livescience--2020-08-16--What would happen to Earth if humans went extinct?

Deep within Guatemala 's rainforest sits one of the most famous remnants of the civilization : a roughly 2,000-year-old citadel turned to ruins called .
When Alan Weisman hiked through the surrounding region , he discovered something fascinating along the way : `` You 're walking through this really dense rainforest , and you 're walking over hills , '' said Weisman , author and journalist .
`` And the archaeologists are explaining to you that what you 're really walking over are pyramids and cities that have n't been excavated . ''
In other words , we know about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to great efforts to dig up and restore their remains .
Meanwhile , countless other ruins remain hidden , sealed beneath forest and earth .
`` It 's just amazingly thrilling how fast nature can bury us , '' Weisman told Live Science .
This scene from the rainforest allows us a glimpse of what our planet could look like , if humans simply stopped existing .
Lately , that idea has been especially pertinent , as the global COVID-19 has kept people inside , and emboldened animals to return to our quieter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what life might look like if we retreated further into the background .
Weisman , who wrote `` The World Without Us '' ( Thomas Dunne Books , 2007 ) , spent several years interviewing experts and systematically investigating this question : What would happen to our planet — to our cities , to our industries , to nature — if humans disappeared ?
Related : What could drive humans to extinction ?
There are several developing theories for what could drive humanity to extinction , and it is unlikely that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nevertheless , imagining our sudden and complete eradication from the planet — perhaps by an as-yet undiscovered , human-specific virus , Weisman said — is the most powerful way to explore what could occur if humans left the planet .
In Weisman 's own research , this question took him firstly into cities , where some of the most dramatic and immediate changes would unfold , thanks to a sudden lack of human maintenance .
Without people to run pumps that divert rainfall and rising groundwater , the subways of huge sprawling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flood within hours of our disappearance , Weisman learned during his research .
`` [ Engineers ] have told me that it would take about 36 hours for the subways to flood completely , '' he said .
Lacking human oversight , glitches in oil refineries and nuclear plants would go unchecked , likely resulting in massive fires , nuclear explosions and devastating nuclear fallout .
`` There 's going to be a gush of radiation if suddenly we disappear .
And that 's a real wildcard , it 's almost impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Weisman said .
Similarly , in the wake of our demise , we 'd leave behind mountains of waste — much of it plastic , which would likely persist for thousands of years , with effects on wildlife that we are only now beginning to understand .
Meanwhile , petroleum waste that spills or seeps into the ground at industrial sites and factories would be broken down and reused by and plants , which would probably take decades .
Persistent organic pollutants ( POPs ) — human-made chemicals such as PCBs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down in nature — would take much longer , Weisman says .
`` Some of these POPs may be around until the end of time on Earth .
In time , however , they will be safely buried away . ''
The combined rapid and slow release of all the polluting waste we leave behind would undoubtedly have damaging effects on surrounding habitats and wildlife .
( But that does n't necessarily mean total destruction : We need only look at the at the site of the to understand that nature can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such extremes . )
While that polluting legacy unfolds , water running underground in cities would corrode the metal structures that hold up the streets above subterranean transport systems , and whole avenues would collapse , transformed suddenly into mid-city rivers , Weisman explained .
Over successive , without humans to do regular de-icing , pavements would crack , providing new niches for seeds to take root — carried on the wind and excreted by overflying birds — and develop into trees that continue the gradual dismemberment of pavements and roads .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans there to weed out rogue saplings taking root between the steel rivets : coupled with general degradation , this could dismantle these structures within a few hundred years .
With all this fresh new habitat opening up , nature would stoically march in , pasting over the formerly concrete jungle with grasslands , shrubbery and dense stands of trees .
That would cause the accumulation of dry organic material , such as leaves and twigs — providing the perfect fodder for fires sparked by lightning , which would go roaring through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ razing whole parts of cities to the ground .
`` Fires are going to create a lot of charred material that will fall to the street , which is going to be terrific for nurturing biological life .
The streets will convert to little grasslands and forests growing up within 500 years , '' as Weisman tells it .
Over hundreds of years , as buildings are subjected to sustained damage from erosion and fire , they would degrade , he said .
The first to topple would be modern glass and metal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But tellingly , `` buildings that will last the longest are the ones made out of the Earth itself '' — like stone structures , Wesiman added .
Even those would become a softened version of their former selves : eventually the defined , iconic skylines we know so well today would be no more .
Where the wild things are Looking beyond the city limits to the great swathes of farmland that currently cover , there would be a swift recovery of insects , as the application of pesticides and other chemicals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That 's going to start a real cascade of events , '' Weisman said .
`` Once the insects are doing better , then the plants are going to do much better , then the birds . ''
Surrounding habitats — plant communities , soils , waterways and oceans — will recover , free from the far-reaching influence that chemicals have on ecosystems today .
That , in turn , will encourage more wildlife to move in and take up residence .
This transition will precipitate an increase in biodiversity on a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diversity of megafauna — the likes of , elephants , , rhinoceroses and — across the planet have revealed that the world used to be exceptionally rich in these species .
But that changed when humans began to spread across the planet , hunting these animals and invading their habitats .
As humans migrated out of Africa and Eurasia to other parts of the globe , `` we see a consistent increase in extinction rates following the arrival of humans , '' explained Søren Faurby , a lecturer in macroecology and macroevolution at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` In Australia , there is an increase in extinction near 60,000 years ago .
In North and South America , an increase is seen [ about ] 15,000 years ago , and in Madagascar and the Caribbean islands a drastic increase is seen a few thousand years ago . ''
Related : Why have n't all primates evolved into humans ?
Without humans spreading to the far corners of the Earth and driving down megafauna populations , the entire planet could have been as diverse in these species as the famed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Live Science .
`` Effectively , there used to be large animals everywhere , and there would be large animals everywhere around the globe without human involvement . ''
has revealed that without humanity 's heavy species impact , the central United States , and parts of South America , would be the most megafauna-rich places on Earth today .
