Lightning fast, extremely accurate, saliva-based test for COVID-19 developed in ... Turkey!

Well, this is brilliant. A new COVID-19 saliva-based test has been developed in Turkey (of all places!) that produces results in 5-20 seconds (5-10 seconds for a positive identification, up to 20 seconds for a negative), does not require the intrusive and uncomfortable nasal swabs, and is 99% effective! 

Sound too good to be true? Well, supposedly it is a real thing. Known as the Diagnovir, the diagnostic kit was developed at Bilkent University and uses a mouth swab and nanotechnology to detect COVID particles optically, based on their size and shape.

The test kits are still a couple of months away from official approval, even in Turkey. But wouldn't it be nice as a replacement for the slow and intrusive PCR tests?

Why are we tinkering with the vaccine manufacturers' directions?

The long-awaited COVID-19 vaccine roll-out is underway at last, in some countries at least. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna products are already being administered, and the cheaper and easier-to-transport Oxford/AstraZeneca one is expected to follow in very short order. However, the roll-out is proceeding at a much slower pace than originally anticipated or promised. 

Partly as a result of this, some jurisdictions, notably the UK and some provinces in Canada, are taking the unilateral decision to concentrate on administering the first dose to as many vulnerable people as possible, even if this comes at the risk of delaying, or even missing, the second booster dose. Quebec has also changed tack and is re-allocating planned second doses to other people's first doses. Parts of the USA is also currently debating whether to go down a similar road. 

The UK has gone one step further and says it plans to ensure that the second dose is administered within 12 weeks of the first, despite the very clear recommendations of the manufacturers that a second dose must be administered within three or four weeks (depending on the particular vaccine).

It is maybe understandable why vaccine coordinators might want to make make this decision - a well-intentioned attempt to get as many people at least partially treated as possible as quickly as possible - but it still seems like a rather cavalier approach. Pfizer, for example, has been very up-front in saying that the second dose is absolutely essential for long term protection, and that the first dose alone may only offer protection for a week or two, and that  the two doses three weeks apart (not 12, not 20, not 1) are the only way to ensure the 95% efficacy rates people are expecting. There are some hopes that a first dose may be as much as 60-70% effective, but Pfizer says that this has not been rigorously tested, and little over 50% is more likely. Scientists are split on the policy.

Surely, if a vaccine, like any other medication, comes with specific instructions, they should be followed to the letter (like Pfizer's onerous and restrictive -70° storage instructions). Pfizer and BioNTech know their product much better than the British or Canadian governments. If they say to administer the second dose after three weeks, then that is exactly what we should be doing. We should not be second-guessing the manufacturers, not should we be cutting corners where people's lives are at stake.

UPDATE

The UK has taken another quantum leap towards anti-science by giving the green light to mix-and-match vaccines. 

For some reason, despite the complete lack of evidence and data that would support it, and contrary to specific warnings from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientists that the authorized COVID vaccines "are not interchangeable", the UK medical authorities are saying that, if a second dose of a vaccine that a patient has received is not available (which is quite conceivable due to its other policies - see above), then they should just be given a dose of any other vaccine as a substitute. They say that, "it is likely the second dose will help to boost the response to the first dose", based on no evidence whatsoever as far as I can see.

Say, what? Even as a non-scientist, that sounds wrong to me. Where is the UK coming from, or going to, with this stuff?

Subsequent clarifications indicate that this is expected to be an extremely unlikely eventuality, for example where a patient is not sure which vaccine they had been given, and that the government is not actually recommending the mixing of vaccines: "Every effort should be made to give them the same vaccine, but where this is not possible it is better to give a second dose of another vaccine than not at all."

UPDATE UPDATE

Quebec is now looking to follow the UK on this 12-week policy, a move that comes with substantial risks. For example, no-one really knows how fast the immunity conferred by the first dose drops off; encountering people with incomplete immunizations may lead the virus to mutate further in order to evade the vaccines; it is even possible that future supply of the vaccines may be withheld if countries are not using them as recommended. 

None of these outcomes are to be welcomed. So, why is Quebec being allowed too even consider it?

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, the Canadian body that, at least theoretically, oversees the vaccine rollout, has now got involved in this debate, and has concluded that provinces are justified in delaying the second dose until 42 days after the first, but that any further delay after that (such as as the 90 days that Quebec is now trying to justify) becomes increasingly risky. 

