Covid-19 News

    Pfizer Foreign COVID-19 Vaccine Contracts Drive a Hard Bargain


    Pfizer Foreign COVID-19 Vaccine Contracts Drive a Hard Bargain
    A July 28 piece from America’s Frontline Doctors raises ethical concerns about Pfizer’s COVID-19 contracts. While this media group is considered biased by
    trialsitenews.com


    A July 28 piece from America’s Frontline Doctors raises ethical concerns about Pfizer’s COVID-19 contracts. While this media group is considered biased by many—that is tagged as a right win group—the article provides images of the contracts in question, so we will focus on the hard evidence and try to take any obvious opinionating by the Frontline Doctors with a grain of salt. The first document to emerge is an agreement between Pfizer and the nation of Albania. Information security expert Ehden Biber was also able to locate contracts with Brazil (Portuguese), the European Commission, and the Dominical Republic. Frontline’s Chief Science Officer Dr. Michael Yeadeon reviewed the Albania contract and offered that it, “looks genuine—I know the basic anatomy of these agreements and nothing is missing that I’d expect to be present, and I’ve seen no clues that suggest it’s fake.” A slightly-jarring clause in the Albania deal, notes, “if there are any laws or regulations in your country under which Pfizer could be prosecuted, you agree to change the law or regulation to close that off.” Biber offered that the deals, which are mostly similar, cover vaccines for COVID-19 or mutations, it also covers, “any device, technology, or product used in the administration of or to enhance the use or effect of, such vaccine.”


    No Returns

    The deals also say that in the event of a cure emerging, the nations still have to buy the same volume of vaccine, and Biber thinks this could be related to the possible suppression of ivermectin. More, the contracts note, “Pfizer shall have no liability for any failure to deliver doses in accordance with any estimated delivery dates… nor shall any such failure give Purchaser any right to cancel orders for any quantities of Product.” Next, the deals give Pfizer the right to, “decide on necessary adjustments to the number of Contracted Doses and Delivery Schedule due to the Purchaser…based on principles to be determined by Pfizer…Purchaser shall be deemed to agree to any revision.” Unlike our local Target, nations cannot return vaccines, no matter the circumstances: “Pfizer will not, in any circumstances, accept any returns of Product (or any dose)…no Product returns may take place under any circumstances.”


    Secrecy Built into Contract

    Next is what Biber calls the “big secret”: the fact that the revealed deals show a price of $12.00 per dose as little as 250,000 units, while Pfizer charged Uncle Sam $19.50 per dose. Other clauses include, “This agreement is above any local law of the state—Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech (and) their Affiliates…from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs, and expenses….” Key, the agreement calls for secrecy, “Each Recipient shall safeguard the confidential and proprietary nature of the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information with at least the same degree of care as it holds its own confidential or proprietary information of like kind.” So, absent the leaking of these documents in this case, the nature of these contracts might never be known.

    Since we are talking about risks to children here is more uk data showing risks under alpha before delta. We still are in the dark about delta risks - there has not yet been enough time to get proper studies done.


    summary of study on MIS-C and long COVID risks


    study itself- headline 1.8% risk of long COVID in children - this is lower than the adult long COVID risk - that is high and one of the key reasons why COVID is a serious disease.


    The other study shows the risks of the serious MIS-C syndrome - higher in children than adults.


    MIS-C study


    While MIS-C is a serious and potentially deadly condition, the CDC confirms that most children diagnosed with it will improve with medical care.

    Signs of MIS-C are fever. Other symptoms can include:

    • abdominal pain
    • vomiting
    • bloodshot eyes
    • chest tightness/pain
    • extreme fatigue

    The CDC is still learning about MIS-C and how it affects children and still doesn’t know why some children become ill with MIS-C and others don’t.

    “It [MIS-C) generally occurs during the acute infection period,” explained Gut. “When you’re expecting within a week of the virus infection, to see an inflammatory response of the body that might be inappropriately high for the severity of infection that is being seen.”


    While the risk for children being hospitalized due to COVID-19 is small, a recent study published Trusted Source in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health finds that about 1 in 20 children hospitalized with COVID-19 develop brain or nerve complications linked to the viral infection.