Animals like elephants would be a common sight in the Mediterranean Islands .
There would even be rhinoceroses across most of northern Europe .
Without humans , could Earth reclaim that diversity ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the picture , it would still take millions of years for the planet to recover from those past extinctions , Faurby and his colleagues have calculated .
They investigated what it would take to return to a baseline level of species richness and a distribution of large-bodied animals across the planet that mirrors what we had before modern humans fanned out across the globe .
They estimate it would take `` somewhere between 3 and up to 7 million or more years to get back to the pre-extinction baseline , '' explained Jens-Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biogeography at Aarhus University in Denmark , and a colleague of Faurby 's who has worked on the same body of research .
Basically , `` if there were n't human impacts , the whole world would be one big wilderness , '' Svenning told Live Science .
The planet might eventually become lusher and more diverse — but we ca n't dismiss the effects of , arguably humanity 's most indelible impact on the planet .
Weisman notes the inherent uncertainty in making useful predictions about what will unfold .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants , or oil or gas wellheads that continue to burn long after we 're all gone , huge amounts of heat-trapping would continue to be discharged into the atmosphere , he explained .
Carbon dioxide does n't stay suspended in the atmosphere forever : Our oceans play an essential role in absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the air .
But there are still limits to how much of it the ocean can take up without its own waters acidifying to unhealthy levels — potentially to the detriment of thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cap on how much the sea can physically absorb , meaning it is n't simply the bottomless carbon sink it 's often thought to be .
Related : What are the ingredients of life ?
As it stands , current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will already take thousands of years to be fully removed from the atmosphere .
( Based on the research he did for his own book , Weisman found it could take upwards of 100,000 years . )
And if the sea reaches its cap and more stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting continuous warming will lead to further melting of the polar ice caps , and the release of even more greenhouse gases from softening permafrost .
This will cycle into an ongoing , climate-altering , feedback loop .
All this means that we can confidently assume that climate change 's impacts will last long after we leave .
But to this , Weisman offered a word of hope .
During the , he said , there was five times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today , which led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , there must have been marine species that coped with these extremes , and went on to evolve and be part of the planet we know today .
Which is to say that ultimately , despite climate extremes and the immense losses they can incur , `` nature always finds a way , '' Weisman said .
There might one day be a world without humans , but that wo n't stop the rest of the planet from soldiering on .
Is there any point in us pondering what our planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Well , on the one hand , we might simply take comfort in the knowledge that , free of people , our planet would ultimately be fine , as Weisman said .
In fact , it would ultimately thrive .
But taking a glimpse at this imagined future might also prompt us to be more mindful of our actions , in a bid to preserve our own spot on the planet , too .
Weisman sees an inherent value to visualizing a world without us , which is why he decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He explained that when he started out , he was conscious that many people avoid environmental stories because it makes them feel bad about the damage that humans are doing to the planet , and how in turn , that 's hastening our own demise .
`` I found out a way to get rid of the fear factor was just to kill [ humans ] off first , '' he said , with humor .
With that distraction gone , he found , he could focus people 's attention on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to make : `` I wanted people to see how beautifully nature could come back , and even heal a lot of the scars that we 've placed on this planet .
Then to think , is there possibly a way to add ourselves back into this picture of a restored Earth ? ''

Deep within Guatemala's rainforest sits one of the most famous remnants of the Maya civilization: a roughly 2,000-year-old citadel turned to ruins called Tikal . When Alan Weisman hiked through the surrounding region, he discovered something fascinating along the way: "You're walking through this really dense rainforest, and you're walking over hills," said Weisman, author and journalist. "And the archaeologists are explaining to you that what you're really walking over are pyramids and cities that haven't been excavated."
In other words, we know about sites like Tikal because humans have gone to great efforts to dig up and restore their remains. Meanwhile, countless other ruins remain hidden, sealed beneath forest and earth. "It's just amazingly thrilling how fast nature can bury us," Weisman told Live Science.
This scene from the rainforest allows us a glimpse of what our planet could look like, if humans simply stopped existing. Lately, that idea has been especially pertinent, as the global COVID-19 pandemic has kept people inside, and emboldened animals to return to our quieter urban environments — giving us a sense of what life might look like if we retreated further into the background. Weisman, who wrote "The World Without Us" (Thomas Dunne Books, 2007), spent several years interviewing experts and systematically investigating this question: What would happen to our planet — to our cities, to our industries, to nature — if humans disappeared?
Related: What could drive humans to extinction?
A different kind of skyline
There are several developing theories for what could drive humanity to extinction, and it is unlikely that we'd all simply disappear in an instant. Nevertheless, imagining our sudden and complete eradication from the planet — perhaps by an as-yet undiscovered, human-specific virus, Weisman said — is the most powerful way to explore what could occur if humans left the planet.
In Weisman's own research, this question took him firstly into cities, where some of the most dramatic and immediate changes would unfold, thanks to a sudden lack of human maintenance. Without people to run pumps that divert rainfall and rising groundwater, the subways of huge sprawling cities like London and New York would flood within hours of our disappearance, Weisman learned during his research. "[Engineers] have told me that it would take about 36 hours for the subways to flood completely," he said.
Lacking human oversight, glitches in oil refineries and nuclear plants would go unchecked, likely resulting in massive fires, nuclear explosions and devastating nuclear fallout. "There's going to be a gush of radiation if suddenly we disappear. And that's a real wildcard, it's almost impossible to predict what that's going to do," Weisman said. Similarly, in the wake of our demise, we'd leave behind mountains of waste — much of it plastic, which would likely persist for thousands of years, with effects on wildlife that we are only now beginning to understand.
