Covid-19 News

  • Those who campaign to reduce vaccine uptake, like W here, also seek to minimise perception of COVID risks.

    All experts that are not FM/R/XXX/B members agree that vaccines for healthy people age < 55 cause more harm than benefits.


    I see no harmful minimizing of risks in my posts. I only warn people not to follow the FM/R cricket brain propaganda, that we have no treatment for COV-19.


    I only see that the FM/R/XXX/B member THHuxleynew would like to kill people that got CoV-19 by not treating them. He also likes to kill younger people at no risk by vaccines.


    No single CoV-19 death of a healthy age < 25 is known so far. But we know that hundreds of them die yearly from flu or from simple lung inflammation.

    Only Dr. Mengle followers can recommend CoV-19 vaccines to healthy younger individuals that have 0 risk.

  • I find it difficult at best to understand W's figures, and when I check them they turn out wrong often as not, because he counts all temporally associated events with vaccines as caused by vaccines. And he accepts poor evidence of such events, not trusting those who investigate each case and clean it up. I buy a new car 2 days after getting a vaccine shot. W would post warning that new cars will be unavailable due to this dreadful vaccine side effect.


    In this case though W's figures also seem inconsistent. The best vaccine (for risk) is the one with the lowest adverse events / million doses. Relative figures - not absolute figures of deaths.


    Thus 5 / 6mio Moderna deaths ~ 1 : 1,000,000

    48 / 11 mio AstraZeneca deaths ~ 4 : 1,000,000

    143 / 55mio Pfizer deaths ~ 2.5 : 1,000,000


    These are very low figures. And believable, although they remain low certainty.


    Compare with this the known COVID IFR:



    The lowest rates - for 5-9 year olds - are at 5: 1,000,000. Higher than any of these vaccine risks.Though this figure is so low it too is uncertain.


    The rate for age 18 (the UK regulatory limit for all the vaccines except for some at risk children) is


    30 : 1,000,000 - 10 X higher than the vaccine risks.


    For a female age 24 (my daughter)


    50 : 1,000,000


    A male age 24:


    100: 1,000,000


    A male age 50:


    2000 : 1,000,000


    Maybe W, like me, does actually compare risks. In order to maintain his idee fixee about a genocidal mafia in charge of UK, Sweden, US, etc he therefore needs to talk down COVID risks by a large factor, as well as talk up vaccine risks.


    Although these mortality risks are small you need to multiply by some maybe very large number for long COVID risks. The number is especially large for younger people since long COVID - which seems to be partly auto-immune - does not have the same age dependence as COVID death risk. The risks are much flatter across ages. No figures given here because they are quite variable and not understood.

  • I find it difficult at best to understand W's figures,

    At age two you learn the difference between one and two. 70 mio. vaccines means 35 mio. vaccinated.


    But now I understand where your mental development did stop.... Did you ever divide 1028 by 35 its 29 I already discounted some deaths for you...


    Please stop your FUD: The Cov-19 IFR for healthy people age < 25 is = 0 = Zero. This has been analyzed in great detail.


    Your mafia buddies did mix in all die Leukemia chemo deaths what is very disgusting. Only cricket brain like you believe in fake data.

  • Opinion | The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children
    The agency overcounts Covid hospitalizations and deaths and won’t consider if one shot is sufficient.
    www.wsj.com


    My research team at Johns Hopkins worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020. Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.


    Meanwhile, we’ve already seen inflated Covid death numbers in the U.S. revised downward. Last month Alameda County, Calif., reduced its Covid death toll by 25% after state public-health officials insisted that deaths be attributed to Covid only if the virus was a direct or contributing factor.


    Hospitals routinely test patients being admitted for other complaints even if there’s no reason to suspect they have Covid. An asymptomatic child who tests positive after being injured in a bicycle accident would be counted as a “Covid hospitalization.”


    Given the tremendous resources of the CDC and FDA, which together employ 39,000, these agencies ought to be able to report the statistics needed to make informed policy decisions. If the data are incomplete or flawed, so too will be the decisions derived from them. The vaccine’s benefits may outweigh its risks for healthy kids, but the government shouldn’t try to push that conclusion based on faulty data.


  • Do you know if the current analysis depends on onset or on day of death? I find that if onset is available you get a sharper instrument, but not sure if experts already does this and

    or if those values are available with quality in e.g. the Swedish database.. I asked my friend about this but it's summer and people log out and relax here.

  • Drop-in Vaccine Protection Looks Real but What’s the Material Impact?


