN IT Act (or Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act) is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CO), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The acronym comes from the fact that under it, tech companies would have to "earn" liability protections by adhering by rules set by a 15 person "National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention".

Liability protections protect internet service providers from being held accountable for what is said on their site by another party. Currently, they are established by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act., which has attracted some controversy in recent years due to the spread of hate speech and terrorist content of the internet.

Supporters of the bill say that it will help lower the rates of child exploitation requiring online sites to meet safety requirements for children, at the risk of being sued by individuals if they don't. Ideally, this would make tech companies more vigilant about any potential child predators on its site.

But detractors are more skeptical. They say the bill's focus on child exploitation is just a front to push forward norms that are meant to erode security and privacy protections on the internet. Opponents of the bill fear it may mandate a backdoor for law enforcement officers into any site (in other words, that it may allow the bypassing of any encryption the site uses), as part of its commission's guidelines. Scrutiny also comes from the fact that the 15 person commission is to be headed by the U.S attorney general, currently William Barr. Barr has been pointed towards as a critic of end to end encryption (which protects communications from everyone but the communicators themselves), especially when it comes to the barrier it may pose towards criminal investigations.

Some opponents say a better way to stop child predators would be to increase the Justice Department's funding and resources, as well as to increase the number of agents and prosecutors tracking them down.


Questions:

1. How do you feel about this bill and why?
2. How far should Section 230 protections extend?
3. What actions would you recommend to lower the rate of child exploitation on the internet?

Hope For Cats with Deadly Form of Feline Coronavirus

Link:
 https://www.goerie.com/entertainmentlife/20200316/there-is-hope-for-cats-with-fip-pet-connection
A slightly more in depth article similar to the link that was also used for research: https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2020-01-15/fip-drugs-continue-show-promise-while-being-sold-black-market
Article describing FIP that was also used: https://pets.webmd.com/cats/cat-fip-feline-infectious-peritonitis#1



 FIP is one of two cat forms of the coronavirus. While the another form - feline enteric coronavirus or FECV - causes only mild gastronomic upset, FIP causes fever, weight loss and lethargy. More specifically,  its "dry form" also causes jaundice (if the lungs are affected) and excessive thirst and vomiting (if the kidneys are infected), while its "wet form" causes a buildup of fluid in the abdominal cavity (causing distention) and/or the chest cavity (causing trouble breathing).

Both forms have, for a long time, invariably led to death. However, now it seems there may be hope for a cure.  The potential cure in question is  GS-441524, manufactured by Gilead Sciences (the company behind Remdesivir, which is currently being made available experimentally for the purposes of fighting against Covid - 19). In a study by UC Davis, the drug was found to (as of now) kept 25 of 31 cats with the disease alive. However, Gilead hasn't made the drug widely available as of yet.

Although Gilead hasn't made their drug available yet, other, similar drugs are being sold online at a very high price. One of them, Mutian, claims to be the same drug. However there has been no verification of this, and it is illegal for veterinarians to prescribe it as the drug is not FDA approved. This hasn't stopped cat owners from attempting to treat their cats at home, however, sometimes with the help of their veterinarian. 

Questions:

1. How much, if at all, should veterinarians assist clients in administering this drug to their patients' cats?
2. Is it justifiable for people who live with FIP positive cats to attempt to procure drugs not approved by the FDA on the black market?

Trump Wants to Try Using Hydroxychloroquine to Treat Coronavirus

Trump advocated for the use of hydroxychloroquine for the second time at the White House briefing on Sunday. Among him were various public health officials. Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug used to treat malaria, lupus erythemathosus, and rheumatoid arthritis (Source 3). However, in recent studies in China, doctors tested the drug among patients with mild sickness from the Coronavirus. The patients seemed to recover but experienced side effects (Source 2).

Despite this, Trump believes that the drug should used immediately to treat dying patients. Two of the top public officials spoke strongly against this claiming that the drug did not provide sufficient evidence prove itself effective, could potentially cause dangerous side effects, and that various studies are needed before making such a hasty decision. Ignoring this advice, Trump explained that he was advocating on his gut feeling. He explained that if the drug was proven to work through studies, it would've been a shame that they did not use it earlier. He then goes on to admit, "But what do I know? I'm not a doctor."