Meanwhile, petroleum waste that spills or seeps into the ground at industrial sites and factories would be broken down and reused by microbes and plants, which would probably take decades. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) — human-made chemicals such as PCBs that currently can’t be broken down in nature — would take much longer, Weisman says. "Some of these POPs may be around until the end of time on Earth. In time, however, they will be safely buried away." The combined rapid and slow release of all the polluting waste we leave behind would undoubtedly have damaging effects on surrounding habitats and wildlife. (But that doesn't necessarily mean total destruction: We need only look at the rebounding of wildlife at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster to understand that nature can be resilient on short timescales, even under such extremes.)
While that polluting legacy unfolds, water running underground in cities would corrode the metal structures that hold up the streets above subterranean transport systems, and whole avenues would collapse, transformed suddenly into mid-city rivers, Weisman explained. Over successive winters , without humans to do regular de-icing, pavements would crack, providing new niches for seeds to take root — carried on the wind and excreted by overflying birds — and develop into trees that continue the gradual dismemberment of pavements and roads. The same would happen to bridges, without humans there to weed out rogue saplings taking root between the steel rivets: coupled with general degradation, this could dismantle these structures within a few hundred years.
Related: Are trees vegetarian?
With all this fresh new habitat opening up, nature would stoically march in, pasting over the formerly concrete jungle with grasslands, shrubbery and dense stands of trees. That would cause the accumulation of dry organic material, such as leaves and twigs — providing the perfect fodder for fires sparked by lightning, which would go roaring through the maze of buildings and streets, potentially razing whole parts of cities to the ground. "Fires are going to create a lot of charred material that will fall to the street, which is going to be terrific for nurturing biological life. The streets will convert to little grasslands and forests growing up within 500 years," as Weisman tells it.
Over hundreds of years, as buildings are subjected to sustained damage from erosion and fire, they would degrade, he said. The first to topple would be modern glass and metal structures that would shatter and rust. But tellingly, "buildings that will last the longest are the ones made out of the Earth itself" — like stone structures, Wesiman added. Even those would become a softened version of their former selves: eventually the defined, iconic skylines we know so well today would be no more.
Where the wild things are
Looking beyond the city limits to the great swathes of farmland that currently cover half of Earth's habitable land , there would be a swift recovery of insects, as the application of pesticides and other chemicals ceases with humanity's demise. "That's going to start a real cascade of events," Weisman said. "Once the insects are doing better, then the plants are going to do much better, then the birds." Surrounding habitats — plant communities, soils, waterways and oceans — will recover, free from the far-reaching influence that chemicals have on ecosystems today. That, in turn, will encourage more wildlife to move in and take up residence.
This transition will precipitate an increase in biodiversity on a global scale. Researchers who have modeled the diversity of megafauna — the likes of lions , elephants, tigers , rhinoceroses and bears — across the planet have revealed that the world used to be exceptionally rich in these species. But that changed when humans began to spread across the planet, hunting these animals and invading their habitats. As humans migrated out of Africa and Eurasia to other parts of the globe, "we see a consistent increase in extinction rates following the arrival of humans," explained Søren Faurby, a lecturer in macroecology and macroevolution at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. "In Australia, there is an increase in extinction near 60,000 years ago. In North and South America, an increase is seen [about] 15,000 years ago, and in Madagascar and the Caribbean islands a drastic increase is seen a few thousand years ago."
Related: Why haven't all primates evolved into humans?
Without humans spreading to the far corners of the Earth and driving down megafauna populations, the entire planet could have been as diverse in these species as the famed Serengeti in East Africa is today, Faurby told Live Science. "Effectively, there used to be large animals everywhere, and there would be large animals everywhere around the globe without human involvement." His research has revealed that without humanity's heavy species impact, the central United States, and parts of South America, would be the most megafauna-rich places on Earth today. Animals like elephants would be a common sight in the Mediterranean Islands. There would even be rhinoceroses across most of northern Europe.
Without humans, could Earth reclaim that diversity? Even if we did suddenly disappear from the picture, it would still take millions of years for the planet to recover from those past extinctions, Faurby and his colleagues have calculated. They investigated what it would take to return to a baseline level of species richness and a distribution of large-bodied animals across the planet that mirrors what we had before modern humans fanned out across the globe. They estimate it would take "somewhere between 3 and up to 7 million or more years to get back to the pre-extinction baseline," explained Jens-Christian Svenning, a professor of macroecology and biogeography at Aarhus University in Denmark, and a colleague of Faurby's who has worked on the same body of research.
Basically, "if there weren't human impacts, the whole world would be one big wilderness," Svenning told Live Science.
Nature finds a way
The planet might eventually become lusher and more diverse — but we can't dismiss the effects of climate change , arguably humanity's most indelible impact on the planet. Weisman notes the inherent uncertainty in making useful predictions about what will unfold. For instance, if there are explosions at industrial plants, or oil or gas wellheads that continue to burn long after we're all gone, huge amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide would continue to be discharged into the atmosphere, he explained.
Carbon dioxide doesn't stay suspended in the atmosphere forever: Our oceans play an essential role in absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. But there are still limits to how much of it the ocean can take up without its own waters acidifying to unhealthy levels — potentially to the detriment of thousands of marine species. There's also a cap on how much the sea can physically absorb , meaning it isn't simply the bottomless carbon sink it's often thought to be.
Related: What are the ingredients of life?
As it stands, current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will already take thousands of years to be fully removed from the atmosphere. (Based on the research he did for his own book, Weisman found it could take upwards of 100,000 years.) And if the sea reaches its cap and more greenhouse gases stay suspended up in the atmosphere, the resulting continuous warming will lead to further melting of the polar ice caps, and the release of even more greenhouse gases from softening permafrost. This will cycle into an ongoing, climate-altering, feedback loop. All this means that we can confidently assume that climate change's impacts will last long after we leave.
But to this, Weisman offered a word of hope. During the Jurassic period , he said, there was five times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today, which led to a dramatic increase in ocean acidity . Evidently, however, there must have been marine species that coped with these extremes, and went on to evolve and be part of the planet we know today. Which is to say that ultimately, despite climate extremes and the immense losses they can incur, "nature always finds a way," Weisman said.