They add that, particularly given that the vaccines are now being given to the most vulnerable populations, the closer to the recommended 21/28 days the better. Under no circumstances, therefore, should any province be delaying for 90 days.

Louise Erdrich's 'Future Home of the Living God'

I have been reading Louise Erdrich's 2017 novel Future Home of the Living God, and I am pleasantly surprised at how good it is. Not that I necessarily expected anything bad from Erdrich. It's just that I have never read any of her books, and so had no expectations at all, other than the fact that, a couple of years ago, I must have read a review of this book somewhere and I was obviously intrigued by the plot summary and someone else's opinion of it.

And it is an intriguing premise. A young 20-something woman of Indigenous parentage, who has been living a life of relative ease with her thoughtful, progressive, almost-too-good-to-be-true, adopted parents in suburban Minneapolis, finds herself pregnant at a time when the world is going through a strange and inexplicable upheaval: it seems that evolution is suddenly starting to go backwards, and quickly, and no-one is quite sure why, how quickly, and just what the practical implications might be. At this time of extreme uncertainty and stress, then, the young woman, who had already surprised herself by converting to Catholicism some years earlier, seeks out her birth parents in order to better understand herself, and to give her future baby some context to its own life. 

Life then starts to get even more complicated when shadowy government departments begin to exhibit excessive interest in any new pregnancies. Rumours of mutations and abductions swirl, society starts to crack at the seams, militias are formed, communications break down, and very soon we are in full post-apocalypse territory.

The whole reversing evolution thing, unlikely as it is, is not belaboured, and the theory behind it is not the point of the book. It is the internal world of the young woman that really interests Erdrich and, in turn, us. Incidentally, Erdrich is a Chippewa-Ojibwe on her mother's side, so she is "allowed" to write from the perspective of a Native American.

A couple of little snippets, to give a flavour of the language:

"I am more comfortable with the before-ness and the after-ness of life. I am happier dissecting the past or dreading the future. I really have no proficiency at experiencing the present... I have to treat myself like a skittish horse. An animal ready to bolt at the sight of the big picture. Stick to the periphery. Pull on a comforting set of blinders."

"My voice is fake. She starts to cry although she doesn't really cry, just gives a little splutter. I smooth her hair back around her ear. She shakes her head as if to shake me off. I'm still patronizing her, talking lightly, rummaging around for tea. She answers me with one of her lectures, like the amateur pedant she's always been."

Biggest disappointment? A recognized author writing a sentence like, "The oil company could care less who's in charge." Not in the demotic voice of one of the characters, but in the author's own voice. Does she think that this is an acceptable grammatical sentence? (I hope not.) Is she being ironic? (I don't think so.) Is this just me flagging a pet peeve? (Probably.)

Canada performs creditably in the Bloomberg COVID Resilience Ranking

The Bloomberg COVID Resilience Ranking is produced each month by Bloomberg, based on 10 moving indicators, including COVID cases, fatalities, positive test rates, access to vaccines, lockdown severity and freedom of movement, universal healthcare coverage, and economic prospects for 2020. Basically, it ranks the best places to be in the world during this pandemic.

As might be expected, New Zealand heads the list, followed by Taiwan, Australia, Norway, Singapore, Finland, Japan, South Korea, China, Denmark and Canada. Yes, surprising as it might be, Canada ranks No. 11 out of 53! Actually, pretty good, and above countries like Vietnam and Hong Kong, which I thought had done better.

Just for interest, Russia is at No. 18, the UK is No. 30, France is No. 34, and the USA is No. 37. Languishing down at the bottom are Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Greece.

UPDATE

There again, a more recent analysis by the Lowry Institute of Australia, using slightly different criteria, shows Canada performing much less creditably.

New Zealand is still at the top (followed by Vietnam, Taiwan and Thailand), and Brazil is at the bottom (preceded by Mexico, Colombia, Iran and the USA). Canada, on this listing is down at No. 61 out of 98, barely above the UK (No. 66), and well below countries like Kenya and Kazakhstan.

Go figure!

Adermatoglyphia - people with no fingerprint

Among the most unusual of conditions is the rare occurrence of people who, instead of the complex, individualized whorl of patterns most people have at their fingertips, have ... absolutely nothing.