    Between April 2020 and January 2021, researchers identified 52 cases of children younger than 18 years old with neurological complications among 1,334 children hospitalized with COVID-19.

    According to the study, the estimated prevalence in children was almost 4 percent, compared to only 0.9 percent of adults admitted with COVID-19.

    The children, who were also diagnosed with MIS-C, displayed multiple neurological conditions that included encephalopathy, stroke, behavioral change, and hallucinations. They were also more likely to require intensive care.


    Since, for children, the risks of death are very low (from both COVID and vaccination) it would be wise to pay attention to serious long-term harm risks like MIS-C and long COVID.

    I love the way these TSN reports pretend to be even-handed (explicitly - as here) while giving their own spin.


    In this case the elements of these contracts are surely standard, as is the secrecy? We don't even know what the govt here pays for face masks...


    Different prices for different countries. Essential - otherwise poorer countries cannot be vaccinated

    No return clause. Also essential - else given the risks (e.g. regulators discover some problem) companies could not afford to make vaccines on large scale.


    Basically - in an emergency situation - it is right for governments to take risks by funding research and mass production in advance of certainty about safety. Pretty well everyone has done this. Those who did it well (UK. US0 have ended up with enough vaccine quickly.


    For a country like Albania - without the no returns contract - the country could at any time make its regulators (no idea what they are like - but I would not trust them free of politics in Albania) declare a vaccine unsafe and return it - if for example they found a cheaper deal elsewhere... and no company could afford to supply a country that might try to blackmail it by passing a law that made it unreasonably liable.

    Facebook removes anti-vax influencer campaign
    Facebook has removed hundreds of accounts linked to a anti-vaccine campaign operated from Russia.
    www.bbc.co.uk


    Facebook has removed hundreds of accounts which it says were involved in anti-vax disinformation campaigns operated from Russia.

    The company said the network of accounts targeted India, Latin America and the US.


    They attempted to recruit influencers to spread false claims to undermine public confidence in particular Covid-19 vaccines, it added.


    In its latest report on "coordinated inauthentic behaviour", Facebook said it found links between the network and a botched disinformation campaign from influencer marketing agency Fazze - which is part of a Russian-based company called AdNow.

    Last month a BBC Trending investigation reported how in May this year influencers had been offered money by Fazze to spread false claims about the risks associated with the Pfizer vaccine. According to Facebook, that was the second wave of attempts by the network to smear Western vaccines. Their investigation found that in November 2020 the same network attempted to falsely paint the AstraZeneca vaccine as dangerous because it uses a harmless adenovirus taken from chimpanzees.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    EVERYBODY LIKES THE WEEKEND OFF.

    Even for the nurses there needs to be a day of rest... in Australia the penalty rates for Sundays is high still

    so there is a cost saving..

    Sunday's may not be so religious in the US ...or China..

    Sundays in Switzerland
    “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8 NRSV). Most of us give lip service to a Sabbath on Sunday, and consider it a “day of ...
    donrclymer.blogspot.com

    Spike protein and pregnancy


    One of the more persistent memes of antivax propaganda is that the mRNA vaccine spike protein is harmful to ovaries, or foetuses.


    This link does a good job of explaining how the science is misinterpreted to get this meme, showing the strong contrary evidence which has eventually persuaded regulators to allow vaccine for pregnant women. Worth reading so you can see how easily things can be distorted - including claims that public information is leaked secret information.


    Covid vaccine: Fertility and miscarriage claims fact-checked
    Posts claiming Covid vaccines cause miscarriages are not supported by scientific evidence.
    www.bbc.co.uk


    The problem is, while scientists are rushing to provide evidence to reassure people, by the time they can report their findings people online have moved on to the next thing.

    As Dr Morris explained: "The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is as soon as it's disproven, you move the goalpost."


    I feel rather like that here. It takes a lot longer to do a decent factual demolition job on an anti-vax meme, searching for all relevant links, than it does to post it!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    therefore you cannot obtain a 0.5/1.6 (1/3) figure for reduction in risk from these overall age band figures.