There might one day be a world without humans, but that won't stop the rest of the planet from soldiering on.
Moving forward
Is there any point in us pondering what our planet will look like, without us here? Well, on the one hand, we might simply take comfort in the knowledge that, free of people, our planet would ultimately be fine, as Weisman said. In fact, it would ultimately thrive.
But taking a glimpse at this imagined future might also prompt us to be more mindful of our actions, in a bid to preserve our own spot on the planet, too. Weisman sees an inherent value to visualizing a world without us, which is why he decided to write his book in the first place. He explained that when he started out, he was conscious that many people avoid environmental stories because it makes them feel bad about the damage that humans are doing to the planet, and how in turn, that's hastening our own demise. "I found out a way to get rid of the fear factor was just to kill [humans] off first," he said, with humor.
With that distraction gone, he found, he could focus people's attention on the planet, and the real point he wanted to make: "I wanted people to see how beautifully nature could come back, and even heal a lot of the scars that we've placed on this planet. Then to think, is there possibly a way to add ourselves back into this picture of a restored Earth?"
Originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-08-17--Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Coronavirus outbreak: Live updates

Refresh
90-year-old woman in the UK receives first dose of Pfizer vaccine, FDA review confirms vaccine is safe and effective A 90-year-old woman (who will turn 91 next week) became the first in the world to be given Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials, according to the BBC. Margaret Keenan, who is originally from Northern Ireland, was given the vaccine at the University Hospital in Coventry, England. She received the first of 800,000 doses expected to be administered in the U.K. in the coming weeks, according to the BBC. "I feel so privileged to be the first person vaccinated against Covid-19," Keenan said, according to the BBC."It's the best early birthday present I could wish for because it means I can finally look forward to spending time with my family and friends in the new year after being on my own for most of the year." "My advice to anyone offered the vaccine is to take it. If I can have it at 90, then you can have it too," she added. Up to four million doses of Pfizer's vaccine is expected to be given to people in the U.K. by the end of the month. Meanwhile, a 53-page Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review published Tuesday (Dec. 8) confirmed that Pfizer's vaccine is safe and effective, according to The Washington Post.
Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine starts to work just 10 days after 1st dose Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine starts to protect people from the novel coronavirus just 10 days after the first dose, according to new documents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The documents were released on Tuesday (Dec. 8), two days before a meeting of the FDA's vaccine advisory panel, which will vote on whether to recommend authorization of the vaccine in the U.S, Live Science reported . The FDA analyzed data from Pfizer's phase 3 clinical trial, which included some 44,000 people in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Germany and Turkey, about half of whom received the vaccine while the other half received a placebo. Both groups received two shots, 21 days apart. About 10 days after the first dose, there was a noticeable drop-off in new COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group, indicating that even one dose provides some protection, the report said. However, scientists don't know how long the protection from a single dose will last, so it will still be important for people to receive two shots, according to The New York Times . Overall, the vaccine was 52% effective after the first dose and 95% effective after the second dose, the report said.
People with significant allergies should avoid Pfizer vaccine, UK warns The U.K.'s Regulatory Agency is advising people with a history of "significant" allergic reactions to avoid Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine, after two National Health Service members developed severe allergic reactions to it on Tuesday (Dec. 8), Live Science reported. "As is common with new vaccines the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday," Stephen Powis, the national medical director for England's National Health Service said in a statement on Wednesday (Dec. 9). Both workers have a history of severe allergies and carry adrenaline auto injectors (such as EpiPens) around with them, according to The Guardian. Shortly after receiving the vaccine, both NHS workers developed anaphylaxis-like symptoms, or severe allergic reactions, but have recovered after receiving treatment. The MHRA will investigate further and Pfizer and BioNTech will support their investigation, according to Reuters. "Allergic reaction occurs with quite a number of vaccines, and perhaps even more frequently with drugs. So it is not unexpected," Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said in remarks to journalists published by Britain's Science Media Center. “What would be wise, as the MHRA have already advised, would be for anyone who has known severe allergic reaction such that they need to carry an EpiPen, to delay having a vaccination until the reason for the allergic reaction has been clarified," he said. For the general population this does not mean that they would need to be anxious about receiving the vaccination, he added. "One has to remember that even things like marmite [a quintessential British food spread] can cause unexpected severe allergic reactions.”
Canada approves Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine Canada has authorized Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine, with the first doses expected to be administered there as early as next week. Health Canada, the country's health regulatory agency, said in a statement on Wednesday (Dec. 9) that it had determined that the vaccine "meets the Department's stringent safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada," according to CTV News . "We expect vaccines to arrive maybe as early as Monday [Dec. 14]. It takes time to prepare the vaccine," said Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin, the top military general leading the vaccine rollout for the Public Health Agency of Canada, according to CTV News. The first doses could be administered by the middle of next week, he said. Canada is the third country in the world to authorize the Pfizer vaccine, following the United Kingdom and Bahrain. The country should receive up to 249,000 doses of the vaccine by the end of December, and has purchased 20 million doses total, with the option to purchase more, CTV News reported.
Daily COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. reaches record-high, surpassed 9/11 On Wednesday (Dec. 9), the U.S. recorded 3,124 new COVID-19 deaths, the highest daily death toll to date, according to CNN . In comparison, 2,977 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. has now recorded 280,488 deaths related to the virus, according to The COVID Tracking Project . A forecast from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predicts that the total death toll can increase to between 332,000 and 362,000 by January 2, according to CNN. There are currently 106,671 people hospitalized with the virus in the U.S.; 20,903 of them are currently in the ICU and 7,621 are currently on a ventilator, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Thursday (Dec. 10), the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is set to meet to discuss an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine.
