Although political leaders have closed borders in reaction to COVID-19, scientists participate as never before. But the coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) is new, and we don’t have all the data about it yet. As a result, we may want to replace our technique as new clinical tests arrive.
This is not to say that science is unreliable; we’ll get a complete picture over time. And there are already many studies that can indicate policy decisions. Here are 3 topics that scientists disagree on.
The new coronavirus is transmitted through drops of cough, sneezing and speech. To prevent the spread of the virus, the mask is mandatory in many countries.
But there has been much debate among scientists about the effectiveness of the face mask in reducing the spread of COVID-19. A report through a multidisciplinary organization convened through the Royal Society spoke in favor of the masked audience. These documents, which have not been peer-reviewed, argue that the face mask may decrease coVID-19 transmission if widely used in conditions where physical distance is not possible.
A small clinical examination also showed that inflamed youth wearing masks did not transmit the virus to the family contact circle.
But science is complex. The face mask does not prevent the user from breathing small particles of airborne coronavirus, which can cause an infection. A recent study reported that dressing in a mask can also give a false sense of security, meaning users may forget other vital infection measures.
Research has also shown that when other people wear a mask, exhaled air enters the eyes. This generates a pulse to touch the eyes. And if your hands are contaminated, it can become infected. WHO warns that the mask can be counterproductive unless users touch their faces and take other control measures.
We also know that the mask can make us breathe more and deeply, the ability to spread more infected air.
Therefore, many scientists disagree with the Royal Society’s report, which asks for more evidence on the effectiveness of the mask. Ideally, we want randomized controlled trials involving many other people from a full population to indicate how they mask the numbers of infections.
That said, other scientists argue that we use masks even if perfectly reliable evidence is lacking, to be on the right side. But in the end, without a vaccine, the maximum hard weapons we have are fundamental preventive measures such as normal hand washing and social estrangement.
Immunologists strive to determine what COVID-19 immunity looks like. Most studies have focused on “neutralizing antibodies” produced through so-called B cells, which bind to viral proteins and directly prevent infection.
Studies have shown that levels of neutralizing antibodies remain high for a few weeks after infection, but sometimes begin to decrease. A peer-reviewed study in China showed that other inflamed people had sharp decreases in antibody levels within two to three months of infection. This has created doubts about whether others are receiving long-term coverage of the next exposure to the virus. If this test proves to be accurate, the result will have to be supported by other studies, it may have implications for whether it is conceivable to produce vaccines with lasting immunity.
While many scientists claim that antibodies are the key to immunity, others argue that other immune cells called T cells are also involved, which occur when the framework encounters molecules that fight viruses, called antigens. These can be programmed to fight the same or similar viruses in the future. And studies recommend that T cells are in pictures in many patients battling COVID-19. People who have never become inflamed will possibly also harbor protective T cells because they have been exposed to similar coronaviruses.
A recent review through the Karonliska Institute in Sweden, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that many other people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 have T-cell mediated immunity, even when antibodies cannot be detected. The authors say this would possibly save or restrict reinfection, estimating that a third of other people with asymptomatic COVID-19 would possibly have this type of immunity. But we still don’t know how it works and how long it lasts.
If this is the case, this is very clever news, which means that public immunity to COVID-19 is probably much higher than antibody tests suggest. Some have argued that this can create a “collective immunity,” through which other people have become inflamed enough to become immune to the virus, with an infection rate as low as 20%, which is 60-70% widely accepted. However, that assertion remains controversial.
The immune reaction to COVID-19 is complex, with a complete symbol probably to make it larger than antibodies. Broader studies are now to be conducted over longer periods in T cells and antibodies to perceive the duration of immunity and how those other parts of COVID-19 immunity relate.
The notification of coronavirus cases varies widely worldwide. Some regions report that less than 1% of others have become inflamed and others that more than one part of the population has had COVID-19. A peer-reviewed study estimated that only 35% of symptomatic cases were reported in the United States, and that the figure is even lower for some other countries.
When it comes to estimating the actual prevalence, scientists use only one of the two main approaches. They check a pattern of others in a population for antibodies and report those numbers directly, or expect how the virus affected the mathematical models of a population. These models gave very different estimates.
Research conducted through the University of Toronto in Canada, which has not yet been peer reviewed, has evaluated other people’s blood test knowledge around the world and found that the proportion of others to the virus varies significantly from country to country.
We don’t know why. There may be genuine differences due to the age, fitness or spread of each population, or in policies for the transmission of the virus. But this is most likely because of differences in methodology, such as antibody testing (serological tests): other tests have another sensitivity.
Antibody studies recommend that only 14% of others in the UK had COVID-19, compared to 19% in Sweden and 3% in Yemen. But that excludes T cells. If they provide a reliable consultant for infection, the number may be much higher, potentially close to collective immunity in some regions, but this is widely debated.
Manal Mohammed, Full Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster
This article has been republished from The Conversation, a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.