    Drop-in Vaccine Protection Looks Real but What’s the Material Impact?
    Should vaccine effectiveness be taken seriously in Israel? Not according to a number of experts, who declare that the numbers skew what’s a generally
    trialsitenews.com


    Should vaccine effectiveness be taken seriously in Israel? Not according to a number of experts, who declare that the numbers skew what’s a generally positive condition on the ground. But some employed by government-based research groups do raise alarm that the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech is now only 50% effective. The Gertner Institute, Israel’s national research body for epidemiology that conducted the latest research, suggests the data should be monitored carefully. Dr. Amit Huppert, a scientist from the Bio-statistical unit, shared with the Times of Israel that the government “should not be panicked but should take the data seriously, as it’s a warning that should not be ignored.” He emphasized, “Most of us did not believe a month ago we could be in this situation.” The data coming out of the Gertner Institute have limitations, being based on a sampling of relatively small numbers, but nonetheless according to Huppert “have great relevance.” TrialSite tracked numbers below, and there’s a clear marked increase in COVID-19 infections, seemingly associated with breakthrough infections, but thus far these appear overwhelmingly mild in nature while the death rate is near zero.


    The Experts

    On the other hand, Prof. Ran Balicer who chairs Israel’s national expert panel on COVID-19 suggests the current research approach can result in a “horribly skewed” outcome, declaring “Any attempt to deduce severe illness vaccine effectiveness from semi-crude illness rates among the yes or no vaccinated is very, very risky.”


    And Yael Paran, an infectious disease doctor, told Nathan Jeffay, a reporter for the Times of Israel, that the actual picture on the ground looks like a “rosy reality,” suggesting “I think the figures are exaggerated.” Moreover, others argue that definitions of serious illness, before vaccination and after, confuse the matter.


    Conflicted POVs

    So like with many matters during this pandemic, what one sees often depends on their point of view. According to Kathy Dopp, as reflected in this website, the Israeli and UK data reveal COVID-19 vaccines don’t reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. According to this vantage, the data from Israel, as well as the UK, exhibits a similar number of SARS-CoV-2 infections across vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.


    But other experts such as a health statistician named Dr. Dvir Aran with the Israel Institute of Technology shared with the Times of Israel that the Health Ministry of this nation is using “bad research,” which then is interpreted out of context.


    Aran suggests that the number of people that are seriously ill from breakthrough infections is so small as to make any statistical interpretation essentially meaningless. TrialSite can confirm the death rate associated with COVID-19 is for all practical purposes zero, despite the tremendous spike in cases, including those made possible by breakthrough cases.


    What’s the Latest Data?

    TrialSite took an objective snapshot of data for some clarity. Using data from the Johns Hopkins University data set, we provide a review of 7-day average daily new cases starting April 1.


    New COVID-19 Cases


    Week 7-day avg daily # new cases

    April 1 373

    April 15 202

    May 1 72

    May 15 33

    June 1 17

    June 15 17

    July 1 232

    July 21 1,033

    New COVID-19 Deaths


    Week 7-day avg daily # new cases

    April 1 9

    April 15 5

    May 1 2

    May 15 1

    June 1 1

    June 15 2

    July 1 0

    July 21 2

    There is certainly a spike in cases, undoubtedly triggered by a confluence of factors, including the Delta variant, lax behavior, breakthrough infections, and the like. On June 15, the 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases was 17 and that number shot up to 1,033 by July 21. This is an undeniable spike in cases that should be monitored closely.


    On the other hand, at least thus far, the 7-day average new daily death toll has gone down from 9 on April 1 to 2 on July 21. Clearly, the infection is conferring significant protection, lowering the risk of death.


    TrialSite will continue to monitor the situation.

  • Can a Low-Sodium Diet Save COVID-19 Lives?


    Can a Low-Sodium Diet Save COVID-19 Lives?
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com


    The following excerpts are based on my latest paper published in Medicina, “Sodium Toxicity in the Nutritional Epidemiology and Nutritional Immunology of COVID-19.” Referenced sources for the excerpts are cited in the peer-reviewed paper, which is available for free at: Medicina | Free Full-Text | Sodium Toxicity in the Nutritional Epidemiology and Nutritional Immunology of COVID-19 (mdpi.com).


    Modifiable dietary and nutritional factors for COVID-19 prevention remain relatively under-investigated. The need for novel interventions is especially urgent for older adults in the high-risk category for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Emerging evidence suggests that sodium toxicity, the toxic effect in the body caused by dysregulated amounts of the micronutrient sodium, has potential causal influences in the etiology of influenza-like illnesses like COVID-19.