    I completely agree as I already mentioned this in my post. In the group age <60 most risk comes from age 45..60. So in fact age group <45 has simply no benefit from vaccination. This is something we know since quite a long time. Only you spread lies with a vaccine benefit of 10:1 for everybody or CDD's nonsense data.


    What the Israel data clearly shows. Vaccine benefits depend on your risk. If there is none as for the age <45 group then you also see no vaccine benefits!


    I hope you now can at least agree that vaccines do not protect from a CoV-19 infection and do not at all prevent you from spreading CoV-19. But this would mean you would accept facts and leave your fake reality.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Between April 2020 and January 2021, researchers identified 52 cases of children younger than 18 years old with neurological complications among 1,334 children hospitalized with COVID-19.

    According to the study, the estimated prevalence in children was almost 4 percent, compared to only 0.9 percent of adults admitted with COVID-19.

    Typical fear monger message. Just check what is the data source. Children in hospital. But how many that had COV-19 do go to hospital??? 1/1000?? 1/100000 ?????


    The damage to children from the vaccines is at least 100x higher than for adults. Why do all this doctors not help teh children and give them Ivermectin. Happy India! The poorest kids get it! The rich can't afford it..


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    One of the more persistent memes of antivax propaganda is that the mRNA vaccine spike protein is harmful to ovaries, or foetuses.

    Great! Can you show us a study from Pfizer that shows that it in fact is harmless??


    This would be good, serious posting. But you counter FUD with other FUD. BBC is a free masons trumpet for vaccination. So I will not even read something BBC posts. But if you can give me a study from Pfizer things will be different.

    Quote from Fm1

    Pfizer Foreign COVID-19 Vaccine Contracts Drive a Hard Bargain

    I link the contract once morePfizer contract Alanien.pdf

    Delta Variant Far Less Deadly than Previous Variants, According to TrialSite Analysis


    Delta Variant Far Less Deadly than Previous Variants, According to TrialSite Analysis
    TrialSite can confirm that the Delta variant is far less deadly than previous versions of SARS-CoV-2 based on an original analysis of the data from The
    trialsitenews.com


    TrialSite can confirm that the Delta variant is far less deadly than previous versions of SARS-CoV-2 based on an original analysis of the data from The New York Times and Our World in Data. TrialSite assumes that most cases now occurring during this latest pandemic surge are due to the Delta variant.


    It would appear that the transmissibility of the Delta variant is severe, and hospitalization is worsening in mostly southern states. We argue that the situation is still unfolding, so our assumptions and perspective may change if we see new data trends that contradict today’s evaluation. While breakthrough infections appear on the rise, the CDC doesn’t track such infections if they do not involve hospitalization. This is a mistake as many vaccinated people are at home quite ill.


    Herein, we exhibit that the previous SARS-CoV-2 surges were far more deadly because the media doesn’t seem to touch on this subject. To demonstrate this, we go back to the previous pandemic surges: first from April 1, 2020, to August 1, 2020, and a bigger surge that occurred starting December 1, 2020, to early March 2021.


    We list the number of daily new cases based on a 7-day average and the reported number of daily deaths based on the same 7-day average. The first major wave of the pandemic occurred from April 1, 2020, to August 15, 2020. During this surge, while the number of new daily cases was lower than in subsequent surges, the death rates were far higher with the wild-type SARS-CoV-2. What follows is a breakdown of the numbers for the TrialSite reader.


    First Pandemic Surge


    Date New Cases (7-day avg) Deaths Mortality Ratio %

    April 1, 2020 20,974 610 2.91%

    April 15, 2020 29,993 2,196 7.32%

    May 1, 2020 28,553 1,935 6.78%

    May 15, 2020 22,779 1,446 6.35%

    June 1, 2020 21,518 989 4.60%

    June 15, 2020 22,133 725 3.28%

    July 1, 2020 43,767 881 2.01%

    July 15, 2020 63,165 727 1.15%

    Aug 1, 2020 62,594 1,229 1.96%

    During the first pandemic’s surge, the mortality ratio (as defined by new daily cases and daily deaths ratio based on 7-day averages) clearly shows what many already know—because the novel coronavirus was new, there were no treatments and the risk profiles were not well understood yet—by far, the deadliest variant was that original wild-type variant from Wuhan, China.


