motherjones--2020-04-02--A Vaccine Is Our Best Hope Out of This Mess. This Doctor Tells Us What It’s Like to Lead the First U

A Vaccine Is Our Best Hope Out of This Mess. This Doctor Tells Us What It’s Like to Lead the First US Trial.

If the weeks seem like decades to you right now , consider this bit of good news : The first US trial for a coronavirus vaccine is already underway , just months after the novel virus emerged .
That ’ s a record .
The new vaccine , made by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the pharmaceutical company Moderna , is in its first phase of testing at two sites : the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle and the Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit at Emory University in Atlanta .
Over the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shot , called mRNA-1273 .
During this phase , researchers will begin to study its safety and efficacy .
This is just the beginning , of course—if this trial is successful , it will be 18 months before the vaccine will be available to the public .
And this vaccine is just one of several that scientists will test .
The worldwide coordination among scientists is unprecedented , and it will be fascinating to watch over the coming months .
We spoke to the Emory site ’ s principal investigator , Evan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medicine and pediatrics who specializes in infectious disease .
How did Emory get involved with the study ?
Our Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit , which is a network of clinical sites around the country that ’ s supported by National Institutes of Health , has been doing vaccine studies for 60 years now .
And some of those vaccine studies are of emerging pathogens and infections .
The network was very involved with the 2009 H1N1 response and has done a number of pandemic preparedness studies .
We jumped at the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study .
How are you recruiting volunteers ?
We have a long history of having conducted a number of similar studies in the past .
We have a large number of people that have been involved in prior studies .
We reached out to a number of them .
What has the process been like for them ?
First , we have a brief screening phone call with them that typically takes maybe 15 or 20 minutes .
We give them the opportunity to ask a few questions , and they give their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an actual screening visit , at which time we spend a while talking through the specific search , outlining the risks and benefits associated with the study , the fact that it ’ s voluntary , the fact that they can withdraw at any point in time .
We discuss issues of privacy .
We do an exam , and we go through a long series of questions to make sure that we think they truly are potentially eligible .
They then have blood drawn .
That will give us answers about whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible for the study .
About a quarter to a third of those that have volunteered end up not being eligible due to different reasons .
What happens with those who are selected ?
The eligible volunteers are brought back for an actual vaccine , at which time we update them about any additional risks that have been identified and make sure that they ’ re still eligible to receive the vaccine .
Then they receive the vaccine , and afterward they have blood drawn .
Then they have to wait in clinic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ memory aid ” that they end up completing over the next week .
On a daily basis they have to keep track of any local symptoms , meaning redness , swelling , tenderness , itching at the side of injection .
They also keep track of any more systemic symptoms , things like fevers , chills .
They get a couple of phone calls in the days after they received the vaccine .
Then they ’ re back a week later , at which time we go through any actual symptoms that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have blood drawn .
Then two weeks post-vaccine , they ’ re back to clinic again .
We go through the records with them to make sure that they ’ re still eligible to receive the second dose of the vaccine .
Then you repeat the whole process .
After those initial few weeks out from the second dose , they ’ re back in the clinic at four weeks , then three months , six months , a year .
In all , it ’ s about 13 to 14 months that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the study .
We want to make sure at the beginning that they stay with us , if at all possible .
The volunteers are not paid in the classical sense , but they are compensated for their time and involvement .
These studies are very intense .
They require multiple hours in the clinic .
If they complete the study , they ’ ll be reimbursed about $ 700 .
What happens if somebody gets COVID-19 during those 13 months that they ’ re part of the trial ?
The individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are purposely being selected as low-risk , from the standpoint that they are able to maintain social separation and follow CDC guidance .
So we ’ re trying to enroll people who are not out in the community due to job-related things .
That has excluded people like health care providers , who clearly have a heightened risk of acquiring infection .
In general , we have more people who are primarily living alone or living with a spouse or partner , rather than people who are living in a family with children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get their first dose of vaccine through a month after they get their second dose of vaccine , we really need to try and have them avoid getting infected with the virus , if at all possible .
In part , because that will then impact the safety assessments and the immune response assessments that are critical to making decisions about moving forward with the vaccine .
What are the risks of the vaccine ?
The most common things that we expect to see are the local side effects—tenderness or soreness at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side effects , meaning fevers , chills , achiness , in the days after they receive the vaccine .
Those are things that we expect we will see from the vaccine because typically they ’ re seen in all vaccines .
There ’ s always the potential for a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine .
There ’ s been some concern raised about if someone was , in fact , to get the vaccine , and then were infected with the virus , whether the vaccine could result in more severe disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ ve seen with a couple of prior vaccines .
They use different technology , and we think it ’ s unlikely that that will be the case here .
I think the other possibility—and this is quite possible—is that we don ’ t see any immune response .
That ’ s why vaccines fail most frequently .
And then there ’ s what we hope , that we ’ ll ultimately see protection by the vaccine against the disease .
How often do trials like these end in failure or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one study , so there are a lot of steps that are required after this study is completed .
There still needs to be a phase two and a phase three study that will enroll larger numbers of people .
In this phase one study , it is primarily the immune response that we ’ re looking at—particularly the antibodies but also other immune markers .
The phase 3 study looks at whether it actually works in terms of prevention of COVID-19 .
Which is to say , the majority of early vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to market .
Most of the time they are not successful .
Obviously , we hope that will be different for this vaccine candidate , but we don ’ t know .
If this vaccine were to get through all of the phases , how long would it take for it to be widely available to the public ?
The key point for this phase one study will be around the two-month mark , [ which is ] after the initial dose of vaccine and the last phase one study participants being enrolled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that point in time , and whether we ’ re seeing an immune response , will then determine whether or not the vaccine moves into phase two studies .
The best-case scenario for getting the vaccine to market ?
People have said maybe a year , which is optimistic .
Eighteen months is probably more realistic for the vaccine candidate .
There are there are other vaccines in the pipeline too that the National Institutes of Health will be testing .
So they ’ re not putting all their eggs in one basket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re testing different from vaccines that exist for , say , childhood illnesses ?
A lot of existing vaccines use what ’ s called a live , attenuated approach , where a weakened virus is used for vaccination .
That hopefully will generate a good immune response but will not cause the patient to become sick .
There are a number of vaccines that fall into that category , like the measles , mumps , and rubella vaccine .
Another category is the vaccines that contain a protein or proteins from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proteins will generate an immune response to that protein resulting in protection from disease .
Sometimes it ’ s a large number of proteins , like for the influenza vaccine .
You ’ ve got the whole virus with some of those vaccines .
Other times , it ’ s just a protein from the bacteria or virus .
That would include things like pneumococcal vaccine .
This vaccine is different in that it is what ’ s called mRNA vaccine .
It contains part of the genetic code of what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you think of the virus , it ’ s kind of a little circle with little proteins sticking off of it .
Those proteins give it the crown-like appearance , which is where the term coronavirus comes from .
Those proteins sticking off the circular virus are spike proteins , and this vaccine contains the genetic codes for a section of that spike protein .
When it ’ s injected in the individual , the hope is that it will tell that person ’ s body to make that protein and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune response .
That protein will then provide protection against actual COVID-19 .
What if the virus mutates ?
What are the implications for the vaccine ?
That is always a risk with vaccines in general .
We think the technology being used here would be much more amenable [ to make ] adjustments fairly quickly in that instance—you could just change the genetic code that ’ s in the mRNA .
There would need to be additional studies if the vaccine did need to change .
How could pharmaceutical companies help this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pharmaceutical company might focus on developing a vaccine impacts their ability to continue forward with other drugs that they may be developing for other purposes—drugs that might require lifelong administration such as for high blood pressure or for other conditions .
And many of those drugs can bring better financial rewards for an individual corporation than developing a vaccine .
I think that is part of the issue as to why there has been limited interest on the part of pharmaceuticals in vaccines in general .
A greater commitment to vaccine development in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our nation moving forward .