    High sodium intake is a dietary risk factor associated with multiple diseases, and it is estimated to have caused a mean of 3 million deaths globally in 2017. Several of these diseases, like hypertension, stroke, and kidney disease, have also been identified as underlying conditions associated with increased risk for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Importantly, World Health Organization listed nutritional status among factors that increase susceptibility to infection.


    After receiving sodium chloride infusions during a medical experiment in 1969, some patients rapidly developed severe pulmonary congestion and fluid retention in the lungs, or pulmonary edema, which blocked respiration and lowered arterial oxygen pressure. More recently, the gummy yellow fluid in the lungs of COVID-19 patients appears identical to the yellow fluid identified in pulmonary edema.


    Sodium toxicity adversely affects the nasal mucosal immune system, which may lead to respiratory viral infection. COVID-19 patients were found to have prolonged mucociliary clearance of microorganisms through nasal passages compared with healthy ear, nose, and throat outpatients with non-nasal symptoms.


    Animal studies have shown that injected sodium chloride acts as a pyrogen that causes fever, and adverse effects of pharmaceutical sodium chloride tablets include fever and rashes. Skin rashes are dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19, and higher salt concentrations were found in the skin of people with atopic dermatitis. Migraine is also associated with COVID-19, and researchers demonstrated increased sodium permeability through the blood−brain barrier and blood cerebral spinal fluid barrier during migraine. Thus, sodium toxicity potentially accounts for many of the symptoms of influenza-like illnesses like COVID-19.


    Research has also found that people consume more sodium chloride in the winter, while excreting less sodium chloride by sweating less compared to warmer temperatures, coinciding with increased incidence of respiratory infections in colder seasons. Moreover, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that people of lower socioeconomic status consume 14% more sodium than people of a higher socioeconomic status, coinciding with increased COVID-19 risk in lower groups with lower socioeconomic status.


    The research literature on infectious disease outbreaks associated with sea voyages and with the 1918 pandemic also infers a potential causative role played by excessive sodium chloride intake. Of relevance, U.S. Navy experiments in 1918 could not demonstrate transmission of influenza infection in healthy subjects exposed to the coughs, breath, and sputum of influenza patients, implying reverse causality between the infection and the disease. That is, disease determinants like sodium toxicity may cause infections by compromising immune system clearance of viruses. Excess sodium has also been found to stimulate inflammatory macrophages of the immune system.


    More research is needed to investigate sodium toxicity as an etiologic determinant of COVID-19. In particular, interventions to reduce COVID-19 morbidity and mortality through reduced-sodium diets should be explored, particularly targeting long-term care homes with vulnerable populations.


    Call to Action: Follow the link to the Abstract and PDF version. Please note that this is an early access version. The complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.

  • My research team at Johns Hopkins worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020. Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.

    I looked for this study and did not have enough information to find it. It is out of date since will be original COVID not alpha variant which we know is more lethal, not delta where we are not sure about lethality.


    OK - so that evidence merely says that mortality - for that cohort - is not likely to be more than 40 : 1,000,000


    Much higher than the vaccine risks.


    But it is worse than that. The number of "healthy" under-18s is not stated, so for discovering the true mortality of these healthy children (20% if this cohort will be obese - assuming there is no selection. Since obesity predisposes towards more serious COVID disease, and more serious disease will be more likely diagnosed, we don't know the actual number of healthy children examined in this study).


    Basically - the study is under-powered for discovering the real mortality of this subgroup, and can only give a PR sound bite.


    Not surprising because Marty Makary has been pushing this point - that CDC should not vaccinate all children - for a long time with opinion pieces in his own magazine and elsewhere.


    There is a good argument for selective child vaccination - the UK regulator currently allows only this. I do not think this study contributes to the argument at all - and especially it is useless in making a fair risk comparison between the low vaccine risks and the (also low) COVID risks.


    The UK position (at the moment, given current incomplete data) is children can be vaccinated if they are at higher risk - this includes however risks to parents. So a child with at-risk primary carers can be vaccinated - it makes sense because if the carer dies that has a major adverse effect on the child.

  • Pfizer Shot Halts Severe Illness, Allows Infection in Israel


    Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


    Pfizer Inc.’s Covid-19 vaccine provided a strong shield against hospitalization and more severe disease in cases caused by the contagious delta variant in Israel in recent weeks, even though it was just 39% effective in preventing infections, according to the country’s health ministry.