    What became clear during the first surge is that although there were far fewer cases, the mortality ratio was extremely high, spiking up to 7.32% by April 15. The mean mortality rate for this particular surge was a significantly high 4.04%.


    Again, there are several elements behind this. SARS-CoV-2 was brand new, and health systems and hospitals didn’t know how to treat it. Moreover, some of the breakthroughs that came later on, such as the dexamethasone findings from the RECOVERY trial, helped reduce subsequent death rates. Although medical authorities in the United States and Europe don’t accept select repurposed and generic early-stage COVID-19 treatments, substantial real-world data indicates drugs like ivermectin may have helped to mitigate the pandemic’s severity in places like India and Mexico. These treatments are also in use off-label in the United States. But suffice to say, SARS-CoV-2 was significantly more deadly during this first pandemic surge.


    The Second Pandemic Surge


    Date New Cases (7-day avg) Deaths Mortality Ratio %

    Oct 1, 2020 43,444 712 1.64%

    Oct 15, 2020 54,715 701 1.28%

    Nov 1, 2020 82,835 825 1.00%

    Nov 15, 2020 150,349 1,148 0.76%

    Dec 1, 2020 161,263 1,542 0.96%

    Dec 15, 2020 217,320 2,481 1.14%

    Jan 1, 2021 195,173 2,513 1.29%

    Jan 15, 2021 232,172 3,307 1.42%

    Feb 1, 2021 146,664 3,160 2.15%

    Feb 15, 2021 85,762 3,030 3.53%

    March 1, 2021 67,512 2,043 3.03%

    March 15, 2021 55,051 1,397 2.54%

    April 1, 2021 65,402 893 1.37%

    The number of cases in the second surge far exceeded the first surge, ranging from October 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. Moreover, the total volume of death was far higher. But was the mortality ratio higher? We could expect it to be lower as several breakthroughs occurred throughout the world, improving techniques in keeping people alive. These include various clinical trial findings, the authorization of remdesivir, and the considerable use of the off-label treatments ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as well as others. Moreover, a couple of companies had their monoclonal antibody treatments authorized on an emergency use basis, contributing to better urgent COVID-19 care. The mean mortality ratio for this second surge was 1.70%, far lower than what was experienced during the first surge at 4.04%. Vaccines rolled out at the end of 2020 and would have started to have some impact by the end of quarter 1 2021.


    Now fast forward to the most recent stretch of the pandemic, driven by the Delta variant of interest.


    Delta Variant Surge


    Wave of Pandemic New Cases (7-day avg) Deaths Mortality Ratio %

    July 1, 2021 19,722 256 1.30%

    July 15, 2021 28,488 280 0.98%

    Aug 1, 2021 79,763 362 0.45%

    Aug 9, 2021 124,470 553 0.44%

    The Delta-driven surge grew after the 4th of July, which was predictable given the huge crowds congregating during that holiday. And while the mainstream media and the government’s official line is that this surge is a pandemic of the unvaccinated, substantial numbers of vaccinated individuals experienced breakthrough infections (the CDC doesn’t count these cases in hospitals). TrialSite has demonstrated how some of the world’s most vaccinated places are having major Delta-driven surges—clearly, this isn’t just a pandemic of the unvaccinated.


    Notably, more treatments are now in place, and about 50% of the country has been fully vaccinated. Consequently, the average mortality ratio during the Delta surge is 0.79%, which is far lower than the previous averages. Below we break down the mortality rates for each surge of the pandemic.


    Mortality Ratios During Pandemic


    Date Median Mortality Ratio

    April – Aug 2020 4.04%

    Oct 1, 2020 – April 1, 2020 1.70%

    July 1, 2021 – Aug 9, 2021 0.79%

    What is clear is that the mortality ratio of the first surge was over five times as high as the most recent Delta-driven surge of the pandemic. Moreover, the first deadliest period was nearly 2.2 times as fatal as the second surge, with the largest number of deaths, at least according to this metric.


