I felt uneasy about the Swedish coronavirus plan the moment I heard about it. It seemed like an extreme gamble, in defiance of all known science and health recommendations. We have Red States here in America that have taken this same approach. Here’s the latest on Sweden: 🇸🇪 —“In an opinion piece published today in Dagens Nyheter, the group of researchers from a range of top Swedish universities and research institutes make harsh criticism of the Swedish Public Health Agency and their present coronavirus strategy. They say that elected politicians must now intervene with ” swift and radical measures.”

“According to Aftonbladet, Jan Lötvall, a professor at the University of Gothenburg, said that Swedish people have not understood the seriousness of the situation because they have received unclear messaging from health authorities and elected officials.”

---

Sweden’s relatively relaxed approach to controlling the spread of the coronavirus has come under fire in international media and from many locals in the capital Stockholm, where more than half the country’s deaths have been recorded. Now, 22 researchers have publicly criticized the strategy and called on politicians to make changes.

Harsh criticism from research scientists

In an opinion piece published today in Dagens Nyheter, the group of researchers from a range of top Swedish universities and research institutes make harsh criticism of the Swedish Public Health Agency and their present coronavirus strategy. They say that elected politicians must now intervene with ” swift and radical measures.”

At least 70 potential coronavirus vaccines are currently in development, with 3 already in clinical trials, according to the World Health Organisation.

WHO published an updated list of vaccine efforts on April 11, showing a vast array of companies pursuing shots that could halt the coronavirus. Bloomberg News reported on the document earlier.

As the virus continues to spread, infecting more than 1.9 million people and killing more than 110,000 worldwide, researchers have been racing to develop vaccines.

Whooping cough has made an astonishing comeback, with 2012 seeing nearly 50,000 infections in the U.S. (the most since 1955), and a death rate in infants three times that of the rest of the population. The dramatic resurgence has puzzled public health officials, who have pointed to the waning effectiveness of the current vaccine and growing anti-vaccine sentiment as the most likely culprits.

But that might not be the whole story, suggests a new study published in BMC Medicine by Santa Fe Institute Omidyar Fellows Ben Althouse and Sam Scarpino. Their research points to a different, but related, source of the outbreak — vaccinated people who are infectious but who do not display the symptoms of whooping cough, suggesting that the number of people transmitting without symptoms may be many times greater than those transmitting with symptoms.

In the 1950s, highly successful vaccines based on inactivated pertussis cells (the bacteria that causes whooping cough) drove infection rates in the U.S. below one case per 100,000 people. But adverse side effects of those vaccines led to the development and introduction in the 1990s of acellular pertussis vaccines, which use just a handful of the bacteria’s proteins and bypass most of the side effects. (Currently given to children as part of the Tdap vaccine.)

Okay now I agree that Hyroxychloroquine works. Ventilators have a mortality rate of 80% yet people keep trashing this drug, while people like that French doctor say it works.

Doctors at nursing home: “It’s actually going well. People are getting better,” Armstrong told NPR, adding that after just a handful of days, some of the 39 patients on the medication are showing signs of improvement.”

“Paid Professionals:

But scientists argue that relying on observational, uncontrolled evidence can be misleading and that the only way to truly prove a drug is working is through carefully controlled clinical trials. And, contrary to Armstrong’s assertion that hydroxychloroquine “has virtually no side effects,” it is known to have serious negative health impacts. That is why so many in the medical community worry about prescribing it without such proof.

CARROLLTON, Ala. — As the coronavirus spread across the United States, workers at the lone hospital in one Alabama county turned off beeping monitors for good and padlocked the doors, making it one of the latest in a string of nearly 200 rural hospitals to close nationwide.

Now Joe Cunningham is more worried than ever about getting care for his wife, Polly, a dialysis patient whose health is fragile. The nearest hospital is about 30 miles away, he said, and that’s too far since COVID-19 already has been confirmed in sparsely populated Pickens County, on the Mississippi state line.

Cunningham is trusting God, but he’s also worried the virus will worsen in his community, endangering his wife without a hospital nearby.

#Repost “Some doctors are experimenting with adding nitric oxide to the mix, to help improve blood flow and oxygen to the least damaged parts of the lungs.”

Ironically enough nitric oxide improves blood oxygen flow, and also clears blood clots. Some patients who survive COVID19 have clots in the blood vessels in their lungs. We just have to wait and see.

---

(NEW YORK) — As health officials around the world push to get more ventilators to treat coronavirus patients, some doctors are moving away from using the breathing machines when they can. The reason: Some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be harming certain patients.

Read more: Front Line Workers Tell Their Own Stories in the New Issue of TIME

The evolving treatments highlight the fact that doctors are still learning the best way to manage a virus that emerged only months ago. They are relying on anecdotal, real-time data amid a crush of patients and shortages of basic supplies.