If the weeks seem like decades to you right now, consider this bit of good news: The first US trial for a coronavirus vaccine is already underway, just months after the novel virus emerged. That’s a record. The new vaccine, made by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the pharmaceutical company Moderna, is in its first phase of testing at two sites: the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle and the Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Unit at Emory University in Atlanta. Over the next several months, 45 volunteers will receive the shot, called mRNA-1273. During this phase, researchers will begin to study its safety and its ability to stimulate the immune system.
This is just the beginning, of course—if this trial is successful, it will be 18 months before the vaccine will be available to the public. And this vaccine is just one of several that scientists will test. The worldwide coordination among scientists is unprecedented, and it will be fascinating to watch over the coming months.
We spoke to the Emory site’s principal investigator, Evan Anderson, an associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics who specializes in infectious disease.
How did Emory get involved with the study?
Our Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit, which is a network of clinical sites around the country that’s supported by National Institutes of Health, has been doing vaccine studies for 60 years now. And some of those vaccine studies are of emerging pathogens and infections. The network was very involved with the 2009 H1N1 response and has done a number of pandemic preparedness studies. We jumped at the opportunity to be involved with this very important study.
How are you recruiting volunteers?
We have a long history of having conducted a number of similar studies in the past. We have a large number of people that have been involved in prior studies. We reached out to a number of them.
What has the process been like for them?
First, we have a brief screening phone call with them that typically takes maybe 15 or 20 minutes. We give them the opportunity to ask a few questions, and they give their consent.
Then they come in for an actual screening visit, at which time we spend a while talking through the specific criteria, outlining the risks and benefits associated with the study, the fact that it’s voluntary, the fact that they can withdraw at any point in time. We discuss issues of privacy. We do an exam, and we go through a long series of questions to make sure that we think they truly are potentially eligible.
They then have blood drawn. That will give us answers about whether or not their labs show they are eligible for the study. About a quarter to a third of those that have volunteered end up not being eligible due to different reasons.
What happens with those who are selected?
The eligible volunteers are brought back for an actual vaccine, at which time we update them about any additional risks that have been identified and make sure that they’re still eligible to receive the vaccine. Then they receive the vaccine, and afterward they have blood drawn. Then they have to wait in clinic for an hour.
They have a “memory aid” that they end up completing over the next week. On a daily basis they have to keep track of any local symptoms, meaning redness, swelling, tenderness, itching at the side of injection. They also keep track of any more systemic symptoms, things like fevers, chills.
They get a couple of phone calls in the days after they received the vaccine. Then they’re back a week later, at which time we go through any actual symptoms that they’ve had. Again they have blood drawn. Then two weeks post-vaccine, they’re back to clinic again.
We go through the records with them to make sure that they’re still eligible to receive the second dose of the vaccine. Then you repeat the whole process. After those initial few weeks out from the second dose, they’re back in the clinic at four weeks, then three months, six months, a year. In all, it’s about 13 to 14 months that they’re committing to be involved with the study. We want to make sure at the beginning that they stay with us, if at all possible.
The volunteers are not paid in the classical sense, but they are compensated for their time and involvement. These studies are very intense. They require multiple hours in the clinic. If they complete the study, they’ll be reimbursed about $700.
What happens if somebody gets COVID-19 during those 13 months that they’re part of the trial?
The individuals who are being enrolled in the trial are purposely being selected as low-risk, from the standpoint that they are able to maintain social separation and follow CDC guidance. So we’re trying to enroll people who are not out in the community due to job-related things.
That has excluded people like health care providers, who clearly have a heightened risk of acquiring infection. In general, we have more people who are primarily living alone or living with a spouse or partner, rather than people who are living in a family with children.
Especially the first two months after they get their first dose of vaccine through a month after they get their second dose of vaccine, we really need to try and have them avoid getting infected with the virus, if at all possible. In part, because that will then impact the safety assessments and the immune response assessments that are critical to making decisions about moving forward with the vaccine.
What are the risks of the vaccine?
The most common things that we expect to see are the local side effects—tenderness or soreness at the site of injection, then systemic side effects, meaning fevers, chills, achiness, in the days after they receive the vaccine. Those are things that we expect we will see from the vaccine because typically they’re seen in all vaccines.
There’s always the potential for a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine.
There’s been some concern raised about if someone was, in fact, to get the vaccine, and then were infected with the virus, whether the vaccine could result in more severe disease. That’s a theoretical concern that we’ve seen with a couple of prior vaccines. They use different technology, and we think it’s unlikely that that will be the case here.
I think the other possibility—and this is quite possible—is that we don’t see any immune response. That’s why vaccines fail most frequently. And then there’s what we hope, that we’ll ultimately see protection by the vaccine against the disease.
How often do trials like these end in failure or non-resolution?
This is just the phase one study, so there are a lot of steps that are required after this study is completed. There still needs to be a phase two and a phase three study that will enroll larger numbers of people. In this phase one study, it is primarily the immune response that we’re looking at—particularly the antibodies but also other immune markers. The phase 3 study looks at whether it actually works in terms of prevention of COVID-19.
“The majority of early vaccine candidates are not going to make it to market. Most of the time they are not successful.”
Which is to say, the majority of early vaccine candidates are not going to make it to market. Most of the time they are not successful. Obviously, we hope that will be different for this vaccine candidate, but we don’t know.
If this vaccine were to get through all of the phases, how long would it take for it to be widely available to the public?
The key point for this phase one study will be around the two-month mark, [which is] after the initial dose of vaccine and the last phase one study participants being enrolled. The safety of the vaccine at that point in time, and whether we’re seeing an immune response, will then determine whether or not the vaccine moves into phase two studies.
The best-case scenario for getting the vaccine to market? People have said maybe a year, which is optimistic. Eighteen months is probably more realistic for the vaccine candidate. There are there are other vaccines in the pipeline too that the National Institutes of Health will be testing. So they’re not putting all their eggs in one basket.
How is the vaccine that you’re testing different from vaccines that exist for, say, childhood illnesses?
A lot of existing vaccines use what’s called a live, attenuated approach, where a weakened virus is used for vaccination. That hopefully will generate a good immune response but will not cause the patient to become sick. There are a number of vaccines that fall into that category, like the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.
Another category is the vaccines that contain a protein or proteins from the disease. The idea is that those proteins will generate an immune response to that protein resulting in protection from disease. Sometimes it’s a large number of proteins, like for the influenza vaccine. You’ve got the whole virus with some of those vaccines. Other times, it’s just a protein from the bacteria or virus. That would include things like pneumococcal vaccine.
This vaccine is different in that it is what’s called mRNA vaccine. It contains part of the genetic code of what’s called the spike protein from the coronavirus. If you think of the virus, it’s kind of a little circle with little proteins sticking off of it. Those proteins give it the crown-like appearance, which is where the term coronavirus comes from.
Those proteins sticking off the circular virus are spike proteins, and this vaccine contains the genetic codes for a section of that spike protein. When it’s injected in the individual, the hope is that it will tell that person’s body to make that protein and express that protein that will generate an immune response. That protein will then provide protection against actual COVID-19.
What if the virus mutates? What are the implications for the vaccine?
That is always a risk with vaccines in general. We think the technology being used here would be much more amenable [to make] adjustments fairly quickly in that instance—you could just change the genetic code that’s in the mRNA. There would need to be additional studies if the vaccine did need to change.
How could pharmaceutical companies help this process?
The extent to which one pharmaceutical company might focus on developing a vaccine impacts their ability to continue forward with other drugs that they may be developing for other purposes—drugs that might require lifelong administration such as for high blood pressure or for other conditions. And many of those drugs can bring better financial rewards for an individual corporation than developing a vaccine.
I think that is part of the issue as to why there has been limited interest on the part of pharmaceuticals in vaccines in general. A greater commitment to vaccine development in general would certainly be of great benefit for our nation moving forward.


motherjones--2020-04-02--What My Korean American Mother—Who Knew There Would Be a Coronavirus Crisis—Fears the Most