FDA panel recommends authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine A panel of experts for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended that the agency authorize Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. On Thursday (Dec. 10), the panel voted 17 to 4 to recommend that the vaccine receive emergency use authorization (EUA) for people ages 16 and older, according to The New York Times . The FDA typically follows the advice of its panels, and so today's vote is an important step towards the vaccine's authorization. It is anticipated that the agency will officially authorize the vaccine on Saturday (Dec. 12), the Times reported. Several countries have already authorized Pfizer's vaccine, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Bahrain.
Vaccine approval could come this weekend, as U.S. continues to record high daily death tolls On Thursday (Dec. 10), the U.S. recorded another 2,902 COVID-19 deaths, a day after the country set a record of 3,253 deaths, according to Reuters . “Probably for the next 60 to 90 days, we’re going to have more deaths per day than we had on 9/11 or we had at Pearl Harbor,” Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday, according to Reuters. "The reality is the vaccine approval this week is not going to really impact that, I think, to any degree for the next 60 days." On Thursday, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee discussed, voted and recommended that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should grant an emergency use authorization for Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine has already been approved in the U.K. and in Canada, and FDA approval for use in the U.S. could come this weekend.
Australia abandons local COVID-19 vaccine after it caused false-positive HIV tests An Australian COVID-19 vaccine that had shown promising results in early trials is being abandoned after researchers found that the shot caused false-positive results on HIV tests. On Friday (Dec. 11), Australian officials said they had canceled an order for some 51 million doses of the vaccine, which was being developed by The University of Queensland and CSL Ltd., a local biotech company, according to The New York Times . In an early trial with 216 participants, the vaccine appeared to be safe and to produce a robust immune response against COVID-19, according to a statement from CSL . But some volunteers falsely tested positive for HIV, which officials feared would undermine trust in the vaccine, the Times reported. The vaccine contained small fragments of an HIV protein, which helped stabilize the vaccine. Some of the participants developed antibodies against these fragments, and these antibodies triggered false positive results on some HIV tests. It's important to note that there is no way for the vaccine to cause an HIV infection, because it contains harmless fragments of the virus.
ICU nurse in New York becomes first person in the US to receive a coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials New York, the worst-hit state at the start of the pandemic, just became the first to administer a coronavirus vaccine outside of clinical trials, kicking off a long, massive effort to vaccinate the American people, Live Science reported. Around 9 a.m. E.T. on Monday (Dec. 14), the very first dose of Pfizer and BioNTech's coronavirus vaccine was given to Sandra Lindsay, an intensive care nurse in Long Island Jewish Medical Center in Queens, New York, according to The New York Times. This comes as the U.S. continues to battle a massive wave of the virus that has more than 109,000 people currently hospitalized, according to The COVID Tracking Project. Since the start of the pandemic, New York has recorded more than 780,000 cases of COVID-19 and more than 35,100 deaths, according to The Times. "This vaccine is exciting because I believe this is the weapon that will end the war," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said during a live broadcast of the first vaccination. "It's the beginning of the last chapter of the book, but now we just have to do it."
FDA analysis confirms Moderna's vaccine is safe and effective, emergency authorization is likely to come Friday A new briefing document from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released on Tuesday (Dec. 15) confirmed that Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, according to NPR . Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine is 94% effective and has "a favorable safety profile," according to the document. A panel of experts is set to meet on Thursday (Dec. 17) to discuss the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine and vote on whether or not the FDA should grant emergency approval to the vaccine. Last week, the same panel voted that the FDA should grant emergency approval to Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine; the authorization came a day late and the first doses were given on Monday (Dec. 15). The FDA will likely approve Moderna's vaccine for emergency use on Friday (Dec. 18), according to The New York Times .
FDA authorizes first over-the-counter COVID-19 test The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the first over-the-counter COVID-19 test, which can be done at home and does not need a prescription. The test, made by the Australia-based company Ellume, provides results in as little as 20 minutes, according to a statement from the FDA . It is a "lateral flow antigen test," meaning it works in a similar way to a home pregnancy test, by running a "liquid sample along a surface with reactive molecules," the FDA said. The test works in conjunction with a smartphone app. Users take a nasal swab and place their sample in an analyzer, which communicates to the smartphone app via Bluetooth. The results are delivered through the app, and also reported to public health authorities (based on a user's zip code) through a secure cloud connection, the company said . Ellume is ramping up production of its test, and expects to produce three million tests in January 2021, and 20 million within the first half of 2021.
A wild mink tested positive for the coronavirus, it may be the first wild animal to have a confirmed case A wild mink in Utah may be the first "free-ranging, native wild animal" confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Live Science reported. The mink was found near a mink farm and likely picked up the infection from the farmed mink. There's no evidence that the virus spread to other minks or wild animals; but if the virus does begin circulating in wild animals, it could pick up mutations that COVID-19 vaccines may not protect well against if it spreads back to humans, according to the report. "If it does [establish a reservoir], then we've got a long-term issue here, where this virus has the potential to be with us for millennia," Sarah Olson, associate director of the health program at the Wildlife Conservation Society, told Vox. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has screened other animal species for the virus near mink farms in Utah, Michigan and Wisconsin, but all of them have tested negative so far, according to a statement.
An FDA advisory panel will meet today to vote on whether to recommend Moderna's coronavirus vaccine for emergency approval On Thursday (Dec. 17), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee will meet to determine whether to recommend that Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine for emergency approval, according to The New York Times . This panel, composed of independent experts, will vote on whether to recommend the vaccine after hearing from the company, FDA scientists and the public, according to The Times. Last week, the same panel of experts met to discuss Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine and voted to recommend emergency authorization; the authorization came the next day. There have now been more than 16.9 million cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and more than 307,000 deaths, according to the Johns Hopkins dashboard . There are currently 113,090 people hospitalized across the country with more than 21,900 of them in the ICU and 7,778 on a ventilator, according to The COVID Tracking Project .