    Of course, a confluence of factors and forces affect this ratio, including vaccination and various treatment approaches. And while the Delta variant appears more transmissible, according to this ratio, it is far less deadly than past variants, including the wild-type variant from Wuhan, China.


    Now, this isn’t to trivialize the current situation. Some states, particularly Texas and Florida, face dangerous pressure now on ICU capacity. This analysis is meant to put the entire evolving situation in perspective. The mainstream media isn’t reporting on these numbers nor is the current POTUS administration

    Note the source for this analysis was the New York Times and Our World in Data.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I completely agree as I already mentioned this in my post. In the group age <60 most risk comes from age 45..60. So in fact age group <45 has simply no benefit from vaccination. This is something we know since quite a long time. Only you spread lies with a vaccine benefit of 10:1 for everybody or CDD's nonsense data.


    What the Israel data clearly shows. Vaccine benefits depend on your risk. If there is none as for the age <45 group then you also see no vaccine benefits!


    I hope you now can at least agree that vaccines do not protect from a CoV-19 infection and do not at all prevent you from spreading CoV-19. But this would mean you would accept facts and leave your fake reality.


    First study data on delta: the vaccines reduce chance of even asymptomatic infection by 50% - study from UK:

    Spiral: REACT-1 round 13 final report: exponential growth, high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine effectiveness associated with Delta variant in England during May to July 2021

    Comment

    Vaccines cut chance of being infected with delta variant by half, UK study finds
    The study examined nearly 100,000 people who took COVID-19 swab tests at home between June 24 and July 12.
    www.livescience.com

    People who are fully vaccinated with a two-dose coronavirus vaccine have a 50% to 60% reduced risk of being infected with the delta variant, even asymptomatically, compared with unvaccinated people, according to a new study conducted in England.

    The study examined nearly 100,000 people who took COVID-19 swab tests at home between June 24 and July 12. In that sample group, 527 people tested positive for the coronavirus and 254 of the samples were genetically analyzed; all of the sequenced samples turned out to be the highly transmissible delta variant.

    Once the researchers adjusted for factors such as age, they found that people who received two vaccine doses were 49% as likely to test positive for the coronavirus, even without symptoms, compared with people who were unvaccinated and that vaccinated people were 59% less likely to test positive with symptoms.



    2. The vaccines do reduce the chances of spreading even asymptomatic delta infection else how is it that UK had delta and R ~ 1 with no lockdown?

    3. Vaccine benefit. No vaccine reduces COVID risk by factor of 10 (relative risk) for all ages. COVID (absolute) risk of death is smaller but non-zero for young people. Risk of MIS-C is larger for young people

    4. The Israeli data does not show that the relative risk is smaller (due to the age bias effect).

    5. Tell all the healthy < 45 people who have died of COVID (including one of our students, age 21, in ICU for 4 weeks then died) that there is no risk.



    I think it would be better, instead of making PR claims, to be precise about risks: both mortality and long-term disability. That would require being much more careful in assessing the figures, getting statistics right, resolving different studies. For example you would have to consider the background death rate for groups taking the vaccine and not lump in background deaths with vaccine deaths.

    FM1 - although this is roughly correct, it still manages TSN spin by not being clear as below (if you read clearly you can see this):


    1. delta is less deadly in US only because a large number (much more than 50%) of the high-risk population are vaccinated. Not because the virus is less deadly on unvaccinated people.

    2. It is, predominately, a pandemic of the unvaccinated.- although as high risk population vaccination rates increase so will fraction of vaccinated in hospital.

    3. Absolute number dying depends on level of infection that will exponentially increase or decrease based on R.

    India's Ivermectin Blackout

    "

    News of India's defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge.

    It is just about as obvious as the nose on one's face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

    Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it.

    India's Ivermectin Blackout
    Ivermectin Wins in India
    www.thedesertreview.com


    Uttar Pradesh.. invisible in the West..

    despite a 240 million population

    doesn't fit with vaccine narrative... 3.8% fully vaccinated..