My first eye roll came early February , when my mother urged me to purchase a package of face masks .
The good ones—contraptions I had never heard of called N95 ’ s—would quickly vanish if I didn ’ t act soon , she warned , prompting me to chuckle as I moved on to discuss upcoming travel plans for the year .
Sicily and the Balearic Islands—two regions in countries now at the center of some of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world—were next on my list of places to visit .
What was the point in adjusting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ havoc across the world ?
Let alone stock up on masks .
Weeks later , similar conversations devolved into heated , transatlantic Facetime confrontations , between mom in New Jersey , me in London .
“ The main doctor said there ’ s zero reason to be walking around with a mask , ” I insisted at one point , referring to a 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci , the United States ’ leading expert on infectious diseases .
“ Even Obama said to leave them to doctors.
” I paused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She , in turn , grew increasingly annoyed by my instinct to dismiss what she had long known would unfold into a global crisis .
While I continued to deploy my attention to the news as evidence of my greater knowledge on the issue , she quietly expanded her protective arsenal to include bottles of Purell—now an End Times luxury— disposable gloves , and an impressive pantry stocked with long-lasting Korean staples , such as kimchi and loads of roasted seaweed packets .
The rest of the family joined me in mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t .
Fast forward to now : The United States is on track to see devastating death rates comparable to Italy , and health officials , including Fauci , appear to be rethinking their guidance against wearing face masks .
I ’ ve since asked , with the appropriate humility , if my mom could possibly send me some from her reserves .
Mom is no epidemiologist .
Far from it .
But as a Korean American whose primary news sources are outlets based in her home country , she belongs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat posed by the novel coronavirus long before most Americans , including myself , did .
“ Koreans were watching what was going on in Korea , and then they were watching what was going on on the West Coast , ” Mark Keam , a Virginia House of Delegates member who was born in South Korea , told NPR recently .
“ So they realized it was just a matter of time.
” And in that period , my mom and her close-knit Korean American friends have lit up Kakao , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from various family members in South Korea on how to best prepare for the crisis ahead .
Just to be clear , it ’ s not as if my mother was smug about being so damn right ; she ’ s too scared to try that on for size .
For her , watching the steps South Korea undertook in order to contain the virus has only fueled her concerns that her adopted country , the United States , won ’ t be able to confront the current crisis effectively .
She understands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scarcity of protective supplies , but because of the threat created by the myth of American individualism .
“ Americans are not comfortable giving up what they think is ‘ I can do whatever I want ’ even for the whole country , ’ ” she recently told me .
“ In other countries , they make sacrifices to make sure their small country can stand strong.
” She points to South Koreans ’ swift willingness to adopt measures that Americans would likely condemn as intrusive government intervention , such as restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology .
Of course , the reluctance to relinquish individual liberties isn ’ t restricted to Americans .
The current resistance in Brazil , Belarus , and Mexico , are just a handful of examples where countries are valuing personal freedom over public health in the face of a pandemic .
In London , where I ’ ve lived with my husband for a little more than a year , the same refusal to give in to social distancing rules was shared by everyone , from adamant pub-goers to Boris Johnson .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to have fallen victim to his sluggish response . )
But still , the emphasis on individual rights does feel uniquely American in a way that dramatically dwarfs other capitalist societies .
Ed Yong , the Atlantic writer who two years ago predicted that a global pandemic was around the corner and recently wrote a widely-read piece predicting that the US may end up with the worst outbreak in the industrialized world , recently discussed the roles of American individualism and exceptionalism contributing to the US ’ s slow pandemic response during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that some aspects of America ’ s national character do seem to have made it harder for people to take the necessary measures to slow the spread of the pandemic .
And not just this sense of resilience , of being brave in the face of fearful threats , but also the sense of individualism and exceptionalism .
This idea that ‘ I have the freedom to do what I want to do , ’ which stops people from just staying indoors and heeding advice about isolating yourselves when it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s famed exceptionalism — the idea that this is the greatest country in the world — that , I think , contributed to a delay in the nation ’ s response.
” Look no further than President Donald Trump for evidence of leadership by example .
“ We have no symptoms whatsoever , ” he said last month when asked why he wasn ’ t practicing self-quarantining , despite having been photographed with a Brazilian official who had been recently tested positive for coronavirus .
As my colleague David Corn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s ready to frame mass death projections as a personal victory ahead of the November presidential election .
Add hoards of spring breakers partying amid a pandemic to the mix , along with a string of Republican governors refusing to enact lockdowns , and the threat posed by the flawed notion of American exceptionalism quite literally becomes a matter of life and death .
It hasn ’ t been lost on me that my mom could soon find herself victim to the surge of racist incidents occurring throughout the US in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared in publications and my own social circles make it difficult not to think about such a scenario .
In those moments , I imagine someone shouting the familiar “ go back to your country ” at her .
And each time I do , I think about the deep irony of telling people to return to countries , such as South Korea , where the benefits of enormous testing capabilities , universal health care , and protective medical gear are getting them through this pandemic .
It isn ’ t a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m wondering if she ’ d go back .
Meanwhile , mom is actively searching for polypropylene fabric—if anyone out there has some .

My first eye roll came early February, when my mother urged me to purchase a package of face masks. The good ones—contraptions I had never heard of called N95’s—would quickly vanish if I didn’t act soon, she warned, prompting me to chuckle as I moved on to discuss upcoming travel plans for the year. Sicily and the Balearic Islands—two regions in countries now at the center of some of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world—were next on my list of places to visit. What was the point in adjusting plans to defer to some virus wreaking havoc across the world? Let alone stock up on masks.
Weeks later, similar conversations devolved into heated, transatlantic Facetime confrontations, between mom in New Jersey, me in London. “The main doctor said there’s zero reason to be walking around with a mask,” I insisted at one point, referring to a 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the United States’ leading expert on infectious diseases. “Even Obama said to leave them to doctors.” I paused for emphasis. “OBAMA, mom.” She, in turn, grew increasingly annoyed by my instinct to dismiss what she had long known would unfold into a global crisis.
While I continued to deploy my attention to the news as evidence of my greater knowledge on the issue, she quietly expanded her protective arsenal to include bottles of Purell—now an End Times luxury— disposable gloves, and an impressive pantry stocked with long-lasting Korean staples, such as kimchi and loads of roasted seaweed packets. The rest of the family joined me in mostly ignoring her industrious efforts. Until we didn’t.
Fast forward to now: The United States is on track to see devastating death rates comparable to Italy, and health officials, including Fauci, appear to be rethinking their guidance against wearing face masks. I’ve since asked, with the appropriate humility, if my mom could possibly send me some from her reserves.
Mom is no epidemiologist. Far from it. But as a Korean American whose primary news sources are outlets based in her home country, she belongs to a community that understood the dire threat posed by the novel coronavirus long before most Americans, including myself, did. “Koreans were watching what was going on in Korea, and then they were watching what was going on on the West Coast,” Mark Keam, a Virginia House of Delegates member who was born in South Korea, told NPR recently. “So they realized it was just a matter of time.” And in that period, my mom and her close-knit Korean American friends have lit up Kakao, the popular Korean messaging app, with tips from various family members in South Korea on how to best prepare for the crisis ahead.
“Koreans were watching what was going on in Korea, and then they were watching what was going on on the West Coast. They realized it was just a matter of time.”
Just to be clear, it’s not as if my mother was smug about being so damn right; she’s too scared to try that on for size. For her, watching the steps South Korea undertook in order to contain the virus has only fueled her concerns that her adopted country, the United States, won’t be able to confront the current crisis effectively. She understands that it is not just because of the scarcity of protective supplies, but because of the threat created by the myth of American individualism.
“Americans are not comfortable giving up what they think is ‘I can do whatever I want’ even for the whole country,’” she recently told me. “In other countries, they make sacrifices to make sure their small country can stand strong.” She points to South Koreans’ swift willingness to adopt measures that Americans would likely condemn as intrusive government intervention, such as restrictions on movement and the imposition of surveillance technology.
Of course, the reluctance to relinquish individual liberties isn’t restricted to Americans. The current resistance in Brazil, Belarus, and Mexico, are just a handful of examples where countries are valuing personal freedom over public health in the face of a pandemic. In London, where I’ve lived with my husband for a little more than a year, the same refusal to give in to social distancing rules was shared by everyone, from adamant pub-goers to Boris Johnson. (Now in self-isolation, the prime minister appears to have fallen victim to his sluggish response.)
But still, the emphasis on individual rights does feel uniquely American in a way that dramatically dwarfs other capitalist societies. Ed Yong, the Atlantic writer who two years ago predicted that a global pandemic was around the corner and recently wrote a widely-read piece predicting that the US may end up with the worst outbreak in the industrialized world, recently discussed the roles of American individualism and exceptionalism contributing to the US’s slow pandemic response during an interview with Terry Gross:
“I think that some aspects of America’s national character do seem to have made it harder for people to take the necessary measures to slow the spread of the pandemic. And not just this sense of resilience, of being brave in the face of fearful threats, but also the sense of individualism and exceptionalism. This idea that ‘I have the freedom to do what I want to do,’ which stops people from just staying indoors and heeding advice about isolating yourselves when it’s necessary. And I think that the country’s famed exceptionalism — the idea that this is the greatest country in the world — that, I think, contributed to a delay in the nation’s response.”
Look no further than President Donald Trump for evidence of leadership by example. “We have no symptoms whatsoever,” he said last month when asked why he wasn’t practicing self-quarantining, despite having been photographed with a Brazilian official who had been recently tested positive for coronavirus. As my colleague David Corn notes, Trump has since signaled that he’s ready to frame mass death projections as a personal victory ahead of the November presidential election. Add hoards of spring breakers partying amid a pandemic to the mix, along with a string of Republican governors refusing to enact lockdowns, and the threat posed by the flawed notion of American exceptionalism quite literally becomes a matter of life and death.
It hasn’t been lost on me that my mom could soon find herself victim to the surge of racist incidents occurring throughout the US in light of the coronavirus; the incidents shared in publications and my own social circles make it difficult not to think about such a scenario. In those moments, I imagine someone shouting the familiar “go back to your country” at her. And each time I do, I think about the deep irony of telling people to return to countries, such as South Korea, where the benefits of enormous testing capabilities, universal health care, and protective medical gear are getting them through this pandemic. It isn’t a question of patriotism, but if she could, I’m wondering if she’d go back. Meanwhile, mom is actively searching for polypropylene fabric—if anyone out there has some.


