Covid-19 News

Quote from Wyttenbach

In fact a very small group age >75 is the real contribution of the vaccine success. For all the others is more or less none.

This is why a famous study could show that real vaccine protection is just 1% for death.

Rewritten - the way most people would see it:

In fact a very small group age > 75 constitute the real at risk most likely to die. For the others, the risk is lower.

The real risk of death averaged over populations is 1% which is why a famous study shows that the vaccine prevents about 1% of deaths.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Intellectual nonsense. If you have real data then use it. Israel data says a natural infection is at least 6.7 x better protecting you. The MA event did show nobody with a prior infection has been infected.

The UK evidence I quoted used very detailed longitudinal data from the UK ONS dataset.

I linked the Oxford Uni preprint which anyone can read. https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/files…nalcombinedve20210816.pdf

Since you have in the past sometimes drawn incorrect conclusions from data (e.g. the Israeli hospitalisation data) if you could link a scientiifc preprint backing up what you say above it would be helpful.

Just for W

Re-infection risk: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n99

How often does reinfection occur?

“Other things being equal, we can expect to see—even without this new variant (the UK-identified B117)—repeat infections by about now anyway,” says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia.

There are four types of endemic coronaviruses (229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1) that regularly circulate through humans, causing the majority of respiratory tract infections. Infection with any of them can lead to immunity of differing lengths, typically lasting for at least a year or two, according to Joël Mossong, the head of epidemiology and microbial genomics at the Luxembourg National Health Authority. “You do get reinfected eventually, but not every year,” he says.

But SARS-CoV-2 is an entirely new type of coronavirus and the question of immunity is one of the biggest unknowns. Whether infection confers immunity to reinfection “is uncertain,” wrote Newcastle University academics in a paper published in the Journal of Infection in December 2020.1

Of 11 000 healthcare workers who had proved evidence of infection during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK between March and April 2020, none had symptomatic reinfection in the second wave of the virus between October and November 2020. As a result, the researchers felt confident that immunity to reinfection lasts at least six months in the case of the novel coronavirus, with further studies required to understand much more.

An early study by Public Health England, indicated that antibodies provide 83% protection against covid-19 reinfections over a five month period. Out of 6614 participants, 44 had “possible” or “probable” reinfections.2

Worldwide, 31 confirmed cases of covid-19 reinfection have been recorded, although that could be an underestimate from delays in reporting and resource pressures in the ongoing pandemic.

“We know that reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 can happen,” says Ashleigh Tuite, assistant professor at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health. “The bigger question is: if reinfections are going to happen, how frequently are they happening?”

With attention focused on vaccine rollout and tracking the spread of new variants of covid-19, little work is being done to find out. “If they’re happening a lot, but they’re happening in the context of being less severe, we’re not going to see them unless we design a study that actively tries to figure that out,” says Tuite.

Is disease from reinfection more severe?

Since the 1960s, scientists have known that when some patients are infected with a virus for a second time,3 antibodies created to fend off the disease in the first instance can end up inadvertently compounding its effectiveness on reinfection—known as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).

To date, most of the SARS-CoV-2 reinfections that have been reported have been milder than first encounters with the virus, although some have been more harmful—and two people have died as a result.

“Almost certainly, immunity from a mild infection doesn’t last as long,” said Hunter. “But on balance, most second infections are going to be a lot less severe because of a degree of immune memory and T cell mediation.”

But Mossong says that, in his experience with coronaviruses, those who experience the mildest symptoms in their initial infection have a higher likelihood of reinfection, perhaps because they didn’t develop an immune response the first time. The same goes for those who are immunosuppressed and therefore would not have mounted an immune response to the first infection either.

Then again, what those people are experiencing could be less a reinfection, and more a reactivation of pre-existing covid-19 within the body, reckons Mossong. That’s far more difficult to ascertain.

Reinfection or reactivation?

To differentiate between what is a reinfection—from a new coronavirus entering the body—and what is an already extant coronavirus refiring the immune response is difficult because of sampling. It’s only truly understandable if patients give samples during their first episode of illness that are then kept and sequenced genetically.

