Pranam There used to be a joke in Astrology. One man went to the Astrologer; he told the future as cumbersome life herein after , for 10 years continuously and so he shall be cautious. The client asked the astrologer, OK sir after 10 years what will happen?; the Astro answered " you will get accustomed to it". Maybe dasavatharam is on the anvil for corona?. KR IRS 24522
On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 08:51, Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > newyorker.com > <https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-the-coronavirus-pandemic-ever-end> > Will the Coronavirus Pandemic Ever End? > Dhruv Khullar > 13-16 minutes > ------------------------------ > > Twenty-seven months into the *COVID*-19 pandemic > <https://www.newyorker.com/tag/coronavirus>, our defenses against the > coronavirus seem at once stronger and more penetrable than ever. A growing > majority of the U.S. population now has some immunity to *SARS*-CoV-2, > the virus that causes *COVID*-19, whether from vaccination, past > infection, or both. However, staggeringly infectious members of the Omicron > family have demonstrated an ability to evade some of those protections. > Since April, they have led to a quadrupling of daily coronavirus cases; the > U.S. has been reporting more than a hundred thousand a day, but, because > widely used at-home tests don’t show up in official tallies, the true > number could be five or even ten times higher. > > When the original Omicron, BA.1, swept the country this winter, it was by > far the most contagious > <https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/01/24/fact-check-omicron-fastest-spreading-virus-known-humankind/6608007001/> > variant to date. But a subvariant that emerged more recently, BA.2, appears > to be thirty per cent more transmissible, and one of its descendants, > BA.2.12.1, is more contagious still. Unfortunately, people who have > recovered from BA.1 infections can be reinfected by Omicron subvariants. > According to some estimates, the U.S. could see a hundred million > coronavirus infections this fall and winter. “This is approaching one of > the most transmissible pathogens in history,” Eric Topol, the director of > the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told me. > Sign up for The Daily. > > Receive the best of *The New Yorker*, every day, in your in-box. > > Yet the country’s response has been one of indifference. No state > currently requires masks in public places, even though the director of the > Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said > <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/18/us/politics/white-house-covid-briefing.html> > that a third of Americans should consider wearing them, and New York City > recently recommended > <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/nyregion/nyc-mask-mandate-covid.html> > them indoors. When a judge struck down a federal mask requirement for > trains and airplanes, the Biden Administration appealed, but did not seek > to immediately reinstate > <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/us/politics/biden-legal-strategy-mask-mandate.html> > the mandate. In April, less than a third > <https://news.gallup.com/poll/392534/covid-cases-rising-again-worries-not.aspx> > of Americans said that they were even “somewhat worried” about getting > *COVID*-19, the lowest proportion since July, 2021, and fewer people were > socially distancing than at any time during the pandemic. A third > <https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavirus-index> of > the population believes that the pandemic is over, including more than half > of unvaccinated Americans and nearly six in ten Republicans. > > This attitude is attributable, in part, to an indisputable reduction in > the most serious consequences of *COVID*-19. Although new variants are > causing more breakthrough infections, vaccines remain protective against > severe illness. During the current surge, *COVID* deaths have been steady > at around three hundred a day—still too many, but near pandemic lows—and > hospitalizations have risen modestly. But our apathy also seems related to > a pandemic malaise—an inability or unwillingness to devote more cognitive > and material resources to a problem that refuses to leave us alone. > Congress has so far failed to fund an adequate supply of vaccines, tests, > and treatments this winter, suggesting that the country has retreated not > only from controversial mandates but from the most basic tools of public > health. > > As a physician, I have struggled to know what to make of this moment in > the pandemic, and I fear that it will last a long time. “We may be in this > phase forever,” Robert Wachter, the chair of the department of medicine at > the University of California, San Francisco, told me. Lately, I’ve been > seeking out people who have shaped the *COVID* discourse—experts who have > not only shared and interpreted information but helped to construct a > pandemic narrative and, in doing so, influenced policymakers and the > public. I wanted to understand how their thinking has changed on key > questions now facing the country: How should we live? Who should decide? > How long will this last? As the coronavirus has become less deadly yet more > difficult to contain, they told me, strategies that defined the early > pandemic have fallen away, and