motherjones--2020-04-02--Elizabeth Warren: How John Bolton Blew Off Senators Who Asked About Global Pandemics

In early May 2018 , media reports noted that Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer , the top White House expert on global health security , had suddenly left the National Security Council .
Moreover , the NSC team he oversaw was disbanded by John Bolton , the national security adviser , as part of a reorganization .
As the Washington Post put it , this meant no senior official in the Trump administration was “ now focused solely on global health security.
” Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and Patty Murray ( D-Wash. ) were troubled by this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter noting the dismantling of the NSC ’ s global health squad “ comes amid continuing concerns that the nation and the world are unprepared for pandemic outbreaks or other global health threats.
” ( At the time , there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo . )
They posed Bolton a series of questions about the NSC ’ s preparedness to address a pandemic , including , “ What current structure is in place at the NSC to address global health security ?
” And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Administration ’ s global public health work ” within two weeks .
In an interview with Mother Jones this week , Warren recalls that Bolton blew them off .
Bolton , she notes , did not provide her and Murray the briefing they requested on global health security and pandemic preparedness .
The senators received a generic response letter that did not address their list of questions .
Warren says this reply symbolizes “ the heart of why this [ coronavirus ] crisis is hitting so hard right now .
Our government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years by people who don ’ t believe in government or at least don ’ t believe in government except to help themselves and their friends.
” She adds , “ The consequence of that is that they were willing day after day after day to strip out the people who perform the basic functions of government.
” Warren , who weeks ago ended her presidential campaign , points out that she and Murray were hoping to “ bring a little attention to this , a little outside oversight about it .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stripped all those people out of government who could be helping in this pandemic.
” She says there was nothing unusual in Bolton , who was booted out of the White House by Trump in September , not bothering to address the concerns they raised about US national security and the threat of pandemics .
It was—and still is—routine for the Trump White House to ignore letters from members of the House and Senate .
“ There ’ s been a lot of that going on during the Trump administration , ” Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over and get either no response of minimum responses that really don ’ t address the concerns .
Their view has been they can do this with impunity.
” Bolton has claimed that global health “ remained a top NSC priority ” after he restructured the NSC and that it included an “ expert team.
” But Beth Cameron , who ran the NSC Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense , the unit that was dismantled by Bolton , recently wrote , “ I was mystified when the White House dissolved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for pandemics like covid-19.
” A former administration official says Bolton “ immediately sent a letter confirming receipt [ of the Warren and Murray letter ] .
Ambassador Bolton was always eager to speak with any member of Congress and he did so regularly .
Senator Warren ( nor her staff ) never contacted the NSC to facilitate a further discussion , either at the staff or principal level.
” A Warren spokeswoman notes , “ The response she was looking for was for the White House to appoint someone to manage global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , unfortunately , that never happened.
” ( Bolton was also under fire recently for declining to testify during the House impeachment hearings—while saving his story for a profitable tell-all book .
He did signal he would testify at the Senate impeachment trial of Trump , if subpoenaed .
Bolton , who was not subpoenaed , reportedly was prepared to say that Trump had told him he had pressured the Ukrainian president to initiate political investigations that would help Trump . )
Warren says that with that May 2018 letter she and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump White House and the NSC Bolton oversaw to focus seriously on the threat of a pandemic .
She adds , “ People will die because of the inaction of our government over the past couple of months—and over the past couple of years .
”

In early May 2018, media reports noted that Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer, the top White House expert on global health security, had suddenly left the National Security Council. Moreover, the NSC team he oversaw was disbanded by John Bolton, the national security adviser, as part of a reorganization. As the Washington Post put it, this meant no senior official in the Trump administration was “now focused solely on global health security.”
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) were troubled by this news, and they sent Bolton a letter noting the dismantling of the NSC’s global health squad “comes amid continuing concerns that the nation and the world are unprepared for pandemic outbreaks or other global health threats.” (At the time, there was a new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo.) They posed Bolton a series of questions about the NSC’s preparedness to address a pandemic, including, “What current structure is in place at the NSC to address global health security?” And the pair requested a “staff-level briefing on the Administration’s global public health work” within two weeks.
In an interview with Mother Jones this week, Warren recalls that Bolton blew them off.
Bolton, she notes, did not provide her and Murray the briefing they requested on global health security and pandemic preparedness. The senators received a generic response letter that did not address their list of questions. Warren says this reply symbolizes “the heart of why this [coronavirus] crisis is hitting so hard right now. Our government has been run for the past three years by people who don’t believe in government or at least don’t believe in government except to help themselves and their friends.” She adds, “The consequence of that is that they were willing day after day after day to strip out the people who perform the basic functions of government.”
Listen to David Corn’s in-depth interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on this week’s edition of the Mother Jones Podcast.
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
Warren, who weeks ago ended her presidential campaign, points out that she and Murray were hoping to “bring a little attention to this, a little outside oversight about it. And now we see the consequences of having stripped all those people out of government who could be helping in this pandemic.” She says there was nothing unusual in Bolton, who was booted out of the White House by Trump in September, not bothering to address the concerns they raised about US national security and the threat of pandemics. It was—and still is—routine for the Trump White House to ignore letters from members of the House and Senate. “There’s been a lot of that going on during the Trump administration,” Warren explains. “We send our letters over and get either no response of minimum responses that really don’t address the concerns. Their view has been they can do this with impunity.”
“Our government has been run for the past three years by people who don’t believe in government or at least don’t believe in government except to help themselves and their friends.”
Bolton has claimed that global health “remained a top NSC priority” after he restructured the NSC and that it included an “expert team.” But Beth Cameron, who ran the NSC Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, the unit that was dismantled by Bolton, recently wrote, “I was mystified when the White House dissolved the office, leaving the country less prepared for pandemics like covid-19.”
A former administration official says Bolton “immediately sent a letter confirming receipt [of the Warren and Murray letter]. Ambassador Bolton was always eager to speak with any member of Congress and he did so regularly. Senator Warren (nor her staff) never contacted the NSC to facilitate a further discussion, either at the staff or principal level.” A Warren spokeswoman notes, “The response she was looking for was for the White House to appoint someone to manage global health security risks. And as we know, unfortunately, that never happened.” (Bolton was also under fire recently for declining to testify during the House impeachment hearings—while saving his story for a profitable tell-all book. He did signal he would testify at the Senate impeachment trial of Trump, if subpoenaed. Bolton, who was not subpoenaed, reportedly was prepared to say that Trump had told him he had pressured the Ukrainian president to initiate political investigations that would help Trump.)
Warren says that with that May 2018 letter she and Murray were simply trying to nudge the Trump White House and the NSC Bolton oversaw to focus seriously on the threat of a pandemic. She adds, “People will die because of the inaction of our government over the past couple of months—and over the past couple of years.”