California becomes new epicenter of COVID-19 in U.S. California, once praised for its early pandemic response, is now the new U.S. hotspot for COVID-19 infections. The state has reported an alarming surge in cases, breaking previous records for daily cases. On Thursday (Dec. 17), the state reported some 50,000 COVID-19 infections in 24 hours, and nearly 100,000 in 48 hours, according to The Washington Post . That's more than the daily cases reported in many countries, including India, Germany and Britain, the Post reported. The state also set a record for daily deaths on Thursday, with 379 fatalities reported, up from the previous high of 293. Capacity in intensive care units has also dropped dramatically, with hospitals in Southern California reporting zero percent capacity on Thursday. "I want to be very clear: Our hospitals are under siege, and our model shows no end in sight," said Christina Ghaly, director of Los Angeles County's Department of Health Services, the Post reported.
FDA expected to authorize Moderna's vaccine on Friday The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to authorize Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine on Friday (Dec. 18). Once authorized, it will be the second coronavirus vaccine to get the green light from the agency in just a week, with Pfizer's vaccine gaining authorization on Dec. 11. Moderna is expected to begin shipping 5.9 million doses of its vaccine on Sunday (Dec. 20), with the first deliveries arriving Monday (Dec. 21), according to The New York Times . Unlike the Pfizer vaccine, Moderna's vaccine does not require storage in extremely cold temperatures, and states are hoping to distribute the vaccine to rural hospitals and community health centers, the Times reported.
COVID-19 cases continue to surge across the U.S. There have now been more than 17 million cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. and more than 300,000 deaths, according to The COVID Tracking Project . There are currently 114,237 people hospitalized across the country and 21,900 people in the ICU. California is facing a massive surge in cases; the state reported 41,012 new COVID-19 cases and 300 new deaths on Thursday (Dec. 17), according to the state's COVID-19 dashboard . By comparison, at the start of November, California was reporting a seven-day average of 4,183 cases, compared to an average of 38,774 on Thursday, according to CNN . "We're experiencing an explosive and very deadly surge," Dr. Barbara Ferrer, Los Angeles County Public Health Director said, according to CNN. Intensive care unit beds are rapidly filling up across the state; there are only 1,234 ICU beds left available in California, according to the dashboard. Current closures across California are impacting around 98% of the state's population, according to CNN.
London and southeast England are under an emergency lockdown Following concerns of a new version of the coronavirus that might be more transmissible, London and most of southeast England are now under an emergency lockdown, according to The New York Times . Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the lockdown on Saturday (Dec. 19) citing concerns that the mutated virus — which was detected a couple of weeks ago in southeast England — may be as much as 70% more transmissible than previous versions, according to the Times. The new version of the coronavirus is detected in more than 60% of new infections in London and have also been detected in several other countries, according to the Times. But it's not yet clear if this coronavirus version is any more infectious than the last and thorough analyses will need to be conducted before conclusions are made, scientists cautioned. In South Africa, a similar version of the virus has been found in up to 90% of new cases detected since mid-November, according to The Times . It's common for viruses to mutate, and this particular coronavirus has mutated many times since the start of the pandemic. But experts told The Times that it would take years for the virus to mutate enough such that it would make the current vaccines developed to fight COVID-19 ineffective.
Biden gets Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine President-elect Joe Biden received a dose of Pfizer's new COVID-19 vaccine on Monday (Dec. 21), according to The New York Times . He received the shot on camera at the Christiana Hospital in Newark, Delaware. "I'm doing this to demonstrate that people should be prepared when it's available to take the vaccine. There's nothing to worry about," Biden said.
Antarctica has its 1st COVID-19 outbreak The first COVID-19 cases have been reported in Antarctica , meaning the disease has now spread to every continent in the world. On Tuesday (Dec. 22), Chilean officials reported an outbreak of 36 COVID-19 cases at the Chilean research base General Bernardo O'Higgins Riquelme on the Antarctic Peninsula, according to the BBC . Of these, 26 cases were military personnel and 10 were maintenance workers, the BBC reported. All of these cases have been evacuated from Antarctica to Punta Arenas, Chile, according to The Guardian . Antarctica had been COVID-19 free up until the current outbreak. The continent has no permanent residents, but about 1,000 people, including scientists and other workers, stayed there this past winter, The Guardian reported.
Live updates will continue in 2021!


livescience--2020-08-17--Astronomers bounced a laser off a spacecraft whirling around the moon

For the first time , scientists have successfully bounced a laser off a mirror that 's attached to a spacecraft whirling around the .
Bouncing lasers off mirrors on the lunar surface is an old trick .
Astronauts walking on the moon first left reflectors behind in 1969 .
And since then , researchers have bounced lasers off those reflectors to make precise measurements of the distance between the moon and , using the speed of light and the time it takes for the laser beam to return to Earth .
But hitting a laser in orbit around the moon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter ( LRO ) has orbited the moon with a mirror on its back since 2009 .
But nearly a decade went by without a single successful laser bounce .
In an Aug. 6 paper in the journal , a team of researchers report the first successful laser contact : Twice on Sept. 4 , 2018 and twice again between Aug. 23 and Aug. 24 , 2019 , technicians at the Lunar Laser Ranging ( LLR ) station in Grasse , France , shot laser bursts at the LRO and saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Related : Why does the moon shine ?
To make sure that the light bouncing off the LRO returns in the direction from which it came , the mirror on its back is more complicated than the one in your bathroom .
Like the older mirrors on the lunar surface , it 's a `` corner cube '' — a series of three-dimensional mirrors , each literally shaped like the inside of one corner of a cube .
When a laser hits it , the light bounces three times before the geometry of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction from which it came .
Tracking the movement of the LRO over time is an interesting scientific project in its own right .
But , the researchers wrote , these four successful laser contacts do n't offer enough data to track that movement .
The LRO is still moving too fast and too unpredictably to reliably hit with a laser , and all four contacts were made under what the researchers described as ideal conditions .