Adermatoglyphia, the absence of fingerprints, is one of the rarest conditions in the world, affecting just a handful of families worldwide. But, in a world increasingly dominated by technology and biometrics, it can be a major problem for those people. In many parts of the world, fingerprints (technically, dematoglyphs) are the biometric of choice for obtaining a passport, ID card, drivers license, even a cellphone SIM card.

Adermatoglyphia is a rare genetic mutation that arises in families, such as the Sarker family in Bangladesh, where four generations are affected by it, or the Swiss family where seven members of the family have fingerprints and nine do not. It is marked by flat, featureless finger pads and, often a reduced number of sweat glands in the hands, resulting in vrty dry skin. The mutation, in a specific gene that seems to have no other function, appears to cause no other ill health effects.

The time for presidential pardons has come and gone

The right of US presidents to issue judicial pardons from federal (but not state) crimes is one of the dafter ideas in the American Constitution, and surely the time has come to do away with it. I'm surprised not to see more of a call for this on the internet.

The provision for presidential pardons is enshrined in the US Constitution, and is based loosely on the ancient right of English kings to issue clemency. It effectively puts the president above the law in the the worst possible way, and is singularly open to abuse. 

It is supposed to be used to address systemic or egregious injustices, but often it is used as a personal favour or to reward loyal partisans. All presidents have taken advantage of it, both Republican and Democrat, some to a greater extent than others. Barack Obama, for example, pardoned 212 people over his eight years in power. Many of the pardons over the years have been controversial. Also, it seems like a pardon cannot be reversed by a subsequent president or the courts.

Interestingly, Donald Trump has not availed himself of such a potentially powerful political weapon as often as might have been expected - fewer than 100 times thus far - although he still has almost a month in which to rectify that. Most of his pardons have been very much in the mould of the personal rather than the ideological (and many are definitely controversial), such as his recent pardons for several of the figures in the  Russian election interference investigation and former Blackwater security guards.

Personally, I don't see any place for it in modern politics. I have read articles arguing that presidential pardons are an essential part of American democracy, but the arguments seem very thin to me. They rely on voters only voting in honourable and sensible presidents, but that has clearly broken down in recent years. The Biden administration should show its moral chops by calling for its repeal.

Malaysia's halal meat scam has been going on for 40 years

It turns out that devout Muslims in Islam-majority Malaysia have been eating tainted non-halal meat products for at least the last four decades.

A huge cartel has been operating, importing non-certified meat from countries like Canada, Colombia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Spain and Mexico at low international prices, and then mixing it with local produce, and repackaging it with fake halal stickers. Kangaroo and horse meat has been routinely passed off as beef, and much of the actual beef used has been low quality and often tainted or diseased. Taxes and duties were also waived as part of the scheme, as well as avoiding the halal certification costs.

Government officers from Malaysia's Department of Islamic Development, the Department of Veterinary Services, the Malaysian Quarantine and Inspection Services Department, the Malaysian Customs Department and the local police have all been in on the scheme, taking substantial bribes to remain silent. Some of the bribes reportedly involved women for sex. Some individuals have clearly made out handsomely.

Details of the goings-on were reported in Malaysia's newspaper of record, the New Straits Times, and heads will probably roll as a result (hopefully not literally). But it will be some time before regular folks can trust their meat suppliers again. Watch for an increase in vegetarianism in the region.

Is the COVID vaccine halal? Yes, that's a real question

Well, this is something that the COVID-19 vaccine developers probably didn't think too hard about, concerned as they were with saving thousands of lives. Is the vaccine halal?

You might think this is a minor consideration in the scheme of things, along the lines of "is the vaccine gluten-free?" or "is the vaccine macrobiotic?" But this is apparently a big deal for millions of Muslims (and Jews) across the world, for whom the consumption of pork products is considered deeply unclean and religiously unacceptable.

It turns out that a pork-derived gelatin is often used as a stabilizer in vaccines, and there have been high-level discussions in the Muslim world as to whether a pork gelatin ingredient which then undergoes a rigorous chemical transformation is still considered religiously impure - for the record, the consensus seems to be no, on the grounds that a greater harm would occur if the vaccines weren't used. But there will always be zealots who will take  their own path on this, I guess. Like we need more obstacles in the way of achieving herd immunity.

Currently, Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca have all confirmed that their vaccines do not use pork gelatin, but some of the other COVID vaccines are not yet certified gelatin-free. Personally, I'm vegetarian, but I'm sure as hell not going to insist on seeing the recipe before I get vaccinated.