motherjones--2020-04-03--Activists Are Still Taking to the Streets—in Cars

Downtown San Francisco should have been quieter than ever , since most of the city has been quarantining for weeks due to COVID-19 .
But on Tuesday morning , the streets echoed with more noise than a typical rush hour , as a long caravan of cars blaring their horns inched toward the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building , demanding the release of immigrant detainees who are highly at risk during the pandemic .
Noisy caravans simultaneously moved through Sacramento , Los Angeles , and San Diego , employing a tactic that has caught on nationwide as a safe way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of social distancing : protesting from your car .
Many activists credit Never Again Action , the national network of Jewish people and allies , with inspiring the idea after they mobilized as many as 100 cars to surround ICE ’ s Hudson County detention center in New Jersey on March 22 .
Since then , protest caravans have appeared in Philadelphia , Chicago , and throughout California , calling for rent forgiveness , freedom for prisoners in overcrowded jails , better funding for health care workers on the pandemic ’ s front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
The tactic isn ’ t necessarily new—automobiles were used to hold up traffic during Black Lives Matter protests throughout the last decade , and even played a role in the Montgomery bus boycotts of the 1950s .
But by insulating passengers at a safe remove from others , cars have taken on new relevance in the age of the coronavirus , when people can ’ t otherwise be in the streets .
“ Of course there are digital actions , ” says Sam Tunick of Never Again Action , which organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there ’ s something about an in-person action that wakes people up to the urgency .
We wanted to protest in a way that couldn ’ t be ignored , since detention facilities aren ’ t in broad daylight and we don ’ t alway know what goes on inside.
” Never Again Action draws parallels between modern immigrant detention and the historic persecution of Jews , a connection they say grows more pressing by the day as overcrowded and unsanitary conditions threaten to turn ICE facilities into “ death camps.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish that bystanders had done for our ancestors , which would have prevented a lot of death and suffering if a critical mass of people had noticed and taken action , ” says Tunick , whose car blasted Beyoncé ’ s “ Freedom ” repeatedly throughout the two-hour protest .
I trailed somewhere behind , alone in my Ford .
Snaking through city streets in such a long caravan felt chaotic , but the dozens of cars attained critical mass at times , such as when they circled the block around City Hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I ’ d argue that protest is an essential activity , ” Tunick says .
“ We ’ re ringing the alarm about something that could become a greater public health emergency.
” “ Anne Frank didn ’ t die in a gas chamber , ” said a sign taped to one car at the protest .
“ She died of typhus in a detention camp.
” Besides the danger they pose to people inside , infection hotspots like ICE facilities , prisons , and jails can rapidly spread the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others who move in out of such places .
Related concerns inspired Norma Orozco to attend a car protest in Oakland last week .
After noticing that the Alameda County sheriff added an $ 85 million request to expand the police force at around 8 p.m. on the night before a county Board of Supervisors meeting , Orozco , the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights , and other local anti-incarceration groups mobilized to have a car-based presence when the meeting started at 9 a.m. the next day .
As county supervisors met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Orozco circled the building with a dozen other cars before parking in a place visible through the meeting room ’ s windows .
“ We wanted to let the supervisors know that we were still watching and paying attention to what ’ s going on , ” says Orozco , calling the sheriff ’ s last-minute request a “ cash grab ” made strategically while advocates were busy trying to provide sanitary supplies to inmates and release as many as they could .
The sheriff ’ s office said that his request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for money to be diverted to local hospitals instead .
That car protest seemed to be a success , as the supervisors postponed their vote to allow for weeks of public comment on the sheriff ’ s request .
Those driving against ICE , however , continue to play the long game .
Tuesday ’ s statewide protest in California dovetailed with earlier pleas by San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin , who called on Gov .
Gavin Newsom to use emergency powers during COVID-19 to suspend ICE facility contracts and release detainees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only the federal government could do so .
Yet organizers with Never Again Action say they will keep applying pressure at all levels of government .
“ We are trying to stop preventable deaths before it ’ s too late , ” said Tunick , adding that the turnout of more than three dozen cars , and even more in other cities , was a pleasant surprise .
“ When we ’ re all feeling isolated , it ’ s really important to express dissent in a collective way , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 67 , drove out to represent the Raging Grannies Action League , who have protested immigrant detention policies for years .
But “ the last time we were in the streets was March 7 , ” says Robertson , before the pandemic became grave .
“ We ’ ve been itching to get out in the streets again , and this is the best way to do it while still being safe.
” Wearing an N95 mask behind the wheel , and a matronly apron overflowing with buttons , Robertson said she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ ve been getting my food and produce delivered , ” she said .
“ I ’ m staying inside , except for today .
”

