Richard Wells is the first plasma donor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pa., where researchers are conducting a clinical trial to treat severely ill patients with COVID-19. Richard and his wife Maria both tested positive for the virus in March. “The illness felt like nothing I'd ever experienced before,” Maria tells Yahoo Life. “It was hard,” Richard recalls. “We had the low-grade fever. We talked about the aches and pains, the fatigue.” “Our children were especially concerned for us,” Maria shares. “Their constant concern was, are you sure you're breathing OK? Are you sure you don't need to go to the hospital?” Both Richard and Maria shared similar symptoms. The fever lasted seven to 10 days, and it took nearly three weeks to fully recover from the fatigue. Unable to go out, the couple received help from their friends, who delivered meals and groceries to their door. “[We] just felt tremendous support from our friends and our community,” says Richard, noting that the support was one of the reasons why he and his wife felt the desire to give back. After making a full recovery, Richard and Maria started looking into ways they could help fight the pandemic, which is how Maria discovered the clinical trial to treat severe COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital.
“They had just started this trial,” Maria explains. “I was patient number one. Richard was patient number two.” The theory behind the trial is that as a person recovers from COVID-19, they develop antibodies that can help boost the immune system to fight the infection. If a person still has these antibodies after they have fully recovered, they can donate their plasma to someone who is currently infected to try and treat the virus. However, there are certain eligibility requirements that a person must meet before donating plasma. Women who have given birth can develop certain antibodies that are dangerous to plasma recipients. “I cannot donate plasma, unfortunately,” Maria explains, but she was able to do her part in giving back by donating blood.
Meanwhile, on April 13, Richard became Thomas Jefferson University Hospital’s first plasma donor. “It was incredibly exciting to have our first donor,” Dr. Kristin Rising, one of the doctors leading the trial, tells Yahoo Life. “Trials, specifically with COVID-19, are immensely important. We do not have enough evidence to say definitively which [treatments] are positively changing outcomes. The only way that we can get answers is through doing research and trials.” For Richard and Maria, there was no question about helping to further COVID-19 treatment research.
“If there's anything that I could do as an individual to help advance the amount of knowledge that we have … we'll just be better prepared to respond appropriately,” says Richard. “Every human being right now on this earth is working in some way to alleviate the virus,” Maria says. “Here's an opportunity for us to do something for others because others have done for us.” If you live in the Philadelphia area and wish to learn more about Thomas Jefferson University Hospital’s COVID-19 plasma trials, please visit www.jeffersonhealth.org/covidplasma.
What’s happening
Leaders around the world are grappling with the challenge of trying to reopen parts of society while avoiding new outbreaks of the coronavirus. Every safety measure that’s lifted in an effort to alleviate the economic pain of lockdown brings potential risk of another wave of infections.
There is one group, however, that may be able to return to everyday life without the danger of contracting the virus: people who have already had it. Some countries have proposed creating a system of “immunity passports” that grant those who have recovered from COVID-19 — and are presumably shielded from a second infection — the right to return to normal activities.
The Chilean government was set to issue the world’s first immunity passports earlier this month before halting the plan. The U.K., Germany and several other nations have discussed similar programs. Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said passport plans “have some merit” once the science around immunity is established.
When we get sick, the body triggers an immune response to fight off whatever we’ve come down with. After we’ve recovered, antibodies remain in our systems that protect us from future infections. A vaccine works in a similar way, using a benign version of a pathogen to spark an immune response without the threat of initial infection.
While it’s still too early to know whether contracting the coronavirus leads to enduring immunity, scientists suspect it may give at least some temporary protection, based on studies of similar outbreaks.
Why there’s debate
There’s near unanimous agreement that not enough is currently known about immunity and the coronavirus to safely start any immunity passport programs. If more clarity comes from research in the coming months, supporters of the passports believe that recovered people could be a critical part of establishing a sustainable “semi-normal” society until a vaccine is widely available.
Issuing immunity passports could allow people to safely return to work, which could stimulate the economy for everyone. Those people might also be able to help support vulnerable populations, since they are unlikely to pass the virus along to others.
The idea has been met with significant skepticism from many public health experts. A key concern is over how much immunity, if any, recovered patients have. It’s also impossible to know in the short term how long that immunity might last, they say. Some pathogens provide protection for decades; in others, only a few months.