responsibility for our everyday behavior has > shifted away from public-health officials and toward individuals. In the > coming months, we’ll learn the consequences of this approach. > > Doctors often categorize medical conditions as acute, subacute, or > chronic. A patient with crushing chest pain and an alarming EKG is > experiencing an acute emergency, meaning that, within minutes, they need a > specific series of drugs and a team of medical professionals to unclog the > culprit blood vessel. Another patient may feel his chest tighten when he > walks up stairs, but the discomfort fades when he rests, and it’s been this > way for years. His angina is said to be chronic: it’s serious and needs > medical attention, but can usually be managed with medications and > checkups. The subacute condition is somewhere in between. Last month, a man > could climb three flights; last week, only two; and today, his torso feels > heavy when he walks to the bathroom. Subacute illnesses are hazardous in > their own way. They can often be mitigated if treated appropriately, but > they may be difficult to diagnose, and, if you ignore or mismanage them, > they can spiral out of control. > > I sometimes think of this period as a subacute phase of the pandemic. > *COVID*-19 is no longer an acute emergency, but it’s not yet clear how it > will become an endemic disease that we are ready to live with. Public > weariness, highly transmissible variants that evade some of our > immunity—these factors may condemn us to intermittent surges long into the > future. “Within the realm of my imagination, I can no longer see a true > game changer that alters the fundamental dynamics from where we are today,” > Wachter told me. “For me to say otherwise would be some combination of > wishful thinking and reacting to my own internal pressure, and pressure > from those around me, not to be a bummer.” This is, of course, a bummer. > Still, it might not be as bad as it sounds. “We’re not going to see another > million *COVID* deaths in the United States,” Wachter said. “The vast > majority of severe illness will be fully preventable. We’ll probably wear > masks in some places, maybe get regular boosters. It’s not the end of the > world. It doesn’t diminish my life significantly.” > > The experts I spoke to seemed to accept that, as a society, our options > for containing such a transmissible virus are limited. “If cases were > falling and there were not new variants that are so highly contagious, then > suppressing infection would actually be a viable path,” Leana Wen, the > former health commissioner of Baltimore, told me. “We have to recognize > that the price of prioritizing low infection rates would be astronomical.” > In her view, the U.S. can’t afford to close schools, restrict travel, or > shutter businesses for long periods, and those stringent measures might not > work anyway. “Even China, with the strictest lockdown in the world, is > struggling to contain these hyper-contagious variants,” Devi Sridhar, a > professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh and the author of > “Preventable: How a Pandemic Changed the World and How to Stop the Next > One > <https://www.amazon.com/Preventable-Pandemic-Changed-World-Stop-ebook/dp/B098CRQHVR>,” > told me. “We have to pivot away from the idea that we can avoid getting > infected.” > > Wen once advocated for strict measures to suppress the virus, but now > argues for a return to something like normal life. She told me that she > changed her mind in part because infections have grown less punishing with > time, as more people acquire immunity and gain access to effective drugs. > In two years, the infection fatality rate of *SARS*-CoV-2 has fallen > dramatically. For people who’ve received a booster shot, it now really is > on par with the flu. (Of course, the coronavirus is still infecting a lot > more people.) As the risk of severe *COVID*-19 falls, Wen said, the > threshold for policymakers to impose restrictions should rise. She argued > that mandates would become appropriate only if a new and deadlier variant > emerges. “Reintroducing them now would erode trust in public health and > weaken our ability to respond to future emergencies,” she said. “As soon as > the emergency fades, individual choice is again the key decider.” > > Wen frequently hears the criticism, sometimes in the form of online > vitriol, that her position does not fully account for the roughly seven > million > <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/covid-19-immunocompromised-etr.html> > Americans who remain at higher risk for serious *COVID*-19, even after > vaccination, because of compromised immune systems. Although she thinks > that more should be done to protect the immunocompromised, she also > believes that most Americans should be allowed to return to their > pre-pandemic routines. In my clinical practice, I often care for > immunocompromised patients who express fear and frustration that the > country seems determined to move on from the pandemic—and, in their minds, > to leave them behind. Having treated the devastating consequences of > infections in these patients, I find it hard not to empathize with them, > and I don’t have easy answers. Wachter told me that he is sympathetic to > the idea that we’re not doing enough to protect vulnerable people—but in a > country where many people don’t even