Downtown San Francisco should have been quieter than ever, since most of the city has been quarantining for weeks due to COVID-19. But on Tuesday morning, the streets echoed with more noise than a typical rush hour, as a long caravan of cars blaring their horns inched toward the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, demanding the release of immigrant detainees who are highly at risk during the pandemic.
Noisy caravans simultaneously moved through Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego, employing a tactic that has caught on nationwide as a safe way to voice political dissent in a time of social distancing: protesting from your car.
Many activists credit Never Again Action, the national network of Jewish people and allies, with inspiring the idea after they mobilized as many as 100 cars to surround ICE’s Hudson County detention center in New Jersey on March 22. Since then, protest caravans have appeared in Philadelphia, Chicago, and throughout California, calling for rent forgiveness, freedom for prisoners in overcrowded jails, better funding for health care workers on the pandemic’s front lines, and removing President Trump from office.
Yesterday we surrounded an ICE Detention Center in NJ. We won’t let COVID turn detention centers into death camps. We need your help to do this across the country. We have to pressure 50 Governors to act to protect ALL of the people in their states, no exceptions #ReleaseThemNow pic.twitter.com/9KeCo500eL — ✡ Never Again Action ✡ (@NeverAgainActn) March 23, 2020
The tactic isn’t necessarily new—automobiles were used to hold up traffic during Black Lives Matter protests throughout the last decade, and even played a role in the Montgomery bus boycotts of the 1950s. But by insulating passengers at a safe remove from others, cars have taken on new relevance in the age of the coronavirus, when people can’t otherwise be in the streets.
“Of course there are digital actions,” says a member of Never Again Action, which organized the recent San Francisco protest. “But there’s something about an in-person action that wakes people up to the urgency. We wanted to protest in a way that couldn’t be ignored, since detention facilities aren’t in broad daylight and we don’t alway know what goes on inside.”
Never Again Action draws parallels between modern immigrant detention and the historic persecution of Jews, a connection they say grows more pressing by the day as overcrowded and unsanitary conditions threaten to turn ICE facilities into “death camps.”
“We’re doing what we wish that bystanders had done for our ancestors, which would have prevented a lot of death and suffering if a critical mass of people had noticed and taken action,” says one organizer, whose car blasted Beyoncé’s “Freedom” repeatedly throughout the two-hour protest. I trailed somewhere behind, alone in my Ford. Snaking through city streets in such a long caravan felt chaotic, but the dozens of cars attained critical mass at times, such as when they circled the block around City Hall.
Though the group defied stay-at-home orders, “I’d argue that protest is an essential activity,” te organizer says. “We’re ringing the alarm about something that could become a greater public health emergency.”
“Anne Frank didn’t die in a gas chamber,” said a sign taped to one car at the protest. “She died of typhus in a detention camp.”
Besides the danger they pose to people inside, infection hotspots like ICE facilities, prisons, and jails can rapidly spread the virus to local communities, through guards and others who move in out of such places.
Related concerns inspired Norma Orozco to attend a car protest in Oakland last week. After noticing that the Alameda County sheriff added an $85 million request to expand the police force at around 8 p.m. on the night before a county Board of Supervisors meeting, Orozco, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and other local anti-incarceration groups mobilized to have a car-based presence when the meeting started at 9 a.m. the next day.
As county supervisors met in person to vote on their agenda, Orozco circled the building with a dozen other cars before parking in a place visible through the meeting room’s windows.
“We wanted to let the supervisors know that we were still watching and paying attention to what’s going on,” says Orozco, calling the sheriff’s last-minute request a “cash grab” made strategically while advocates were busy trying to provide sanitary supplies to inmates and release as many as they could. The sheriff’s office said that his request was not coronavirus-related; the protestors called for money to be diverted to local hospitals instead.
That car protest seemed to be a success, as the supervisors postponed their vote to allow for weeks of public comment on the sheriff’s request. Those driving against ICE, however, continue to play the long game.
Tuesday’s statewide protest in California dovetailed with earlier pleas by San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who called on Gov. Gavin Newsom to use emergency powers during COVID-19 to suspend ICE facility contracts and release detainees. The governor’s office replied that only the federal government could do so. Yet organizers with Never Again Action say they will keep applying pressure at all levels of government.
“We are trying to stop preventable deaths before it’s too late,” says the organizer, adding that the turnout of more than three dozen cars, and even more in other cities, was a pleasant surprise. “When we’re all feeling isolated, it’s really important to express dissent in a collective way,” he says.
Ruth Robertson, who is 67, drove out to represent the Raging Grannies Action League, who have protested immigrant detention policies for years. But “the last time we were in the streets was March 7,” says Robertson, before the pandemic became grave. “We’ve been itching to get out in the streets again, and this is the best way to do it while still being safe.”
Wearing an N95 mask behind the wheel, and a matronly apron overflowing with buttons, Robertson said she was taking pains not to contract the virus. “I’ve been getting my food and produce delivered,” she said. “I’m staying inside, except for today.”


motherjones--2020-04-03--Can COVID-19 Be Treated? Does Blood from Survivors Help? Experts Answer Our Questions on Antibodies.