    The vaccine, developed with BioNTech SE, provided 88% protection against hospitalization and 91% against severe illness for an unspecified number of people studied between June 20 and July 17, according to a report Thursday from the health ministry

  • On the other hand, at least thus far, the 7-day average new daily death toll has gone down from 9 on April 1 to 2 on July 21. Clearly, the infection is conferring significant protection, lowering the risk of death.

    Freudian slip? They meant "the vaccine is conferring significant protection" something of an understatement given their data. But TSN uses the phrase "objective view" to mean "biassed against vaccination as much as can reasonably be done without outright lying".

  • Freudian slip? They meant "the vaccine is conferring significant protection" something of an understatement given their data. But TSN uses the phrase "objective view" to mean "biassed against vaccination as much as can reasonably be done without outright lying".

    Thomas, that is disingenuous. The article actually supports you and you play word games to continue to paint trial site biased and unreliable. Now if ivermectin does well in UK trial, will you continue to label trial site as biased and unreliable?

  • Thomas, that is disingenuous. The article actually supports you and you play word games to continue to paint trial site biased and unreliable. Now if ivermectin does well in UK trial, will you continue to label trial site as biased and unreliable?

    Yes - because they are biased and unreliable.


    They are promoting biassed and clearly scientifically wrong meta-analyses of ivermectin.

    They promote biassed and clearly wrong views about the safety and utility of vaccines


    Remember, they are a news site, not a scientific source of information. They are allowed to be biassed, like any newspaper. I am just pointing out that they are not, as they say, objective.


    PS - if ivermectin does not do well in the UK trial will you agree that the scientiific community has invested a lot of RCT effort into testing a much-promoted drug that has turned out, as always seemed most likely, useless?

  • Thanks Thomas, as for accepting the UK results, I hope so but will wait for peer review.

  • I find this pretty horrifying:


    Vaccine rejection is higher among whites than it is among black and Hispanic Americans, higher in the Midwest and South than elsewhere in the country, and it is also greater among those with less education. White people with less than a college degree are more than ten points more likely than white people with a college degree to say they will not be vaccinated. Their positions may never change. There is little this group believes could make them change their minds.

    People who won’t get vaccinated are worried about side effects, microchips and political motivations… but not COVID-19

    Why is this? First, 90% of those who reject vaccination fear possible side effects from the vaccine more than they fear COVID-19 itself. Second, only 16% of them believe most of the new cases of COVID-19 are occurring among the unvaccinated. For the most part, they think the virus is spreading equally among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, or they admit they just don’t know. In contrast, more than three in four of the fully vaccinated know that new infections come mostly from those who have not yet received the vaccine.



  • So the 32nd Olympiad in Japan is now officially open.

    I enjoyed watching the athletes from the many nations make their entrance.


    Two nations stood out : Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. They didn't wear masks! So nice to see their full faces. There was the occasional rebel in some other countries who didn't have a mask, including a flag bearer.


    My favourite part besides the entrance of the participants : 1,800 lit drones high above the stadium in perfectly stationary formation, each drone acting as a pixel of a huge 3D world globe.

  • Given the tremendous resources of the CDC and FDA, which together employ 39,000, these agencies ought to be able to report the statistics needed to make informed policy decisions.

    The head of CDC exactly knows that also in USA no healthy (= not on chemo) children so far did die from CoV-19. But already some from the vaccines... So these folks act as mafia members and do what they are forced to do: Help their buddies to make business!

    But some employed by government-based research groups do raise alarm that the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech is now only 50% effective. The Gertner Institute, Israel’s national research body for epidemiology that conducted the latest research, suggests the data should be monitored carefully.

    Good news from Switzerland. We "all" = 70% have antibodies also among the not yet vaccinated younger ones. This might explain the above situation as natural protection is up to 40x better than from vaccines!!!


    This 70% figure is also seen in India basically in all countries with no state terror lock-down and outdoor mask use.

    We get a free vaccination from nature!

    Only fools kill themselves either by a vaccine or by not taking Ivermectin...


    But some employed by government-based research groups do raise alarm that the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech is now only 50% effective. The Gertner Institute, Israel’s national research body for epidemiology that conducted the latest research, suggests the data should be monitored carefully.

    Once more:: This is really bad news only 2 % of natural infections go to hospital!! (Switzerland)


    People who won’t get vaccinated are worried about side effects, microchips and political motivations

    Only outraging dumb people repeat outraging dumb news....