First, you’d need to obtain and then sequence a sample after the first episode and then obtain and sequence a second sample from the same patient (which had tested positive for covid-19). The genomes of the viruses from the two samples would need to be shown to be different for it to be a reinfection.

“With a genetic sequence, you can see whether it was the same variant or a different one,” says Melvin Sanicas, a vaccinologist and member of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published papers have examined reinfections in Hong Kong using such methods.4 “There was good evidence to show it wasn’t the same,” Sanicas adds.

But sequencing of this order is a tall ask, particularly with the stretched testing and laboratory resources of the current pandemic. “Even in the UK, which conducts sequencing of samples more regularly than most countries, only about 5-10% of samples are sequenced,” says Mossong. “For that to occur twice, for samples from the same patient, the odds get smaller and smaller.”

Research conducted at the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford purports that many of the cases of reinfection may actually be reactivation.5 Mossong points out that coronaviruses give long infections and their large genomic structures could cause them to remain in the body at low enough levels to remain undetected but ready to strike once more. “They could last longer in different parts of the body than respiratory areas,” Mossong told The BMJ, pointing to persistent loss of smell and taste as possible evidence that the virus remains within the body, replicating at a low level, for a long time.

What do the new variants mean for reinfection?

SARS-CoV-2 variant B.117, first identified in the UK, has been shown to be more transmissible than previous variants, sparking a fresh wave of restrictions in the UK. But whether those who have already recovered from the virus are at risk is another unknown.

“I don’t know how likely that is to increase the chance of reinfections,” Hunter told The BMJ. He assumes that reinfections will be more likely with the new strain because of an absolute increase in the number of infections in general but hopes they will be less likely and less virulent than first infections.

Yet the emergence of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant, P.1, may throw that into question. A pre-print paper tracking the likelihood of being infected with the new variant, which emerged in Manaus, Brazil, in late 2020, indicates that it “eludes the human immune response” triggered by previous variants. Reinfection is therefore likely.

“The question is how much genetic drift or change can happen in the virus, such that your immune system doesn’t recognise it anymore and doesn’t mount a protective immune response,” says Tuite, who spoke before the P.1 variant surfaced. Vaccine manufacturers have made assurances that their vaccines will stand up to the new B.117 variant, which according to Tuite suggests it hasn’t changed enough to make people more prone to reinfection because of the virus itself. (Vaccine reactions can be different to natural immune responses, although it’s too early to say what the differences are in the case of covid-19. Vaccine triggered immune responses are more consistent and could even be more powerful than those triggered naturally according to some studies.6)

For now, the message is clear: “If you’ve recovered from SARS-CoV-2, it’s not an excuse to forget about social distancing and not to wear a mask,” says Sanicas, “We know that you can have it twice.” And that means you can get it again and pass it on.

Can re-infection be more serious than original infection?

COVID-19 reinfection: a rapid systematic review of case reports and case series

The COVID-19 pandemic has infected millions of people worldwide and many countries have been suffering from a large number of deaths. Acknowledging the ability…

jim.bmj.com

Quote from THHuxleynew

The real risk of death averaged over populations is 1%

Given : deaths to date with Coronavirus is 4.42 million and the world population is 7.67 billion.

If the infection fatality rate over the entire population is one percent , and an 'infection' means encountering the virus on one's mucosa,

then (4.42E6/7.67E9)/.01 = just 5.8 percent of the population has encountered the coronavirus on their mucosa over the last year and a half.

Clearly the coronavirus is very shy and doesn't want to transmit and encounter people, let alone encountering a person more than once!

The crazy alternative is that the infection fatality rate is actually much lower than 1 percent.

Quote from Mark U

Given : deaths to date with Coronavirus is 4.42 million and the world population is 7.67 billion.

If the infection fatality rate over the entire population is one percent , and an 'infection' means encountering the virus on one's mucosa,

then (4.42E6/7.67E9)/.01 = just 5.8 percent of the population has encountered the coronavirus on their mucosa over the last year and a half.

Clearly the coronavirus is very shy and doesn't want to transmit and encounter people, let alone encountering a person more than once!

The crazy alternative is that the infection fatality rate is actually much lower than 1 percent.