On January 20 , just a day before the coronavirus would officially show up in the United States , and more than a month before the WHO would declare the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic , doctors in China launched a small , five-person clinical trial to test whether plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients could help treat others in critically ill condition .
Within days of receiving this plasma , four of the five patients began to recover—and as of late last week , three of the patients had been discharged , and two were in stable condition .
The results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early studies like this , plus the long history of successful plasma treatments , offer a promising option to help some patients with severe cases among the 1 million globally who ’ ve contracted the coronavirus .
“ Convalescent plasma , ” as plasma from survivors is called , is now being deployed in clinical trials in the US : Last week , New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that the state , which has been overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases , would become the first to conduct research with the treatment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from people who ’ ve recovered .
As treatments go , convalescent plasma is low-hanging fruit—it is widely accessible and relatively safe—but it ’ s actually just one of several antibody-based COVID-19 therapies currently in development .
Some researchers , for example , are producing coronavirus antibodies in a lab , others are testing antibody treatments already on the market for other conditions , with potential crossover benefits for COVID-19 patients , and some scientists are even are sourcing coronavirus-fighting antibodies from mice .
Overall , there are dozens of antibody treatments ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibodies ) that are currently in clinical and preclinical stages of development .
But remember : Nothing is a sure thing here .
There are a lot of possibilities to unpack .
To start : How do these various antibody treatments actually work ?
How are they different from a vaccine ?
Will receiving plasma from a survivor make you immune to the virus ?
And : What about testing for antibodies in the first place ?
What does that look like , especially since we know many infected people don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or so , I joined my colleague James West , himself a COVID-19 survivor looking to help , to dig into these questions and so much more .
We spoke with several experts : Vincent Racaniello , a professor of microbiology and immunology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and co-host of the podcast This Week in Virology ; Jesse Goodman , a professor in the School of Medicine at Georgetown University and director of the university ’ s Center on Medical Product Access , Safety and Stewardship ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor in the Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research at La Jolla Institute for Immunology ( LJI ) ; and Nahid Bhadelia , an infectious diseases physician and the medical director of Special Pathogens Unit at Boston University School of Medicine .
Below I ’ ve distilled our conversations into some key points : Antibody treatments are different from vaccines .
A COVID-19 vaccine would give you immunity to the disease , but antibody treatments won ’ t .
There is a simple difference between vaccines and antibody treatments : Vaccines basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , while antibody treatments help your immune system fight a virus .
It ’ s sort of like , if you wanted to eat a pie , you have two options—learn to bake the pie or buy one that ’ s already made .
Buying a pie from the store may satisfy your craving immediately .
But if you learn to bake , you can make as many pies in the future as you want .
It ’ s the same with your immune system .
If you ’ re vaccinated against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trained to fight the virus over and over and over .
Receiving antibodies from someone who has recovered from COVID-19 , on the other hand , won ’ t make you immune to the virus .
That ’ s the job of your own immune system .
The clear consensus is that surviving COVID-19 confers some immunity .
And doctors can test to see if you ’ ve had coronavirus in the past , even if you weren ’ t diagnosed at the time .
Though it hasn ’ t been proven yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the immune system ’ s response to viruses , it ’ s basically assumed among experts that after you get the novel coronavirus once , you ’ ll have some immunity to it in the short term .
As Anthony Fauci , an infectious disease expert leading President Trump ’ s coronavirus task force told the Daily Show ’ s Trevor Noah last week , “ It ’ s never 100 percent , but I ’ d be willing to bet anything that people who recover are really protected against re-infection.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity lasts .
With a blood sample , doctors can conduct a test to see whether or not someone had the coronavirus—even if they were asymptomatic—and is now likely immune .
These tests , called “ serological tests , ” are different from the diagnostic tests that have been taken by more than a million Americans .
Widespread testing for immunity could prove crucial as we try to get this crisis under control : People who are immune could , in theory , go back into the workforce , care for the sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , among other things .
“ Doctors and nurses are being exposed to this all the time , ” Crotty says .
“ And if you knew you had a group of people who were immune , you might stratify some of the jobs differently in terms of who takes care of the most severe cases or whatnot.
” Luckily , experts say serological tests are accurate long after someone has recovered .
Serological tests , which work by detecting antibodies in the blood , are accurate for a very long time after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the coronavirus between seven and 21 days after you ’ re infected , Racaniello says .
Those initial antibodies typically stick around in your system for about three months , while other antibodies take a little longer to develop and can be found in your blood years after you ’ ve had COVID-19 .
“ Their levels go down gradually , ” Racaniello says .
“ But there will always be a low level in the blood that you can detect for years and years after infection.
” Serological tests can detect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which are already starting to be rolled out in New York , could be critical in revealing how many total Americans were really infected with the virus .
The tests work by first removing the cells from the blood with the help of a centrifuge and then exposing the remaining liquid to a little piece of the virus .
If you had COVID-19 at any point , antibodies in the liquid will attach to the virus fragment , just as they would in your body .
Listen to the Mother Jones Podcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it was like to live through COVID-19 and detail his attempts to donate plasma as a survivor—which , as it turns out , he as a gay man was barred from doing .
James also wrote about the experience here .
Not all antibodies are created equal .
Some people are capable of producing powerful immune responses .
Others , not so much .
It ’ s not exactly clear why , and it could be due to any number of factors , including genetics , diet , and prior infections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their immune responses , right ?
Some people have great immune systems , and they rarely get infections , ” says Racaniello .
“ And other people get infections all the time.
” This variation in immune response includes , but is not limited to , antibodies .
“ There are lots of places where your immune system can be defective , ” he adds .
On one end of the spectrum , some people can ’ t produce antibodies at all , Racaniello explains .
Some people will make antibodies , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or they ’ ll just be plain ineffective .
That ’ s why doctors test plasma from recovered patients before giving it to others .
In some people , “ it won ’ t be very good , ” Racaniello says .
In “ other people , it ’ ll be better.
” There are several types of antibody treatments currently in development—all of which have different upsides .
Researchers across the world are trying to determine right now if antibodies can help cure patients of COVID-19 .
These are three common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help block the coronavirus : • Convalescent plasma : This is what you ’ ve probably already heard a lot about , as patients in New York are starting to be treated using this method on an emergency case-by-case basis .
It relies on plasma sourced from patients—or pooled from many patients—who ’ ve recovered from COVID-19 ; the plasma is injected into sick patients intravenously , providing them with the antibodies that another person created .
This approach is generally safe and more than 100 years old .
While it “ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to COVID-19 , ” Crotty says , “ the overall concept of antibodies being protective is proven to be true for many infectious diseases , but not all of them.
” The other potential catch is that for this treatment to be applied at a large scale , it would require tons of recovered patients to donate their plasma .
2 .
Synthetic antibodies : This is another option that relies on patients who have recovered from COVID-19 , Racaniello explains .
It requires taking the cells out of their blood that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cells .
In a lab , scientists can use the B cells to make tons of antibodies , purify them , and then administer the product to patients .
“ That ’ s what we did for Ebola , ” Bhadelia says .
“ We looked at the serum of survivors and we found those antibodies that were particularly effective .
And then we created drugs that were basically biological drugs that were clonal copies of those antibodies.
” Companies in South Korea , Israel , Canada , and the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibodies sourced from COVID-19 survivors .
Researchers are also testing lab-created antibodies that are already on the market for other conditions , like cancers , arthritis , and HIV .
They ’ re hoping these antibodies may also be effective in COVID-19 patients , to help their immune system in fighting the coronavirus or suppressing their immune system ’ s over-response to it , which can be deadly .
There are several of these drugs already in clinical trials across the world , including in the United States , China , and Italy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new coronavirus , these lab-grown antibodies , which can be produced rapidly , might make a better widescale option than collecting blood plasma , Goodman says .
3 .
Coronavirus antibodies from animals : This would entail basically the same process as creating human antibodies in a lab—expose an animal , like a mouse , to parts of the coronavirus , collect the animal ’ s B cells , and create virus-blocking antibodies .
The only problem is , humans ’ immune systems may reject the antibodies from another animal , Racaniello @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to try and make the mouse antibody as human as possible .
It ’ s called ‘ humanizing ’ the antibody .
And that will overcome these problems , ” he explains .
The benefit of this treatment is that it doesn ’ t require the complex process of screening for human coronavirus-specific antibodies , experts say .
In fact , some synthetic antibodies already on the market that are now being tested against COVID-19 were sourced from mice or other animals .
New York biotech company Regeneron aims to start clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s possible that certain antibodies can be administered to prevent , not just treat , COVID-19 .
It ’ s a somewhat complicated distinction : While antibody treatment for sick patients will not directly give them immunity to the coronavirus , it ’ s possible that administering antibody treatments to people before they get sick could prevent illness temporarily .
“ When you inject the antibodies into your blood , they end up diffusing into all of your tissues , including your lungs .
And so they would prevent infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s how a vaccine would work—except the vaccine would have you make your own antibodies.
” This isn ’ t the same as being immune , because , as I explain above , your body isn ’ t making its own response to the coronavirus ; you ’ re still using someone else ’ s .
That ’ s why , to prevent an infection with antibodies , you ’ d need an injection every month or two , Racaniello says .
While this wouldn ’ t be considered effective long-term preventive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be especially helpful for health care professionals on the front lines .
We ’ re already using antibodies as a prophylactic for some diseases that don ’ t have a vaccine , explains Goodman .
Take RSV , a common respiratory virus , especially in babies .
“ There is no vaccine against [ RSV ] yet , ” he says .
“ But there is an approved [ lab-grown ] antibody , that in very high-risk children—for example , children with certain congenital lung and heart disease—can reduce their incidence of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