have access to medical care, he said, > “the idea that, all of a sudden, everyone in society is going to do > everything possible . . . that strikes me as seeking a perfect world that > we’re awfully far from.” In his view, “most immunocompromised people now > have the tools to keep themselves relatively safe.” He pointed to vaccines, > boosters, antivirals, N95 masks, and Evusheld, a preventive monoclonal > antibody authorized for people who are moderately or severely > immunocompromised. And, of course, we should all be encouraged to get > tested and mask up before we spend time with someone who’s at high risk of > a serious infection. > > If we’re all likely to get *COVID* at some point, should everyone still > try to avoid it? Wachter thinks so, and called for individuals to take > precautions—masks, tests, steering clear of large indoor gatherings—in > places where the coronavirus is highly prevalent. “For me at least, the > long-*COVID* risk makes the benefits of reasonable amounts of caution > outweigh the downsides, but I could see others making different choices,” > he told me. “In the future, antivirals are likely to get better. Vaccines > may be better. We’ll understand more about long *COVID* and how to manage > it. At some point in my life, I know I’m going to get some terrible > disease, whether *COVID* or something else. I’d like it to be as far down > the road as possible.” He pointed to a recent estimate > <https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm> from the C.D.C. > that nearly sixty per cent of Americans have been infected by the > coronavirus, which suggests that more than a hundred million Americans have > not. > > The virus will continue to evolve, but so will our tools for fighting it. > “It’s going to be innovation, not behavior change, that gets us out of this > mess,” Topol, the Scripps director, told me. “You can’t keep people in a > cave forever.” Topol fears that a future variant will be more virulent. “It > pains me to say it, because I’m an optimist,” he said. But he argued that > the U.S. still has the power to change the course of the pandemic, by > continuing to invest in scientific research. > > So far, new variants have tended to become more transmissible and better > at getting around our immune defenses, but not more lethal. This makes > sense from an evolutionary perspective—the virus faces selective pressure > to find new ways to spread, not kill—and *SARS*-CoV-2 could go the way of > other coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Then again, it might not. > “People have this delusional idea that somehow the variants are just going > to get milder over time—wrong!” Topol said. “They could easily become more > pathogenic.” He pointed out that, compared with prior variants, Omicron has > spawned more subvariants, which are chipping away > <https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-covid-capitulation?s=w> at the > “immunity wall” of vaccination. > > In addition to advances such as better antiviral drugs, several types of > vaccine innovations would be especially valuable. The first is a universal > coronavirus vaccine <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2118468>. > Such a vaccine could potentially give us some immunity against all > *SARS*-CoV-2 > variants, as well as other coronaviruses. (A research group at the > California Institute of Technology, for example, has used > <https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/nanoparticle-immunization-technology-could-protect-against-many-strains-of-coronaviruses> > a vaccine platform called a “mosaic nanoparticle,” which incorporates > proteins from up to eight types of coronaviruses and has shown promising > results in mice.) A second transformative innovation would be a vaccine > that produces “sterilizing immunity”—that is, in its ideal form, an > antibody response so potent that it prevents the pathogen from infecting > and reproducing within us at all. This would dramatically slow the spread > of the virus, but, for *COVID*-19 and many other pathogens, sterilizing > vaccines have remained elusive > <https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/>. > A vaccine that’s sprayed into the nose might be one path toward something > closer to it. Because nasal vaccines > <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/opinion/covid-nasal-vaccine.html> > produce high levels of antibodies inside the nose, where the virus often > enters the body, they could be more effective at preventing infection > altogether. There are now three > <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nose-spray-vaccines-could-quash-covid-virus-variants/> > such vaccine candidates in late-stage clinical trials; they present the > body with many viral proteins, not just the spike, and could therefore > produce broad, variant-resistant immunity. “Many people have needle-phobia > and would probably say, I don’t want any more booster shots, but I wouldn’t > mind taking a nasal spray every four-to-six months,” Topol told me. “We > should be getting the nose and mouth Teflon-coated.” He’s troubled by a > “profound lack of investment” in these kinds of advances. > > https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/will-the-coronavirus-pandemic-ever-end > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoq5TdMgCQRLUOeG1hg_Lv910AVgTMYUZwsq347tLUM2fQ%40mail.gmail.com.