The moon , LRO and France were all lined up perfectly to improve the odds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies of the LRO mirror could help resolve a tricky problem impacting the mirrors left on the lunar surface .
All of those mirrors have become less reflective over time , and researchers are n't sure why .
But that lost quality is making precise measurements more difficult .
The issue could be that long-term exposure to solar radiation just weakens the mirrors .
In that case , the LRO 's mirror should weaken over time at the same rate .
Alternatively , lunar dust or faint haze from the moon 's thin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the researchers wrote .
In that case , the LRO 's reflectivity should remain more or less unchanged over time high in orbit , even as the surface mirrors degrade .

image This photograph shows the laser-ranging facility at the Goddard Geophysical and Astronomical Observatory in Greenbelt, Maryland trying to hit the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) with green laser light. For the first time, another facility in Grasse, France successfully bounced a laser (using infrared light) off the LRO's onboard mirror. Image caption
For the first time, scientists have successfully bounced a laser off a mirror that's attached to a spacecraft whirling around the moon .
Bouncing lasers off mirrors on the lunar surface is an old trick. Astronauts walking on the moon first left reflectors behind in 1969. And since then, researchers have bounced lasers off those reflectors to make precise measurements of the distance between the moon and Earth , using the speed of light and the time it takes for the laser beam to return to Earth.
But hitting a laser in orbit around the moon is a much trickier task. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has orbited the moon with a mirror on its back since 2009. But nearly a decade went by without a single successful laser bounce. In an Aug. 6 paper in the journal Earth, Planets and Space , a team of researchers report the first successful laser contact: Twice on Sept. 4, 2018 and twice again between Aug. 23 and Aug. 24, 2019, technicians at the Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) station in Grasse, France, shot laser bursts at the LRO and saw the light return 2.5 seconds later.
Related: Why does the moon shine?
To make sure that the light bouncing off the LRO returns in the direction from which it came, the mirror on its back is more complicated than the one in your bathroom. Like the older mirrors on the lunar surface, it's a "corner cube" — a series of three-dimensional mirrors, each literally shaped like the inside of one corner of a cube. When a laser hits it, the light bounces three times before the geometry of the mirror returns it in the precise direction from which it came.
An animation illustrates how corner cube reflectors bounce light back in the direction from which it came. (Image credit: V.pantaloni/Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 4.0)
Tracking the movement of the LRO over time is an interesting scientific project in its own right. But, the researchers wrote, these four successful laser contacts don't offer enough data to track that movement. The LRO is still moving too fast and too unpredictably to reliably hit with a laser, and all four contacts were made under what the researchers described as ideal conditions. The moon, LRO and France were all lined up perfectly to improve the odds of laser contact.
Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin holds two experiments that he and Neil Armstong left behind on the moon. In his right hand is a corner cube reflector, the first of five that NASA astronauts eventually deposited on the lunar surface. (Image credit: Neil Armstrong/NASA)
Over the long-term, studies of the LRO mirror could help resolve a tricky problem impacting the mirrors left on the lunar surface. All of those mirrors have become less reflective over time, and researchers aren't sure why. But that lost quality is making precise measurements more difficult. The issue could be that long-term exposure to solar radiation just weakens the mirrors. In that case, the LRO's mirror should weaken over time at the same rate. Alternatively, lunar dust or faint haze from the moon's thin atmosphere could be obscuring the mirrors, the researchers wrote. In that case, the LRO's reflectivity should remain more or less unchanged over time high in orbit, even as the surface mirrors degrade.
Originally published on Live Science.


livescience--2020-08-17--NASA powers up Ingenuity helicopter on Mars for the 1st time

NASA 's , named Ingenuity , successfully powered up for the first time in space this month .
Ingenuity is the first helicopter designed to fly on another planet .
It is currently travelling to the Red Planet aboard , which .
On Aug. 7 , the helicopter 's six lithium-ion batteries were powered up and charged for the first time in space .
The 4-lb .
( 1.8 kilograms ) Ingenuity , which is currently stowed beneath Perseverance 's belly , receives its charge from the rover 's power supply , according to a statement from NASA .
Related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 rover mission to the Red Planet '' This was a big milestone , as it was our first opportunity to turn on Ingenuity and give its electronics a 'test drive ' since we launched on July 30 , '' Tim Canham , the operations lead for Mars Helicopter at NASA 's Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL ) in Southern California , said in the statement .
`` Since everything went by the book , we 'll perform the same activity about every two weeks to maintain an acceptable state of charge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , during which NASA tested and analyzed their performance .
The batteries were charged only to 35 % of their maximum level , in order to maintain optimal battery health , according to the statement .
Perseverance is scheduled to on Feb. 18 , 2021 .
At some point after that , Ingenuity will detach from the rover , descend to the Red Planet surface and take a few pioneering test flights .
( After deployment on Mars , the helicopter 's batteries will be charged by its own solar panel . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ingenuity will prove that robotic flight is possible on Mars , opening the door for extensive aerial exploration on future missions .
`` This charge activity shows we have survived launch and that so far we can handle the harsh environment of interplanetary space , '' MiMi Aung , project manager at JPL , said in the statement .
`` We have a lot more firsts to go before we can attempt the first experimental flight test on another planet , but right now we are all feeling very good about the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Follow us on Twitter @ Spacedotcom and on Facebook .

NASA's Mars helicopter , named Ingenuity, successfully powered up for the first time in space this month.
Ingenuity is the first helicopter designed to fly on another planet. It is currently travelling to the Red Planet aboard NASA's Mars 2020 Perseverance rover , which launched on July 30 .
On Aug. 7, the helicopter's six lithium-ion batteries were powered up and charged for the first time in space. The 4-lb. (1.8 kilograms) Ingenuity, which is currently stowed beneath Perseverance's belly, receives its charge from the rover's power supply, according to a statement from NASA.