On January 20, just a day before the coronavirus officially showed up in the United States and more than a month before the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a pandemic, doctors in China launched a small, five-person clinical trial to test whether plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients could help treat others in critical condition. Within days of receiving this plasma, four of the five patients began to recover—and as of late last week, three of the patients had been discharged, and two were in stable condition.
The results are preliminary, of course, but early studies like this, plus the long history of successful plasma treatments, offer a promising option to help some patients with severe cases among the 1 million globally who’ve contracted the coronavirus. “Convalescent plasma,” as plasma from survivors is called, is now being deployed in clinical trials in the US: Last week, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the state, which has been overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases, would become the first to conduct research with the treatment, and the state is currently collecting blood donations from people who’ve recovered.
Vaccines basically teach your immune system to fight a virus, while antibody treatments help your immune system fight a virus. It’s sort of like, if you wanted to eat a pie, you have two options—learn to bake the pie or buy one that’s already made.
As treatments go, convalescent plasma is low-hanging fruit—it is widely accessible and relatively safe—but it’s actually just one of several antibody-based COVID-19 therapies currently in development. Some researchers, for example, are producing coronavirus antibodies in a lab; others are testing antibody treatments already on the market for other conditions, with potential crossover benefits for COVID-19 patients; and some scientists are even sourcing coronavirus-fighting antibodies from mice. Overall, there are dozens of antibody treatments (and several more that aren’t antibodies) in clinical and preclinical stages of development.
But remember: Nothing is a sure thing here.
There are a lot of possibilities to unpack. To start: How do these various antibody treatments actually work? How are they different from a vaccine? Will receiving plasma from a survivor make you immune to the virus? And what about testing for antibodies in the first place? What does that look like, especially since we know that many infected people don’t show symptoms?
Over the past week or so, I joined my colleague James West, himself a COVID-19 survivor looking to help, to dig into these questions and so much more. We spoke with several experts: Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and co-host of the podcast This Week in Virology; Jesse Goodman, a professor in the School of Medicine at Georgetown University and director of the university’s Center on Medical Product Access, Safety, and Stewardship (COMPASS); Shane Crotty, a professor in the Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research at La Jolla Institute for Immunology (LJI); and Nahid Bhadelia, an infectious diseases physician and the medical director of the Special Pathogens Unit at Boston University School of Medicine.
Below I’ve distilled our conversations into some key points:
Antibody treatments are different from vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine would give you immunity to the disease, but antibody treatments won’t.
There is a simple difference between vaccines and antibody treatments: Vaccines basically teach your immune system to fight a virus, while antibody treatments help your immune system fight a virus. It’s sort of like, if you wanted to eat a pie, you have two options—learn to bake the pie or buy one that’s already made. Buying a pie from the store may satisfy your craving immediately. But if you learn to bake, you can make as many pies as you want in the future.
It’s the same with your immune system. If you’re vaccinated against a virus, your body will be trained to fight the virus over and over. Receiving antibodies from someone who has recovered from COVID-19, on the other hand, won’t make you immune to the virus. That’s the job of your own immune system.
The clear consensus is that surviving COVID-19 confers some immunity. And doctors can test to see if you’ve had the coronavirus in the past, even if you weren’t diagnosed at the time.
Though it hasn’t been proven yet, based on what we know generally about the immune system’s response to viruses, it’s assumed among experts that after you get the novel coronavirus once, you’ll have some immunity to it in the short term. As Dr. Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert leading President Trump’s coronavirus task force, told the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah last week, “It’s never 100 percent, but I’d be willing to bet anything that people who recover are really protected against reinfection.” It’s unclear how long that immunity lasts.
“There will always be a low level in the blood that you can detect for years and years after infection.”
With a blood sample, doctors can conduct a test to see whether someone had the coronavirus—even if they were asymptomatic—and is now likely immune. These tests, called “serological tests,” are different from the diagnostic ones taken by more than 1 million Americans.
Widespread testing for immunity could prove crucial as we try to get this crisis under control: People who are immune could, in theory, go back into the workforce, care for the sick, and donate plasma for treating patients. “Doctors and nurses are being exposed to this all the time,” Crotty says. “And if you knew you had a group of people who were immune, you might stratify some of the jobs differently in terms of who takes care of the most severe cases or whatnot.”
Luckily, experts say serological tests are accurate long after someone has recovered
Serological tests, which work by detecting antibodies in the blood, can be accurate for a very long time after infection. Your body likely starts making antibodies against the coronavirus between seven and 21 days after you’re infected, Racaniello says. Those initial antibodies typically stick around in your system for about three months, while other antibodies take a little longer to develop and will likely be found in your blood years after you’ve had COVID-19. “Their levels go down gradually,” Racaniello says. “But there will always be a low level in the blood that you can detect for years and years after infection.” Serological tests can detect both types of antibodies.
These tests, which are already starting to be rolled out in New York, could be critical in revealing how many total Americans were really infected with the virus.
The tests often work by first removing the cells from the blood with the help of a centrifuge and then exposing the remaining liquid to a little piece of the virus. If you had COVID-19 at any point, antibodies in the liquid will attach to the virus fragment, just as they would in your body.
Listen to the Mother Jones Podcast to hear our own James West explain what it was like to live through COVID-19 and detail his attempts to donate plasma as a survivor—which, it turns out, he as a gay man was barred from doing. James also wrote about the experience here.
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
Not all antibodies are created equal
Some people are capable of producing powerful immune responses. Others, not so much. It’s not exactly clear why, and it could be due to any number of factors, including genetics, diet, and prior infections. “For sure, people differ in their immune responses, right? Some people have great immune systems, and they rarely get infections,” says Racaniello. “And other people get infections all the time.” This variation in immune response includes, but is not limited to, antibodies. “There are lots of places where your immune system can be defective,” he adds.
On one end of the spectrum, some people can’t produce antibodies at all, Racaniello explains. Some people will make antibodies but they won’t be very diverse. Or they’ll be ineffective. That’s why doctors test plasma from recovered patients before giving it to others. In some people “it won’t be very good,” Racaniello says. In “other people, it’ll be better.”
There are several types of antibody treatments in development—all of which have different upsides
Researchers across the world are trying to determine if antibodies can help cure COVID-19 patients. These are three common methods that could potentially use antibodies to help block the coronavirus:
Convalescent plasma: This is what you’ve probably already heard a lot about, as patients in New York are starting to be treated using this method on an emergency case-by-case basis. It relies on plasma sourced from patients—or pooled from many patients—who’ve recovered from COVID-19. The plasma is injected into sick patients intravenously, providing the antibodies that another person created. This approach is generally safe and more than 100 years old. While it “is not proven for COVID-19 or any disease related to COVID-19,” Crotty says, “the overall concept of antibodies being protective is proven to be true for many infectious diseases, but not all of them.” The other potential catch is that for this treatment to be applied at a large scale, it would require tons of recovered patients to donate their plasma. Synthetic antibodies: This is another option that relies on patients who have recovered from COVID-19, Racaniello explains. It requires taking the cells out of their blood that make these coronavirus-fighting antibodies, called B cells. In a lab, scientists can use the B cells to make tons of antibodies, purify them, and then administer the product to patients. “That’s what we did for Ebola,” Bhadelia says. “We looked at the serum of survivors and we found those antibodies that were particularly effective. And then we created drugs that were basically biological drugs that were clonal copies of those antibodies.” Companies in South Korea, Israel, Canada, and the United States, among others, are working on making antibodies sourced from COVID-19 survivors. Researchers are also testing lab-created antibodies that are already on the market for other conditions, like cancers, arthritis, and HIV. They’re hoping these antibodies may also be effective in COVID-19 patients, to help their immune system in fighting the coronavirus or suppressing their immune system’s over-response to it, which can be deadly. There are several of these drugs already in clinical trials across the world, including in the United States, China, and Italy. Until a vaccine is available for the new coronavirus, these lab-grown antibodies, which can be produced rapidly, might make a better widescale option than collecting blood plasma, Goodman says. Coronavirus antibodies from animals: This would entail basically the same process as creating human antibodies in a lab—expose an animal, like a mouse, to parts of the coronavirus, collect the animal’s B cells, and create virus-blocking antibodies. The only problem is, humans’ immune systems may reject the antibodies from another animal, Racaniello says. “What people do instead is to try and make the mouse antibody as human as possible. It’s called ‘humanizing’ the antibody. And that will overcome these problems,” he explains. The benefit of this treatment is that it doesn’t require the complex process of screening for human coronavirus-specific antibodies, experts say. In fact, some synthetic antibodies already on the market that are being tested against COVID-19 were sourced from mice or other animals. New York biotech company Regeneron aims to start clinical trials with antibodies from mice in June.
It’s possible that certain antibodies can be administered to prevent, not just treat, COVID-19.
“The overall concept of antibodies being protective is proven to be true for many infectious diseases, but not all of them.”
It’s a somewhat complicated distinction: While antibody treatment for sick patients will not directly give them immunity to the coronavirus, it’s possible that administering antibody treatments to people before they get sick could prevent illness temporarily. “When you inject the antibodies into your blood, they end up diffusing into all of your tissues, including your lungs. And so they would prevent infection,” Racaniello says. “That’s how a vaccine would work—except the vaccine would have you make your own antibodies.”
This isn’t the same as being immune, because, as I explain above, your body isn’t making its own response to the coronavirus; you’re still using someone else’s. That’s why, to prevent an infection with antibodies, you’d need an injection every month or two, Racaniello says. While this wouldn’t be considered effective long-term preventive care, this sort of treatment could be especially helpful for health care professionals on the front lines.
We’re already using antibodies as a prophylactic for some diseases that don’t have a vaccine, Goodman says. Take RSV, a common respiratory virus, especially in babies. “There is no vaccine against [RSV] yet,” he says, “but there is an approved [lab-grown] antibody that, in very high-risk children—for example, children with certain congenital lung and heart disease—can reduce their incidence of what are severe infections that occur in them.”
Additional reporting by James West


motherjones--2020-04-03--An Interview With Elizabeth Warren: Trump’s $500 Billion Coronavirus “Slush Fund” and More

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more , subscribe to Mother Jones ' newsletters Few people know more @ @ @ @ @ an economic crisis than Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, who led the @ @ @ @ @ billions in federal bailout funds were spent—and misspent—following the 2008 crash .
This week , @ @ @ @ @ ’ Washington , DC bureau chief David Corn from the back porch of her Cambridge @ @ @ @ @ , Bailey , by her side .
Warren , who last month ended her presidential @ @ @ @ @ go wrong with the Trump administration ’ s $ 500 billion coronavirus corporate bailout fund @ @ @ @ @ this “ slush fund.
” She also recounted her efforts two years ago to get @ @ @ @ @ he abruptly disbanded the National Security Council ’ s global health security unit and talked @ @ @ @ @ in the veep slot on the Democratic presidential ticket .

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.