You're right. This type of research should be funded by a fat kitty of money, none of which appears for research in the 2 trillion package, though I have not seen the approved bill, just news snippets.
"It seems there may be unknown genetic or other factors that make some more susceptible especially the healthy young people who succumb quickly and the resistant older individuals with multiple risk factors who barely get sick.
It would make a good research project."
I'm sure there are many attempting to piece the puzzle together.
I read, a week or two ago, that virus's thrive on elevated blood suger(hyperglycemia). I could not confirm it. What did make sense is that diabetes has been listed as not a good thing to possess if one becomes infected with covid 19. Neither is heart disease and a couple other ailments which are ensnared by diabetes.
Being a type 1 diabetic for over 40 years(pretty could control for t1d, a1c low 6's(which is HIGH for the general public)), I did a little research and discovered that blood sugars rise as people get older. "RESULTS—In the FOS and NHANES cohorts, A1C levels were positively associated with age in nondiabetic subjects. Linear regression revealed 0.014- and 0.010-unit increases in A1C per year in the nondiabetic FOS and NHANES populations, respectively. The 97.5th percentiles for A1C were 6.0% and 5.6% for nondiabetic individuals aged <40 years in FOS and NHANES, respectively, compared with 6.6% and 6.2% for individuals aged ≥70 years (Ptrend < 0.001). The association of A1C with age was similar when restricted to the subset of FOS subjects with NGT and after adjustments for sex, BMI, fasting glucose, and 2-h postload glucose values.
CONCLUSIONS—A1C levels are positively associated with age in nondiabetic populations even after exclusion of subjects with IFG and/or IGT. Further studies are needed to determine whether age-specific diagnostic and treatment criteria would be appropriate."
The advancements in blood sugar control have moved astronomically in the past few decades. Diabetes, mainly via out of whack blood sugars, can stress the body/organs. I wonder, if elevated blood sugars do feed covid 19. Perhaps "a trial could be experimented with in hospitals on covid patients to maintain blood sugars at the safe, but lower ends(70-90 mg/dl), to starve the virus?
I was wondering if it was due to variability of genetics in the perforin pathway - where effector cells can't do their job, and inflammation lingers / runs out of control. It is this hyper-immune response that kills many.
Some people have different genetics of the perforin pathway, and are more prone to hyperinflammatory responses / cytokine storm.
Hopefully some of these immunomodulatory therapies (IL-6 antibodies, immunomodulatory stem cells, CCR5 antibodies - see CYDY - wow, human defensin mimetics like brilacidin) will be able to dampen down the cytokine storm in COVID-19.
CYDY's CCR5 blocker seems to prevent macrophage migration to the site of inflammation, preventing the macrophage induced cytokine storm.
Some of Cron's previous papers on CSS/CRS/MAH/HLH:
That is where anti-IL6, (activated) MSCs/MAPCs, and other anti-inflammatory or immunomodulatory (anti-CCR5) strategies come in.
Three immune-related things predict death: (1) high IL-6, (2) high serum ferritin, and (3) lymphocytopenia. The first two are the cytokine storm from active macrophages, and the third of unknown cause. It's possible the cytokine storm causes lymphocytopenia (possible cause #3 from paper below).
Here is a very nice paper (pre-print) on lymphocytopenia being a predictor of poor outcome:
We definitely need more data on which drugs work, and what is happening with the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients that successfully fight it off versus those that don't.