    I am surprised this graph is still on bing.

    Microsoft Bing COVID-19 Tracker
    Track confirmed cases of COVID-19 around the globe with Bing
    bing.com




    .

    Funny then that it should be discussed, in detail, in a Nature paper 5 days ago?

    Delta threatens rural regions that dodged earlier COVID waves
    Data on the variant’s spread in India make researchers fearful for areas in developing nations that lack health care and vaccines.
    www.nature.com


    Researchers in India are only beginning to grasp the full scale of their second wave, which hit a peak of 391,000 recorded cases a day in early May — but this data could be crucial for understanding the risk the variant poses to neighbouring nations.

    In a nationwide survey of about 28,000 people (two-thirds of whom were unvaccinated and had therefore acquired immunity from infection) in June and July this year, researchers found that 68% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood. This represented a huge increase from the 21% with antibodies, recorded in a similar survey in December 2020 to January 2021, prior to the second wave.

    Although the previous survey found higher prevalence in urban areas, the latest estimates saw little difference between the numbers in urban and rural regions, which are home to 65% of India’s population. This suggests that infections “have now penetrated very well in rural areas”, says Manoj Murhekar, director of the country’s National Institute of Epidemiology in Chennai, which co-led the June survey.

    The death toll in India has been immense, and is probably much higher than official counts (see ‘COVID's true toll in India?’). Studies of excess mortality suggest that up to 4.9 million people could have died in India since the pandemic began1,2 — much higher than 425,000, the official number of recorded deaths due to COVID-19. Half these deaths probably occurred in just three months over the second wave, say researchers.

    “India has definitely had a significant problem with COVID-19 mortality reporting, which is now widely recognized, and a lot of those deaths are in rural India,” says Laxminarayan.



    68% antibodies => possibly getting close to herd immunity (given that, unlike vaccination, natural infection targets the people and places who spread most).

    CDC at it again, spreading fear through lies


    The CDC Said The Delta Variant Is As Contagious As Chickenpox. That's Not Accurate


    NPR Cookie Consent and Choices


    In a leaked report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made a surprising claim about the delta variant of the coronavirus: It "is as transmissible as: - Chicken Pox," the agency wrote in a slideshow presentation leaked to the Washington Post on July 26.


    Chickenpox is one of the most contagious viruses known. Each individual can spread the virus to as many as "90% of the people close to that person," the CDC reports.


    Is the delta variant that contagious as well?


    The short answer is, "No," says evolutionary biologist and biostatician Tom Wenseleers at the University of Leuven




    "Yeah, I didn't find the CDC's statement entirely accurate," says Wenseleers, who was one of the first scientists to formally calculate the transmission advantage of the alpha and delta variants over the original versions of SARS-CoV2.


    Nonetheless, delta is still highly transmissible, he adds. "It's probably the most contagious respiratory virus that we know, for the moment."


    Here's why.


    When scientists measure a virus's transmissibility, they often use what's known as R0, or "R nought. " It's the number of people a sick person will infect when the entire population is vulnerable to the virus.


    "So it's the virus's potential of spreading, given ideal conditions for the virus, when no one has any immunity," says computational biologist Karthik Gangavarapu at the Scripps Research Institute.


    For example, the flu has an R0 of about two. Each person infected with flu passes the virus onto two people on average. Some people will infect more than two people and some will infect fewer. But over the time, the average will be about two.


    Chickenpox, on the other hand, is way more contagious, Gangavarapu says. Chicken pox has an R0 of about 9 or 10. So each person with chickenpox infects about 10 other people on average. Outbreaks are explosive.


    For SARS-CoV-2, the R0 has actually risen over the course of the pandemic as the virus evolved. When the coronavirus first emerged in 2019, SARS-CoV2 was slightly more contagious than flu, Gangavarapu says. "The initial COVID-19 strain had an R0 between two and three."


    Then about a year later, the virus began to mutate quickly. The alpha variant emerged, likely in the U.K., and was more transmissible than the original strain. A few months later, the delta variant emerged, most likely in India. It was even more transmissible than alpha.


