Brain rescues your tongue while chewing

The deadly coronavirus that entered India while there was still nip in the air has beaten rising mercury, humid conditions, unique Indian genome and has entered monsoon season with more potency as fresh cases are only breaking all records in the country.

India recorded a single-day spike of record 24,850 new coronavirus cases on Sunday, taking its total tally to 6.73 lakh corona-positive cases.

Top Indian microbiologists were hopeful in March that after the 21-day lockdown, as summer approaches, the rise in temperature would play an important role in preventing the drastic spread of COVID-19 virus in India.

Several virologists hinted that by June this year, the impact of COVID-19 would be less than what it appeared in March-April.

The claims have fallen flat as the virus is mutating fast, becoming more potent than ever.

According to experts, the novel coronavirus is a new virus whose seasonality and response to hot humid weather was never fully understood.

"The theory was based on the fact that high temperatures can kill the virus as in sterilisation techniques used in healthcare. But these are controlled environment conditions. There are many other factors besides temperature, humidity which influence the transmission rate among humans," Dr Anu Gupta, Head, Microbiologist and Infection Control, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, told IANS.

There is no built-up immunity to COVID-19 in humans.

"Also, asymptomatic people might be passing it to many others unknowingly. New viruses tend not to follow the seasonal trend in their first year," Gupta emphasized.

Globally, as several countries are now experiencing hot weather, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported a record hike in the number of coronavirus cases, with the total rising by 2,12,326 in 24 hours in the highest single-day increase since COVID-19 broke out.

So far over 11 million people worldwide have tested positive for the disease which has led to over 5,25,000 deaths, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The US remained the worst-hit country with over 28 lakh cases, followed by Brazil with 15.8 lakh.

According to Sandeep Nayar, Senior Consultant and HOD, Respiratory Medicine, Allergy & Sleep Disorders, BLK Super Speciality Hospital in New Delhi, whether temperature plays a role in COVID-19 infection is highly debated.

One school of thought said in the tropical regions of South Asia, the virus might not thrive longer.

"On the other hand, another school of thought has found that novel Coronavirus can survive in a hot and humid environment and tropical climate does not make a difference to the virus. According to them, this is what distinguishes the novel coronavirus from other common viruses, which usually wane in hot weather," stressed Nayar.

Not much has been studied in the past and no definite treatment or vaccine is available to date.

"Every day, new properties and manifestation of the disease come up. As of now, the only way to prevent this monster is by taking appropriate precautions. Hand hygiene, social distancing, cough etiquette and face masks definitely reduce spread of COVID-19 infection," Nayar told IANS.

Not just top Indian health experts, even Indian-American scientists had this theory in mind that sunshine and summer may ebb the spread of the coronavirus.

Ravi Godse, Director of Discharge Planning, UPMC Shadyside Pennsylvania in the US told IANS in April: "In the summer, the humidity can go up as well, meaning more water drops in the air. If the air is saturated with water and somebody sneezes virus droplets into such air, it is likely that the droplets will fall to the ground quicker, making them less infectious. So the short answer is yes, summer/sunshine could be bettera.

According to Dr Puneet Khanna, Head of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology, Manipal Hospital, Delhi, COVID-19 death rates are not too different in tropical countries but since the disease affected them late it was yet to show its peak in these areas.

"The virus can survive well in hot and humid countries and this is proven now," he stressed.

The first COVID-19 vaccine tested in the US revved up people's immune systems just the way scientists had hoped, researchers reported Tuesday -- as the shots are poised to begin key final testing.

No matter how you slice this, this is good news, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. government's top infectious disease expert, told The Associated Press.

The experimental vaccine, developed by Fauci's colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and Moderna Inc., will start its most important step around July 27: A 30,000-person study to prove if the shots really are strong enough to protect against the coronavirus.

But Tuesday, researchers reported anxiously awaited findings from the first 45 volunteers who rolled up their sleeves back in March. Sure enough, the vaccine provided a hoped-for immune boost.

Those early volunteers developed what are called neutralizing antibodies in their bloodstream -- molecules key to blocking infection -- at levels comparable to those found in people who survived COVID-19, the research team reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

This is an essential building block that is needed to move forward with the trials that could actually determine whether the vaccine does protect against infection, said Dr. Lisa Jackson of the Kaiser Permanente Washington Research Institute in Seattle, who led the study.

There's no guarantee but the government hopes to have results around the end of the year -- record-setting speed for developing a vaccine.

The vaccine requires two doses, a month apart.

There were no serious side effects. But more than half the study participants reported flu-like reactions to the shots that aren't uncommon with other vaccines -- fatigue, headache, chills, fever and pain at the injection site. For three participants given the highest dose, those reactions were more severe; that dose isn't being pursued.

Some of those reactions are similar to coronavirus symptoms but they're temporary, lasting about a day and occur right after vaccination, researchers noted.

Small price to pay for protection against COVID, said Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a vaccine expert who wasn't involved with the study.

He called the early results a good first step, and is optimistic that final testing could deliver answers about whether it's really safe and effective by the beginning of next year.

It would be wonderful. But that assumes everything's working right on schedule, Schaffner cautioned.

Moderna's share price jumped nearly 15 percent in trading after US markets closed. Shares of the company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have nearly quadrupled this year.

Tuesday's results only included younger adults. The first-step testing later was expanded to include dozens of older adults, the age group most at risk from COVID-19.

Those results aren't public yet but regulators are evaluating them. Fauci said final testing will include older adults, as well as people with chronic health conditions that make them more vulnerable to the virus and Black and Latino populations likewise affected.

Nearly two dozen possible COVID-19 vaccines are in various stages of testing around the world. Candidates from China and Britain's Oxford University also are entering final testing stages.

The 30,000-person study will mark the world's largest study of a potential COVID-19 vaccine so far. And the NIH-developed shot isn't the only one set for such massive U.S. testing, crucial to spot rare side effects. The government plans similar large studies of the Oxford candidate and another by Johnson & Johnson; separately, Pfizer Inc. is planning its own huge study.

Already, people can start signing up to volunteer for the different studies.

People think this is a race for one winner. Me, I'm cheering every one of them on, said Fauci, who directs NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

We need multiple vaccines. We need vaccines for the world, not only for our own country. Around the world, governments are investing in stockpiles of hundreds of millions of doses of the different candidates, in hopes of speedily starting inoculations if any are proven to work.

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.