  • Delta is so very infectious that everyone who is not a hermit disinfecting all food and living alone will either catch COVID or be vaccinated.

    Until herd immunity is reached. You will probably be safe then, even if you have not been vaccinated. No one knows at what percent herd immunity begins, but experts estimate it is somewhere at 70% to 80%. At that point the virus should go extinct in the local population. That is what happened to the 1918 influenza. However, it might not happen today because of modern mobility. Infected people might keep coming into your neighborhood from U.S. states with high infection rates, or from other countries.


    Of course not getting infected before herd immunity sets in is mostly a matter of luck. Whereas getting vaccinated is almost a sure thing.



    One thing that deserves emphasis is that death is not the only risk from COVID. A bad case is terribly frightening. It will cost you a lot of money. Even with insurance you will be billed tens of thousands of dollars in the U.S., and you will miss weeks of work. You may end up with long-haul COVID. If you are hospitalized with a serious case, you may have a ~10% chance of dying after you go home. As far as I know, no one has claimed there are similar health risks or financial risks from the vaccine. Opponents claim (without evidence) that the vaccine kills people, but they do not say it leaves people with serious, long term disabilities or $50,000 in medical bills.


    Some people have the notion that hospitals are forgiving and you don't need to worry about a $50,000 medical bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here in Atlanta I know people who have been saddled with such debts. The hospitals hired collection agencies and took away their cars (their only means of getting to work), and tried to take their houses and all their worldly goods. Hospitals here are vicious.

  • Two nations stood out : Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. They didn't wear masks! So nice to see their full faces. There was the occasional rebel in some other countries who didn't have a mask, including a flag bearer.


    Mark (and FM1) - thanks for this. Coming from the UK where politics is not quite so intrusive (most of us despise all politicians, but admit they do a necessary job) I sometimes find US political stances difficult to understand.


    In this case; you obviously approve of these teams and individuals not wearing masks. I'm thinking of these options - they all seem equally implausible to me:


    1. You have no idea about the significance of masks, or why other teams do it. You see this behaviour as conforming and naturally side with any team that does not do this, because your sympathies are with non-conformists.
    2. You believe (erroneously) that the primary reason for wearing masks is to protect the wearer for COVID. You see this mask non-wearing as a sign of bravado.
    3. You believe (correctly) that the primary reason for wearing masks is to reduce environmental contamination and protect others. You admire these teams for wanting to level the playing field by visiting disease on their opponents
    4. You believe that your sources of information are superior to that of pretty well everybody else - that we can be certain mask-wearing makes no difference to the transmission of COVID.
    5. You believe (counterfactually) that the Olympics bubble is so perfect that there are no cases inside it, so masks just don't matter.
    6. You realise that a higher COVID rate in the village may cause a few people suffering and permanent injury, may destroy the careers of a few athletes who catch it. You think that is worth it to disrupt the Japanese Olympics which for the greater good you think is important
    7. You believe (counterfactually) the vaccines are so effective, no breakthrough cases, that those vaccinated need not wear masks. You applaud those who have had the foresignt to be vaccimated and also realise they are 100% protected.
    8. You see not wearing masks as a symbol of freedom. In spite of a small risk to others, you feel showing to the world this symbol is a virtuous act, obviously of greater merit than the demerit of possibly spreading (small quantities) of COVID aerosols around the Olympic Village. Equally, coming from the US, you (counterfactually) think that mask-wearing (in other countries) is a political act - symbolising something you despise.
    9. You believe (erroneously) that the athletes taking part in the ceremony are well enough tested for it to be certain they cannot spread COVID


    I'm just curious. You are uniquely well placed to give everyone on this thread some insight? In the UK it is not usually like that. Wearing masks when close to other people in shared spaces is a courtesy. Even if you are sure you cannot be infected, you know they cannot know that, and it shows you care about others. In the few cases where in fact you are unknowingly infected it may of course save their lives, or at least save them from 6 months or more of hell.


    THH

  • but experts estimate it is somewhere at 70% to 80%

    I think it has gone up with the increased transmissibility of delta COVID to around 85% or more. In any case the idea is that because natural immunity does not last, especially against new variants, and some countries will go on being reservoirs of COVID herd immunity is only a temporary thing till the next variant comes along - which it will.


    The analogy would be with the Flu. Something you'd expect all the anti-vaxxers to understand since they spent the first 6 months of the pandemic claiming COVID was similar to the Flu, with a similar relatively low IFR.