    "For the delta variant, the R0 is now calculated at between six and seven," Wenseleers says. So it's two- to three-times as contagious as the original version of SARS-CoV-2 (R0 = 2 to 3) but less contagious than the chickenpox (R0 = 9 to 10).


    So why did the CDC say the delta variant was "just as transmissible as" the chickenpox.


    For one, the leaked document underestimated the R0 for chickenpox and overestimated the R0 for the delta variant. "The R0 values for delta were preliminary and calculated from data taken from a rather small sample size," a federal official told NPR. The value for the chickenpox (and other R0s in the slideshow) came from a graphic from the New York Times, which wasn't completely accurate.


    "At the end of the day, this delta variant is much more transmissible than the alpha variant," the official added. "That's the message people need to take from this." The official requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media on this topic.


    The difference between an R0 of three and six is massive. For example, with the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, one person would infect about three people, and each of those people would infect three more. So after only two rounds of transmission, cases would rise by nine (3 x 3 = 9). After three rounds, cases would rise by 27 (3 x 3 x 3 = 27). But with the delta variant, the first person would infect six others, who would each then infect six more people. So after two rounds of transmission, cases would already rise by 36 (6 x 6 = 36). After three rounds, cases would surge by 216 (6 x 6 x 6 = 216).


    With an R0 of six, delta will be extremely difficult to slow down unless populations reach high levels of vaccination, Wenseleers says. And even then surges in cases will still occur, as is now happening in Iceland and parts of the U.S. The vaccine is less than 90% percent effective at stopping infections with delta, and vaccinated people can still spread the virus. In addition, people who aren't vaccinated have a very high risk of infection, Wenseleers says. "Anyone that chooses not to get vaccinated will in all likelihood get infected by the delta variant over the coming months."


    For example, in San Francisco, daily case levels are rapidly rising toward those seen last winter despite the fact that more than 70% of the population is vaccinated per San Francisco Department of Public Health reports.


    Although cases of delta are inevitable, hospitalizations aren't, Wenseleers points out. "As long as people would get vaccinated, then we will not get huge wave of hospitalizations." For example, the city of San Francisco has had 3,041 people hospitalized with COVID-19 since March 18, 2020. Only 16 of them were fully vaccinated.

    Mike Rowe is right about the unvaccinated


    Mike Rowe is right about the unvaccinated


    Over the weekend, television host Mike Rowe responded to a user on Facebook who had asked him why he didn’t do more to encourage his viewers to get the coronavirus vaccines. Rowe’s response was one of the better I’ve seen: He said he had gotten vaccinated as soon as he was able, that he believed the vaccines work, but he understands the reasons why so many people are still hesitant.


    The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last took Rowe’s reasonable reply and distorted it to accuse the Dirty Jobs star of peddling anti-vaccine rhetoric. I won’t bother responding to every one of Last’s points because Rowe has already done a great job of that himself here:

    But I will just say this: Last managed to write more than 1,000 words trying to debunk Rowe’s point without actually addressing Rowe’s point at all, which is that one of the reasons so many people remain wary of the government’s vaccination efforts is because of the many mistakes that public officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Vice President Kamala Harris made.


    If Last wants to defend Fauci, Harris, and every single other irresponsible official who messed up during the pandemic, that’s fine. But the fact still remains that their mistakes cost our institutions much-needed credibility, and that lack of credibility has fostered distrust not only in the system but in the solution that the system provided.

    Rowe put it this way:


    The point I was trying to make, is that half the country has lost faith in our most important institutions. We have a massive credibility problem, exacerbated by powerful people who not only moved the goalposts time and time again, but championed the same restrictions they chose to ignore. In my view, this steady drip of hypocrisy helped foster a deep level of mistrust among millions of unvaccinated Americans.

    Last tries to work his away around this argument by dismissing the vaccine-hesitant as a bunch of Trump supporters who are too stupid to understand what’s best for them medically and too selfish to think about anyone but themselves. The only thing this claim reveals is that Last is so consumed by his own partisanship that he can’t help but make everything a matter of Bad MAGA-types vs. Everyone Else, when in reality vaccine hesitancy is much more complicated than politics allows. As Rowe points out, minorities still tend to be more vaccine-hesitant than white people. There are many reasons for this, and none of them have to do with Trump.