Related: In photos: NASA's Mars 2020 rover mission to the Red Planet
"This was a big milestone, as it was our first opportunity to turn on Ingenuity and give its electronics a 'test drive' since we launched on July 30," Tim Canham, the operations lead for Mars Helicopter at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California, said in the statement . "Since everything went by the book, we'll perform the same activity about every two weeks to maintain an acceptable state of charge."
Charging the batteries took eight hours, during which NASA tested and analyzed their performance. The batteries were charged only to 35% of their maximum level, in order to maintain optimal battery health, according to the statement.
Perseverance is scheduled to land on Mars on Feb. 18, 2021. At some point after that, Ingenuity will detach from the rover, descend to the Red Planet surface and take a few pioneering test flights. (After deployment on Mars, the helicopter's batteries will be charged by its own solar panel.)
If the experimental test flights go according to plan, Ingenuity will prove that robotic flight is possible on Mars, opening the door for extensive aerial exploration on future missions.
"This charge activity shows we have survived launch and that so far we can handle the harsh environment of interplanetary space," MiMi Aung, the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter project manager at JPL, said in the statement. "We have a lot more firsts to go before we can attempt the first experimental flight test on another planet, but right now we are all feeling very good about the future."
Follow Samantha Mathewson @Sam_Ashley13. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.


livescience--2020-08-17--FDA approves new saliva test for COVID-19 that's simple, cheap and available now

A new saliva test for COVID-19 that can be completed in just a few hours has been authorized for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) .
The test has several advantages over traditional : It 's cheap , less invasive and can be performed without the need for certain testing components that have run short during the pandemic .
What 's more , the test , known as SalivaDirect , does n't require any proprietary equipment or technology ; and instructions for the test will be made immediately available to laboratories around the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources , '' Adm. Brett P. Giroir , the U.S. assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator , said in the statement .
Developed by researchers at Yale School of Public Health , the test was recently given to NBA players and staff to help validate its effectiveness .
Related : 20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history Unlike nasal swab tests , which require a special swab to be inserted deep inside the nose , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spit into a collecting container , which is a less invasive ( and likely less painful ) process .
Moreover , the spit samples can be collected with any sterile container , the FDA said .
`` We simplified the test so that it only costs a couple of dollars ... and we expect that labs will only charge about $ 10 per sample , '' Nathan Grubaugh , assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health , .
`` If cheap alternatives like SalivaDirect can be implemented across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this pandemic , even before a vaccine . ''
So far , studies of SalivaDirect have found that the test 's accuracy is on par with that of nasal swab tests , the researchers said .
An initial study of SalivaDirect was published Aug. 4 on the preprint server , but the results have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal .
The test can provide results in less than three hours , .
Yale is not seeking to commericize the test , the statement said .
Rather , the university @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an `` open source '' protocol , meaning designated laboratories could follow Yale 's protocol to conduct their own tests , the FDA said .
Labs could use a number of commercially available components , including common chemical reagents , to carry out the test .
The researchers say SalivaDirect could be scaled up quickly across the U.S. in the coming weeks .
Another advantage of the new test is that it avoids a testing step known as `` nucleic acid extraction , '' which other COVID-19 tests require , the FDA said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kits '' that have run into shortages in recent months .
`` Being able to perform a test without these kits enhances the capacity for increased testing , while reducing the strain on available resources , '' the FDA said .
The FDA granted emergency use authorization for SalivaDirect on Saturday ( Aug. 15 ) .
It is the fifth saliva test for COVID-19 to receive this authorization .
Earlier saliva tests , such as one developed by Rutgers University researchers , require a special collection container to perform , .

A new saliva test for COVID-19 that can be completed in just a few hours has been authorized for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The test has several advantages over traditional nasal swab tests : It's cheap, less invasive and can be performed without the need for certain testing components that have run short during the pandemic.
What's more, the test, known as SalivaDirect, doesn't require any proprietary equipment or technology; and instructions for the test will be made immediately available to laboratories around the country, the FDA said in a statement .
SalivaDirect "is yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources," Adm. Brett P. Giroir, the U.S. assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.
Developed by researchers at Yale School of Public Health, the test was recently given to NBA players and staff to help validate its effectiveness.
Related: 20 of the worst epidemics and pandemics in history
Unlike nasal swab tests, which require a special swab to be inserted deep inside the nose, the saliva test simply requires a person to spit into a collecting container, which is a less invasive (and likely less painful) process. Moreover, the spit samples can be collected with any sterile container, the FDA said.
"We simplified the test so that it only costs a couple of dollars ... and we expect that labs will only charge about $10 per sample," Nathan Grubaugh, assistant professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement . "If cheap alternatives like SalivaDirect can be implemented across the country, we may finally get a handle on this pandemic, even before a vaccine."
So far, studies of SalivaDirect have found that the test's accuracy is on par with that of nasal swab tests, the researchers said. An initial study of SalivaDirect was published Aug. 4 on the preprint server medRxiv , but the results have yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The test can provide results in less than three hours, according to CNN .
Yale is not seeking to commericize the test, the statement said. Rather, the university will provide instructions for the test as an "open source" protocol, meaning designated laboratories could follow Yale's protocol to conduct their own tests, the FDA said. Labs could use a number of commercially available components, including common chemical reagents, to carry out the test.
The researchers say SalivaDirect could be scaled up quickly across the U.S. in the coming weeks.
Another advantage of the new test is that it avoids a testing step known as "nucleic acid extraction," which other COVID-19 tests require, the FDA said. This step requires special "extraction kits" that have run into shortages in recent months. "Being able to perform a test without these kits enhances the capacity for increased testing, while reducing the strain on available resources," the FDA said.
The FDA granted emergency use authorization for SalivaDirect on Saturday (Aug. 15). It is the fifth saliva test for COVID-19 to receive this authorization. Earlier saliva tests, such as one developed by Rutgers University researchers, require a special collection container to perform, Live Science previously reported .
Originally published on Live Science.