Hinduism third largest religion of world: Pew research

Jun 13: Requiring the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus in areas at the epicenter of the global pandemic may have prevented tens of thousands of infections, a new study suggests.

Mask-wearing is even more important for preventing the virus' spread and the sometimes deadly COVID-19 illness it causes than social distancing and stay-at-home orders, researchers said, in the study published in PNAS: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Infection trends shifted dramatically when mask-wearing rules were implemented on April 6 in northern Italy and April 17 in New York City - at the time among the hardest hit areas of the world by the health crisis - the study found.

"This protective measure alone significantly reduced the number of infections, that is, by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and over 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9," researchers calculated.

When mask-wearing went into effect in New York, the daily new infection rate fell by about 3% per day, researchers said. In the rest of the country, daily new infections continued to increase.

Direct contact precautions - social distancing, quarantine and isolation, and hand sanitizing - were all in place before mask-wearing rules went into effect in Italy and New York City. But they only help minimize virus transmission by direct contact, while face covering helps prevent airborne transmission, the researchers say.

"The unique function of face covering to block atomization and inhalation of virus-bearing aerosols accounts for the significantly reduced infections," they said. That would indicate "that airborne transmission of COVID-19 represents the dominant route for infection."

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday urged organizers of large gatherings that involve "shouting, chanting or singing to strongly encourage the use of cloth face coverings to lower the risk of spreading the coronavirus."

Washington, Apr 28: US President while addressing a news conference on coronavirus pandemic said his administration has launched "very serious investigations" into China's response to the novel coronavirus.

"And we are not happy with China, we are not happy with that whole situation, because we believe it could have been stopped at the source," he said. "It could have been stopped quickly and it wouldn't have spread all over the world," the BBC reported.

Trump has been critical of China as the pandemic has progressed and has frequently touted his decision to close the US borders to China in an effort to curb the outbreak. Some health experts have said the effort bought time for the US to prepare, but the Trump administration has been accused of squandering the opportunity.

"Nobody except one country can be held accountable for what happened," Trump said.

"Nobody's blaming anybody here, we're looking at a group of people that should've stopped it at the source."

The US will never forget those who were "sacrificed for a reason of incompetence or something else other than incompetence," he added.

"They" - referring to China - "could've protected the whole world - not just us - the whole world," he said.

At the starting of the conference Trump said COVID-19 cases are declining or stablising across the country.

"In all cases getting better," he said. "Really a horrible situation that we've been confronted with, but they're moving along."

He added there's a "hunger" to get back to work.

"Ensuring the health of our economy is vital to ensuring the health of our nation - these goals work in tandem."

The president has suggested an unnamed individual "a long time ago" could have stopped the "unnecessary death[s]" due to COVID-19.

"There has been so much unnecessary death in this country," he said.

"It could've been stopped and it could've been stopped short, but somebody a long time ago, it seems, decided not to do it that way and the whole world is suffering because of it."

He did not say who he was referencing and gave no other details.

Trump was asked if he has considered delaying the November presidential election.

"I never even thought of changing the date of the election," he answered. "Why would I do that? November 3rd. That's a good number."

Trump called the suggestion "made up propaganda" and said that "sleepy Joe" Biden - his presumptive Democratic rival - was likely unaware his campaign had put the statement out.

Former Vice-President Joe Biden said at a virtual fundraiser last week that he thought Trump would "try to kick back the election somehow".

The president has frequently levelled insults at his Democratic opponent by questioning the former vice-president's mental fortitude.

"I look forward to that election," Trump said.

The president responded to a question criticising Health Secretary Alex Azar's early downplaying of the disease by saying it was "unfair". He claimed Democrats did the same, including Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.

"I was very fortunate through luck or whatever that we closed the border, we put a ban on China," he said.

"But I could tell you that Nancy Pelosi was dancing in the streets in Chinatown. She wanted to go, let's go out and party. That was late in February."

Back in February, Pelosi had encouraged people to visit San Francisco's Chinatown to help struggling businesses. She did not propose any parties, as the president suggested.

The city issued a stay-at-home order in March.

A reporter asked: If an American president loses more Americans over the course of six weeks than died during the entirety of the Vietnam war, does he deserve to be reelected?

Trump took the question in stride.