Display More

The IFR varies depending on population demographics. Obviously. We could work it out for specific countries with good data (e.g. UK). It will probably be lower than 1% but that is from alpha statistics - delta a bit worse.

I actually did some UK calculations a while back based on the ONS infection and death data. Working out infections is difficult though.

Your world calculations don't help because in many countries (e.g. India) death rate is undercounted by a large amount, in addition a lot of the world is low income demographics.

This is as good as it gets in terms of estimates:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-10-29-COVID19-Report-34.pdf

The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is a key statistic for estimating the burden of coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) and has been continuously debated throughout the current pandemic. Previous estimates
have relied on data early in the epidemic, or have not fully accounted for uncertainty in serological
test characteristics and delays from onset of infection to seroconversion, death, and antibody waning.
After screening 175 studies, we identified 10 representative antibody surveys to obtain updated
estimates of the IFR using a modelling framework that addresses the limitations listed above. We
inferred serological test specificity from regional variation within serosurveys, which is critical for
correctly estimating the cumulative proportion infected when seroprevalence is still low. We find that
age-specific IFRs follow an approximately log-linear pattern, with the risk of death doubling
approximately every eight years of age. Using these age-specific estimates, we estimate the overall
IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals,
to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country,
with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79
95% prediction interval range). We show that accounting for seroreversion, the waning of antibodies
leading to a negative serological result, can slightly reduce the IFR among serosurveys conducted
several months after the first wave of the outbreak, such as Italy. In contrast, uncertainty in test false
positive rates combined with low seroprevalence in some surveys can reconcile apparently low crude
fatality ratios with the IFR in other countries. Unbiased estimates of the IFR continue to be critical to
policymakers to inform key response decisions. It will be important to continue to monitor the IFR as
new treatments are introduced.

The UK, with its alphabet vaccination mafia, is managing to control COVID infection.

We have a very high rate (mostly amongst younger and unvaccinated people). This week we (England, not UK) are at 1 in 80 people infected - compared with 1 in 75 last week.

This is slightly counterintuitive, because cases are going up - slowly. However the infection figures are community - a random sample of England homes. And cases are not a reliable measure of infections.

I wish I could say that high vaccination rates meant we could control COVID. The test will come when schools return in September.

Compared with the US we are not vaccinating children. We have just recently moved to vaccination for all 16-17 year olds - and rates of vaccination there are still quite low.

All children < 16 are unvaccinated and currently what is driving the infection together with < 24 (not that well vaccinated). Older age groups still get infected but at a lower rate. the very low rate for 70+ is probably because they are being more careful, but they do also have a higher vaccination rate.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Quote from THHuxleynew

Since you have in the past sometimes drawn incorrect conclusions from data (e.g. the Israeli hospitalisation data) if you could link a scientiifc preprint backing up what you say above it would be helpful.

FUD-Alert! The conclusion were made by Israeli scientists - state officials. But our spin doctor knows it better.

Also the conclusion from the MA event is very clear.

Also all papers shows that the immune response from a natural infection is 100x better than from a vaccination as it causes a sterile vaccination. Here vaccines fail for 100%.

As said I will not waste my time with crap studies done by juniors for the fat daddy.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The real risk of death averaged over populations is 1% which is why a famous study

100% THH FUD. No study ever did show this. The real risk protection from vaccines is If 100 die from CoV-19 it will be 99 with vaccines. Exception for age over 75! And sick people.

Vaccines do not really protect people age < 60. It's their health - immune system that already knows how to fight CoV-19. Most people Age < 60 that die from CoV-19 have >= 2 comorbidity! There is "0" protection for the healthy age < 60 if you include the vaccine death risk >= 25/mio or the permanent damage risk being > 250/mio then vaccines are a no go.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of 11 000 healthcare workers who had proved evidence of infection during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK between March and April 2020, none had symptomatic reinfection in the second wave of the virus between October and November 2020. As a result, the researchers felt confident that immunity to reinfection lasts at least six months in the case of the novel coronavirus, with further studies required to understand much more.

Now look at vaccines! At Least 1% will have had a symptomatic infection... May be you understand it that way....