Another problem is the accuracy of tests used to determine who has antibodies to the virus. Critics of passport plans say currently available tests have too high a failure rate to be relied upon for any public policy. Especially worrying is the high rate of false positives, which leads people to think they are safe from the virus when they are not.
Even if all the scientific issues were to be resolved, there are reasons not to create immunity passports, some argue. The passes risk dividing society into two groups, the vulnerable and a small privileged class with rights denied to the rest of society. The system might also cause people to deliberately infect themselves so they can go back to work if they’re able to survive.
Perspectives
The passports could help bring the economy back to life if immunity is proven
“If everything works, the antibody tests and the assumption that recovered people get enough immunity to not get COVID-19 again, then immunity passports would help us get out of stay-at-home orders and economic shutdown. In theory, people who have an immunity passport could safely return to work because they would not get sick again and start passing the virus around.” — Chia-Yi Hou, The Hill
Anyone with a false positive result would be a huge threat to those around them
“Imagine the psychological state of a person who thought they were in the all clear and has gone back to work in a care home and ended up killing several people.” — Health psychologist Susan Michie to Wired
People who aren’t at risk have a right to return to their normal lives
“Immunity licenses could promote individual liberty and benefit society without invidious discrimination. A fundamental principle of public health is choosing the ‘least restrictive alternative’ — that is, restricting personal freedom only where necessary to achieve crucial public health objectives. People should be given a chance to show they are immune and are safely exempt from restrictions properly applied to those at risk of infection.” — Govind Persad and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Washington Post
People would get sick on purpose to obtain an immunity passport
“If the government allows the immune to return only to certain jobs or if employers prefer to hire those who are immune, that could also create a set of perverse incentives to deliberately get infected with COVID-19, especially for the young and otherwise healthy who might think it’s worth the risk for a job.” — Sarah Zhang, The Atlantic
There’s strong reason to believe recovered patients will have immunity
“There is reason to assume that recovering from the virus will provide some amount of immunity. The key is to further develop our antibody tests to better understand who is immune to the virus and conduct research to determine how long this immunity might last. Then, we should provide credentials to those who are immune — through a Covid-19 immunity passport — so that those individuals can resume their lives.” — Saju Mathew, CNN
It’s far too soon to be considering immunity passports
“There are too many problems and unknowns to use antibody testing to decide who gets an immunity passport and who doesn’t. Countries now considering it might find out they will either have to accept enormous risks or simply sit tight for longer than initially hoped.” — Neel V. Patel, MIT Technology Review
Essential workers could benefit significantly from immunity passports
“Immunity passports would be helpful for frontline workers, like those in health care, the postal service, grocery stores, public transit, warehouses, and childcare. Many low-wage workers in these industries are still working throughout the pandemic, risking exposure to the virus just by going to their jobs every day. If they knew they were immune to infection, they could go about their day without worrying if they could catch the virus from patients or customers.” — Emily Mullin,
What’s happening
Leaders around the world are grappling with the challenge of trying to reopen parts of society while avoiding new outbreaks of the coronavirus. Every safety measure that’s lifted in an effort to alleviate the economic pain of lockdown brings potential risk of another wave of infections.
There is one group, however, that may be able to return to everyday life without the danger of contracting the virus: people who have already had it. Some countries have proposed creating a system of “immunity passports” that grant those who have recovered from COVID-19 — and are presumably shielded from a second infection — the right to return to normal activities.
The Chilean government was set to issue the world’s first immunity passports earlier this month before halting the plan. The U.K., Germany and several other nations have discussed similar programs. Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said passport plans “have some merit” once the science around immunity is established.
When we get sick, the body triggers an immune response to fight off whatever we’ve come down with. After we’ve recovered, antibodies remain in our systems that protect us from future infections. A vaccine works in a similar way, using a benign version of a pathogen to spark an immune response without the threat of initial infection.
While it’s still too early to know whether contracting the coronavirus leads to enduring immunity, scientists suspect it may give at least some temporary protection, based on studies of similar outbreaks.
Why there’s debate
There’s near unanimous agreement that not enough is currently known about immunity and the coronavirus to safely start any immunity passport programs. If more clarity comes from research in the coming months, supporters of the passports believe that recovered people could be a critical part of establishing a sustainable “semi-normal” society until a vaccine is widely available.