"So, yeah, we've lost a lot of people but if you look at what original projections were, 2.2 million, we're probably heading to 60,000 - 70,000," he said.

"It's far too many - one person is too many for this. I think we've made a lot of really good decisions," he added. "The big decision was closing the border, doing the ban on people coming in from China."

He also brings up the "unbelievable" job his administration did with ventilators.

"I think we've done a great job. And I will say this - one person is too many."

Jun 4: A malaria drug President Donald Trump took to try to prevent COVID-19 proved ineffective for that in the first large, high-quality study to test it in people in close contact with someone with the disease.

Results published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine show that hydroxychloroquine was no better than placebo pills at preventing illness from the coronavirus.

The drug did not seem to cause serious harm, though -- about 40% on it had side effects, mostly mild stomach problems.

 “We were disappointed. We would have liked for this to work,” said the study leader, Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota.

“But our objective was to answer the question and to conduct a high-quality study,” because the evidence on the drug so far has been inconclusive, he said.

Hydroxychloroquine and a similar drug, chloroquine, have been the subject of much debate since Trump started promoting them in March.

Hydroxychloroquine has long been used for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, but no large studies have shown it or chloroquine to be safe or effective for much sicker patients with coronavirus, and some studies have suggested the drugs may do harm.

Trump took a two-week course of hydroxychloroquine, along with zinc and Vitamin D, after two staffers tested positive for COVID-19, and had no ill effects, according to results of his latest physical released by his doctor Wednesday.

Federal regulators have warned against hydroxychloroquine's use except in hospitals and formal studies because of the risk of side effects, especially heart rhythm problems.

Boulware's study involved 821 people in the United States and Canada living with someone diagnosed with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it because of their job -- doctors, nurses, ambulance workers who had significant exposure to a sick patient while not wearing full protective gear.

They were randomly assigned to get either the nutrient folate as a placebo or hydroxychloroquine for five days, starting within four days of their exposure. Neither they nor others involved in the research knew who was getting which pills.

After 14 days in the study, 12 per cent on the drug developed COVID-19 symptoms versus 14 per cent in the placebo group, but the difference is so small it could have occurred by chance, Boulware said.

“There's basically no effect. It does not prevent infection,” he said of the drug. Even if it were to give some slim advantage, “we'd want a much larger effect” to justify its use and risk of side effects for preventing illness, he said.

Results were no different among a subgroup of participants who were taking zinc or vitamin C, which some people believe might help make hydroxychloroquine more effective or fight the coronavirus.

There are some big caveats: The study enrolled people through the Internet and social media, relying on them to report their own symptoms rather than having them tracked in a formal way by doctors.

Participants were not all tested for the coronavirus but were diagnosed as COVID-19 cases based on symptoms in many cases. And not all took their medicines as directed.

The results “are more provocative than definitive,” and the drug may yet have prevention benefits if tried sooner or in a different way, Dr. Myron Cohen of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote in a commentary in the journal.

Others were glad to see a study that had a comparison group and good scientific methods after so many weaker reports on hydroxychloroquine.

“This fits with everything else we've seen so far which suggests that it's not beneficial," said Dr. Peter Bach, director of a health policy center at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

This study was in younger relatively healthy people, but the results “would make me very discouraged about trying to use this in older people” who are most vulnerable to serious illness from the coronavirus, Bach said.

“If it does work, it doesn't work very well.” Dr. Dan Culver, a lung specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said there's still a chance that giving the drug sooner than four days after someone's exposure to the virus may help prevent illness.

But the study “takes 'home run' off the table” as far as hopes for the drug, he said.

The study was mostly funded by David Baszucki, founder of Roblox, a California-based game software company, and other private donors and the Minnesota university.

Boulware also is leading a study testing hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19. The study is finished and results are being analyzed now.

On Tuesday, the journal Lancet posted an “expression of concern” about a study it published earlier this month of nearly 15,000 COVID-19 patients on the malaria drugs that tied their use to a higher risk of dying in the hospital or developing a heartbeat problem.

Scientists have raised serious questions about the database used for that study, and its authors have launched an independent audit.

That work had a big impact: the World Health Organization suspended use of hydroxychloroquine in a study it is leading, and French officials stopped the drug's use in hospitals. On Wednesday, the WHO said experts who reviewed safety information decided that its study could resume.