Quote from THHuxleynew

Your world calculations don't help because in many countries (e.g. India) death rate is undercounted by a large amount,

Vaxxine terrorist FUD Alert! India's IVR states have already 70% antibodies. So e.g. 150 mio. people from Uttar Pradesh have been infected so far then the IFR is < 0.015%.

A year and a half after Sweden decided not to lock down, its COVID-19 death rate is up to 10 times higher than its neighbors

Sweden may have seen fewer people die of COVID-19 had it implemented tighter lockdown rules or mask mandates.

www.businessinsider.com

The western health care power brokers will never forgive Sweden for doing things their way. In this article they brutalize them by carefully cherry picking which nations to compare them to. Look at all of Europe though, or the world, and even certain states in the US, and they did fairly well.

Quote from Shane D.

https://www.businessinsider.co…-higher-death-rate-2021-8

The western health care power brokers will never forgive Sweden for doing things their way. In this article they brutalize them by carefully cherry picking which nations to compare them to. Look at all of Europe though, or the world, and even certain states in the US, and they did fairly well.

Shane, I don't know that article is poking holes at Sweden. It is worth remarking that there is no easy way through COVID, and that no-one knows what is for the best (other than the weird anti-science US encouragement of people not to wear masks, not to have vaccination).

I've always seen Sweden's policy as being brave and interesting, with no clarity whether it would be good or bad. That is what they think themselves. And it remains true. When everyone is vaccinated then we can total up the deaths and other damage. Your response however is political - and politics never helps find the best solution. Maybe it is just I am not in US but western care power brokers is not a phrase i understand, nor do (if i interpret it right) I notice any suhc in our part of the west (UK). If the US is riven with politics, and has a broke health system (as Jed's link said - though I imagine there is another side) that is a matter for the US to sort out - and political wrangling, or leaping to conspiracy theories, will not help mending it.

Quote from Wyttenbach

100% THH FUD. No study ever did show this. The real risk protection from vaccines is If 100 die from CoV-19 it will be 99 with vaccines. Exception for age over 75! And sick people.

Vaccines do not really protect people age < 60. It's their health - immune system that already knows how to fight CoV-19. Most people Age < 60 that die from CoV-19 have >= 2 comorbidity! There is "0" protection for the healthy age < 60 if you include the vaccine death risk >= 25/mio or the permanent damage risk being > 250/mio then vaccines are a no go.

You mentioned a study (without linking it.). I was rephrasing what you said the way anyone else would read it. And when challenged about IFR - I answered it precisely.

Re your "most people who die <60 have comorbidities" that may well be true. So what? Most people over 60 have comorbidities. Are you saying we should dismiss the 42% of US adults who are obese as somehow deserving to die? And since the risks for age 60 men are significant, 1% IFR, the fact that they are known less with no comorbidities does not make them zero. I have not found it easy to get the "no comorbidity" data on death rate. Most people do not seem to be only concerned about a select super-healthy few. But, given all we know, it would be very surprising if the risk reduction was greater than a factor of 2. Please link evidence. That gives us 0.5% IFR, which is my fair estimate of your personal risk of death if you are infected with COVID - unless you know you are antibody-positive.

Your comment here beggars belief, and I would not continue to comment except that seemingly a majority of those actively posting here agree with you. I am not one to back off just because what I say is unpopular when I believe I have the right of it. Throughout this thread you have insulted pretty well everyone, made wild unsupported accusations, not admitted error when your statements are shown false, and what for me is worse, you have this view somehow that we should not count people who are not in perfect physical health. That way of thinking is dangerous, as anyone looking at 20th Century Germany can see. All people deserve respect (even you - though based on posting here i'm not finding it easy to give it). It is also personally dangerous to assume that good health saves you from any disease, let alone COVID.

This site should be ashamed of itself to be backing repeated false statements and morally reprehensible attitude. It is not in me to do other than reply with attention and to my best ability post what I think to be true, but you should reflect on your behaviour and preferably say nothing more. Repeated bad behaviour does not become good - nor is it validation that many here are will let let it go as the harmless rantings of an eccentric.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Now look at vaccines! At Least 1% will have had a symptomatic infection... May be you understand it that way....