    But let’s focus on the Republican vaccine skeptics because that’s what Last wants to do. I happen to know many of these types, and I’ve found that the best way to broach the topic of vaccination is to meet them where they're at, which is exactly what Rowe tried to do in his original comment. Yes, the original coronavirus projections were completely wrong. Yes, the government’s lockdown efforts did a lot more harm than good, and the continued imposition of restrictions has gotten out of control. And yes, many of our officials were dishonest and hypocritical. All of these complaints are true and justified. But consider this: The vast majority of people who are in the hospital right now with the coronavirus are unvaccinated. The people most likely to end up with long-term symptoms are the unvaccinated. You don’t need to pay attention to Fauci anymore because those numbers speak for themselves.


    We’ll never be able to convince everybody, and that’s OK. But Rowe has a much better chance than Last, who doesn’t really seem interested in persuading anyone at all.

    This is typical anti-CDC propaganda.


    We do not know precisely how infectious is delta. It is really difficult to get exact figures, and they depend on variables like level of social mixing.


    the link above claims CDC is lying saying delta is the same as Chicken Pox when delta has R=6-7 and Chicken pox has R = 9-10


    But both of these figures are inexact, and R=6-7 is at the low end of the CDC estimated range 5 - 9.5. Chicken Pox is at the higher end.


    You can accuse CDC of being too definite - it would be more precise to say that it could be as transmissable as Chicken Pox. But not of lying. If medics had to be certain in what they say every single statement would be prefixed by a qualifier.


    In fact that 5 - 9.5 estimate was an early one and I'd agree now that 9-10 is too high


    "The R0 values for delta were preliminary and calculated from data taken from a rather small sample size," a federal official told NPR. The value for the chickenpox (and other R0s in the slideshow) came from a graphic from the New York Times, which wasn't completely accurate.


    If you accuse scientists of lying for this sort of thing - when dealing with new viruses - you will end up full-blown US-style conspiracy person.


    Why is Delta more infectious and deadly? New research holds answers.
    Studies show that Delta replicates more quickly and generates more virus particles than other variants, but vaccines still protect against serious infections.
    www.nationalgeographic.com

    A vastly more transmissible virus

    To track how easily an infectious disease such as COVID-19 spreads, epidemiologists use a metric called the basic reproductive number or R0 (pronounced “R naught”). R0 is the average number of susceptible people that each infected person is expected to infect. It is difficult to be certain about the R0 for ancient pandemics, but for the 1918 influenza pandemic, the average infected person is thought to have passed the disease to between two and three people, giving it an R0 of between 2.0 and 3.0. The first SARS coronavirus epidemic of 2002, has an R0 of three; for the second coronavirus epidemic—Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) first identified in 2012—R0 was between 0.69 to 1.3.

    Now the CDC estimates that people infected with Delta pass the virus to between five and 9.5 people. This is higher than the original virus identified in Wuhan, China, which had an R0 between 2.3 and 2.7, and the Alpha variant which had an R0 between four and five. Delta can be as infectious as chicken pox, which has an R0 between 9 and 10.

    Promote Fearmongering to advance their vaccine agenda. Spin doctors!


    Just a point about credibility. COVID has in the UK resulted in government officials reversing themselves within 24 hours, with public messaging all over the case.


    That is partly because BoJo's government is incopetent, but mostly because COVID is like that for everyone. The scientists do not know what the future holds and what they do know changes as more research is done. The scientists sometimes get things wrong. We at work have been totally unclear in advance about what would be our situation - you juts cannot tell.


    Now try to translate that into public messaging where you need to give people definite advice. It is no good saying that government should replicate all of the uncertainty in the science - people in a crisis need to be led, not to be given a well, maybe, or maybe, type of scientific analysis. And advice needs to be given right away - you cannot afford to wait 8 weeks for more certain science.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.