Issuing immunity passports could allow people to safely return to work, which could stimulate the economy for everyone. Those people might also be able to help support vulnerable populations, since they are unlikely to pass the virus along to others.
The idea has been met with significant skepticism from many public health experts. A key concern is over how much immunity, if any, recovered patients have. It’s also impossible to know in the short term how long that immunity might last, they say. Some pathogens provide protection for decades; in others, only a few months.
Another problem is the accuracy of tests used to determine who has antibodies to the virus. Critics of passport plans say currently available tests have too high a failure rate to be relied upon for any public policy. Especially worrying is the high rate of false positives, which leads people to think they are safe from the virus when they are not.
Even if all the scientific issues were to be resolved, there are reasons not to create immunity passports, some argue. The passes risk dividing society into two groups, the vulnerable and a small privileged class with rights denied to the rest of society. The system might also cause people to deliberately infect themselves so they can go back to work if they’re able to survive.
Perspectives
The passports could help bring the economy back to life if immunity is proven
“If everything works, the antibody tests and the assumption that recovered people get enough immunity to not get COVID-19 again, then immunity passports would help us get out of stay-at-home orders and economic shutdown. In theory, people who have an immunity passport could safely return to work because they would not get sick again and start passing the virus around.” — Chia-Yi Hou, The Hill
Anyone with a false positive result would be a huge threat to those around them
“Imagine the psychological state of a person who thought they were in the all clear and has gone back to work in a care home and ended up killing several people.” — Health psychologist Susan Michie to Wired
People who aren’t at risk have a right to return to their normal lives
“Immunity licenses could promote individual liberty and benefit society without invidious discrimination. A fundamental principle of public health is choosing the ‘least restrictive alternative’ — that is, restricting personal freedom only where necessary to achieve crucial public health objectives. People should be given a chance to show they are immune and are safely exempt from restrictions properly applied to those at risk of infection.” — Govind Persad and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Washington Post
People would get sick on purpose to obtain an immunity passport
“If the government allows the immune to return only to certain jobs or if employers prefer to hire those who are immune, that could also create a set of perverse incentives to deliberately get infected with COVID-19, especially for the young and otherwise healthy who might think it’s worth the risk for a job.” — Sarah Zhang, The Atlantic
There’s strong reason to believe recovered patients will have immunity
“There is reason to assume that recovering from the virus will provide some amount of immunity. The key is to further develop our antibody tests to better understand who is immune to the virus and conduct research to determine how long this immunity might last. Then, we should provide credentials to those who are immune — through a Covid-19 immunity passport — so that those individuals can resume their lives.” — Saju Mathew, CNN
It’s far too soon to be considering immunity passports
“There are too many problems and unknowns to use antibody testing to decide who gets an immunity passport and who doesn’t. Countries now considering it might find out they will either have to accept enormous risks or simply sit tight for longer than initially hoped.” — Neel V. Patel, MIT Technology Review
Essential workers could benefit significantly from immunity passports
“Immunity passports would be helpful for frontline workers, like those in health care, the postal service, grocery stores, public transit, warehouses, and childcare. Many low-wage workers in these industries are still working throughout the pandemic, risking exposure to the virus just by going to their jobs every day. If they knew they were immune to infection, they could go about their day without worrying if they could catch the virus from patients or customers.” — Emily Mullin,
Antibody tests are too unreliable
“It is folly to base freedom of movement on such fallible testing. Passport holders and society would have a false sense of security while non–passport holders would have their civil liberties and work opportunities unwarrantedly abridged.” — Jayakrishna Ambati, Balamurali Ambati and Benjamin Fowler, Scientific American
The passports would lead to discrimination
“Once reliable tests are broadly available, this public health breakthrough could trigger some difficult legal questions. The country may soon have to deal with a new concept of bias: antibody or immunity-based discrimination.” — Jonathan Turley, Los Angeles Times
Immunity is more complicated than a simple positive or negative result
“Many serological tests aren’t like pregnancy tests, with a yes or no result. They will reveal the levels (or titer) of antibodies in a person’s blood. And that’s where things can get a bit trickier. At this point, scientists can’t say for sure what level of antibodies might be required for a person to be protected from a second Covid-19 case.” — Andrew Joseph.
No comments :
Post a Comment