COVID Transmissions for 10-8-2020
Good morning! It has been 326 days since the first documented human case of COVID-19.
I have not heard a lot of major news about COVID-19 over the past day or so. We are in a rare period of calm in this pandemic; I urge you to enjoy it while it lasts. I also hope it lasts quite a while.
As usual, bolded terms are linked to the running newsletter glossary.
Keep the newsletter growing by sharing it! I love talking about science and explaining important concepts in human health, but I rely on all of you to grow the audience for this:
Now, let’s talk COVID.
New York suggests a return to limited lockdowns, continued
I wrote this in yesterday’s newsletter:
Mayor Bill DeBlasio of New York City has suggested that certain zip codes where there have been spikes in COVID-19 should go back under lockdown. My understanding is that Governor Cuomo does not support this decision. I have not been following this story very closely, but I was asked by a reader to comment.
A reader commented that in fact the lockdowns are not DeBlasio’s plan, but Cuomo’s. What I said was true, and also what this reader said was true, so I would like to expand on this story.
Specifically, Mayor DeBlasio of New York City had a plan based on lockdowns by zip code. The Governor’s office was opposed to a zip code-based lockdown; at the time when I wrote that news item, this was the state of the story.
In the intervening time, Governor Cuomo’s office came up with an alternative limited lockdown plan. This plan involves concentric circles, extending from areas of high transmission, which have graduated restrictions based on distance from the center of the circle.
This is different from the zip code-based plan, and I think wisely so. While it is not a perfect plan, it considers that the areas of highest transmission need the most restriction, but also considers that zip code barriers are sometimes pretty arbitrary.
The plan Cuomo has instated here is similar to what was done in New Rochelle in Westchester County earlier in the pandemic. It’s hard to evaluate how effective that plan was, because COVID-19 was already silently transmitting throughout the New York area. We didn’t have local or national testing capabilities that would have allowed us to realize this at the time, and the result of that gap is quite clear if you look at the New York City data.
Now we do have better testing capability, at least locally, and the tests suggest that certain areas are problem areas. While I agree that basing restrictions on zip code wasn’t a great idea, basing them on the epicenters of spread might do something to slow this down. If it can be slowed down, perhaps it can burn out. I hope so. I’m not looking for a repeat of March.
Does Trump have antibodies?
Dr. Sean Conley, President Trump’s physician, made a statement today about the President’s health. Overall his narrative is suggestive of a continuing recovery for the President. However, I wanted to discuss the following from the statement:
Of note today, the President's labs demonstrated detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies from labs drawn Monday, October 5th.
This suggests that President Trump has mounted some kind of antibody response. Avid readers of this newsletter, however, will know that it typically takes 9 to 11 days of illness for an IgG response to be fully mounted. President Trump has been ill for less than this amount of time, meaningfully so, and Monday was only about 3 days into his illness.
So how were antibodies detected?
Well. As it turns out, Dr. Conley administered a polyclonal antibody cocktail manufactured by Regeneron as one of the treatments that he used for President Trump. These antibodies include ones that could be detected by a test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
IgG in the bloodstream has a half-life of 21 days. This means that when you are infused with IgG antibodies, it takes 21 days before the initial input amount is reduced by half. To get to less than 10% of the original input would take more than 60 days.
It’s almost certain that Trump is antibody-positive because he was injected with antibodies. Soon he may produce his own detectable levels of antibodies, but given how antibodies are detected, it won’t be possible to sort these out from the ones he was given as a treatment.
What am I doing to cope with the pandemic? This:
Playing games involving unicorns
Throughout the pandemic, my wife and I have been pressed to find things to do together that make life feel a little normal. We like board and card games, but we’re at a bit of a deficit for opponents for games that would normally be better with 3 or more people.
We’ve turned to the games that we have that can be adapted for, or are intended for, play with just 2 people. One game that we’ve really been enjoying is Unstable Unicorns. My sister-in-law and her husband introduced us to it, and it works really nicely with 2 people.
Image is the box for Unstable Unicorns. Package copy reads “Build a unicorn army. Betray your friends. Unicorns are your friends now.”This is an extremely silly game that pokes fun at pop culture and is very irreverent.
Something I like about it is that it is relatively playable at a distance; a group of people wearing masks could play this game outside pretty safely. But, wash your hands after playing since cards are passed between players at certain points.
Recently we picked up some expansions for it. One of them adds some elements that make fun of role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, and has added a bit more comedy to what was already an entertaining game. If you’re looking for something you can play with a limited circle of quarantine buddies or friends you can meet up with safely, I’d recommend it.
Join the conversation, and what you say will impact what I talk about in the next issue.
Also, let me know any other thoughts you might have about the newsletter. I’d like to make sure you’re getting what you want out of this.
This newsletter will contain mistakes. When you find them, tell me about them so that I can fix them. I would rather this newsletter be correct than protect my ego.
Though I can’t correct the emailed version after it has been sent, I do update the online post of the newsletter every time a mistake is brought to my attention.
No corrections since last issue.
Thanks for reading, everyone!
See you all next time.
Always,
JS
Question: what is the likelihood that taking an early, less-effective vaccine prevents a future, more-effective vaccine from working correctly? Or, to phrase is more positively: do you expect that different COVID-19 vaccines will work independently and provide stacking protection? (I find myself having unusually vaccine-hesitant thoughts about the in-progress COVID-19 vaccines, and I finally figured out that this is the question that's bothering me.) Thank you for writing this newsletter, reading it has become a welcome part of my morning routine!