It's not unusual for Trump to defy scientific consensus (ex. Climate Change) but in such unpredictable times should we be approaching the issue of the virus with sporadic "gut feelings," that may prove to be effective? Or should we find a methodical approach, backed by professionals and scientists at the risk of a higher death count. It's hard to choose either side with confidence, but personally I think a methodical approach should be used. If the use of the drug is passed, I think it should be handled carefully and prescribed only to patients with critical conditions. If the drug were somehow kept on shelves to treat coronavirus, people who have rheumatoid arthritis or other conditions treated by the drug would have less accessibility to treat themselves.

Questions:

1. Should hydroxychloroquine be used? Why or why not.

2. Do you ever feel the urge to defy scientific consensus? In which instances?

Sources:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Kentucky - Mandatory Ankle Monitors on Potentially Infected Quarantine Breakers

In an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, Kentucky judges have begun to enforce mandatory house arrest ankle monitors on potentially contageous coronavirus patients who do not self-isolate. So far, the judges have ordered two Louisville, Kentucky coronavirus patients to wear ankle monitors after breaking their specific quarantine orders. The first patient refused to stay home so that they could shop. The second two to be ankle monitored were relatives; one of them was tested positive, and both refused to stay home.

Amy Hess, Louisville's chief of public services defends ankle monitoring by stating that the house arrest approach is necessary in enforcing social distancing. She as well as other local officials agree that by monitoring activity of potential corona infected patients, they can prevent the virus from spreading and affecting the community.

This seems to be an issue between those who value their individual freedoms versus public policy. In such unpredictable times, I think enforcing house arrest is necessary. I'm not sure how necessary ankle monitoring is. It may sound excessive to some people as they're often referenced in house arrests for the more "typical" crimes than in comparison to patients. However in the unique circumstance of COVID-19, because coronavirus is so easily transmittable, and the numbers are rising in the U.S (228 confirmed cases in Kentucky), it is crucial that we strictly enforce measures to contain it. The reality is that those vulnerable to the virus are put at high risk when stubborn individuals act selfishly, especially the potentially infected individuals. I understand that shopping for necessary items may be extremely tempting for an infected individual; however, there are alternatives such as asking a trusted official to buy the items or ordering the supplies/food online.

Questions:
1. Do you Agree or Disagree with the measures enforced by Kentucky judges? Why?
2. When should we value individual freedoms over public policy?
3. Is there circumstance in which a potentially infected patient should be able to break quarantine? Explain.

Sources: 
Source 1
Source 2

Corona Beer Temporarily Suspends Production

Corona beer is being temporarily shutdown during the COVID-19 outbreak after the Mexican government announced this week that all non-essential activities were to be suspended until April 30 in order to flatten the curb.

Grupo Modelo, the brewing company in charge of Corona beer, stated that they will be pausing the production of beer but are prepared to continue production with "75 percent of our staff working from home" if the government decides that beer is considered an essential. They say they are still able to supply beer while protecting working from the virus and don't expect a shortage of production in the process. 

In a survey, it states that 38 percent of American beer drinkers would not, under "no circumstances", buy a corona beer. 

Questions

1) Do you think the Spanish government will consider beer an essential in the future and allow corona to continue production? 

2) What are your thoughts on Corona's plan if they are allowed to continue production? Do you think it will work without any negative effects on the company? 

Source 1

Source 2 

Navy Commander Relieved From Duty After Alarming Letter Over Coronavirus

Commander of the USS Roosevelt, Captain Brett Crozier, has been relieved from his duties on the ship for his "poor judgement" after writing and sending a mass letter out to the what has been told to about 20 to 30 people. The letter was somehow sent to the media and later published in the San Francisco Chronicle, drawing attention to and starting a panic aboard the aircraft carrier.

Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, made it clear that Crozier will not lose his rank or be removed from the Navy and has simply been dismissed from his position on the ship. Crozier was the captain of a 5,000 man carrier that had over 4,000 people tested for the virus. He decided to write a letter that was sent to a broad number of people (instead a letter sent up the chain of command) that announced the trouble aboard the ship -not being able to social distance- and demanded action be taken or people on the ship were going to die.

Modly knew that Crozier's letter had good intentions and was never meant to set off any alarms. However, the breaking from the chain of command and the unnecessary drama that came with the letter led Modly to make his decision of relieving Crozier. He concluded by saying that the former commander "allowed the complexity of the challenge of the COVID breakout on the ship to overwhelm his ability to act professionally."

Questions
1) Do you think Secretary Modly handled the situation correctly by relieving Commander Crozier of his duties?
2) Why do you think Crozier decided to send out a mass email rather than follow orders and send it to someone who can take care of the problem?

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3