LOL. Statistics are not your strong point. Let me make it easy for you. That is 0% (of what?) and 1% (of what?). That is right - the two sets of people are not the same - you have not factored in the local infection rate (low). You did not fully read my links - the more recent one noted reinfection rates similar amongst unvaccinated and vaccinated. In addition to the statistical error there is another problem with the comparison - both vaccination and natural immunity will provide less protection against reinfection with delta. The difference for vaccination is well known. That for reinfection has not been so well studied, but must be considered. I don't know how reinfection now compared with breakthrough infection but both are non-zero and they will not be so far apart.

As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and Wyttenbach statistics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

FUD-Alert! The conclusion were made by Israeli scientists - state officials. But our spin doctor knows it better.

Also the conclusion from the MA event is very clear.

Also all papers shows that the immune response from a natural infection is 100x better than from a vaccination as it causes a sterile vaccination. Here vaccines fail for 100%.

As said I will not waste my time with crap studies done by juniors for the fat daddy.

No link. No evidence.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Vaxxine terrorist FUD Alert! India's IVR states have already 70% antibodies. So e.g. 150 mio. people from Uttar Pradesh have been infected so far then the IFR is < 0.015%.

Sigh. I will lay it out for you again. UP being a very young state (youngest in India, which it self is young) we'd expect around 0.1% - 0.2% IFR.

Death rates in UP (and all India) from COVID are vastly undercounted. We do not know by how much:

Death Count In 24 UP Districts 43 Times More Than Official Covid-19 Toll — Article 14

New Delhi: The number of people who died in 24 Uttar Pradesh (UP) districts over nine months to 31 March 2021 was, cumulatively, 43 times higher than the [...]

article-14.com

New Delhi: The number of people who died in 24 Uttar Pradesh (UP) districts over nine months to 31 March 2021 was, cumulatively, 43 times higher than the total official Covid-19 death toll reported from these districts over this period, according to mortality data for India’s most-populous state.

The 24 districts—of 75 in UP—we chose reported the highest number of Covid-19 cases over the months of June, July, August, and October 2020 when the first wave struck, as per various media reports (here, here, & here) and government data tracked by Covid19india.org.

The excess deaths in these districts were between 10 to 335 times higher than the reported Covid-19 death toll between 1 July 2020 and 31 March 2021. The Bharatiya Janata Party has said UP’s chief minister Ajay Singh Bisht, popularly known as Yogi Adityanath “effectively managed” his state’s Covid-19 situation.

All the excess deaths cannot be attributed to Covid-19, and a diversion of health resources could cause other deaths to rise. But the vast divergence in average general deaths and excess deaths over a part of the pandemic calls into question UP’s official Covid-19 death toll of 4,537 by the end of March 2021.

Documents this reporter obtained for Article 14 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, revealed that during the no-pandemic period between 1 July 2019 and 31 March 2020 these 24 districts registered around 178,000 deaths. Over the same period in 2020-2021, deaths increased by 110% to 375,000, an excess of 197,000.

And also:

‘We’re burning pyres all day’: India accused of undercounting deaths

Fears of cover-up as crematoriums record twice the number of Covid fatalities as official death toll

www.theguardian.com

As India battles through one of the world’s deadliest surges of the Covid-19 pandemic, this week India’s health minister Harsh Vardhan insisted that its fatality rate from the disease remained “the lowest in the world”.

It was a statement that jarred with the devastating images and accounts that have flowed out of India in the past fortnight, of hospitals and morgues filled to capacity, people dying on pavements from scarcity of oxygen, and crematoriums and graveyards visibly overflowing with bodies.

India’s official death toll has continued to rise relentlessly. On Saturday, it was another record-breaking day, with 401,993 new cases and 3,523 deaths. Yet health experts widely believe the official daily figures do not come close to reflecting the real number of deaths.

With Covid-19 patients unable to get into hospitals, many have been dying at home, often without ever getting tested. Meanwhile, state governments and local authorities stand accused of rampant miscounting, covering up and obfuscating the true death toll in their states. Over the past month, in the Karnataka city of Bangalore – where case numbers are among the fastest rising in the country – the figure for Covid-related deaths registered in crematoriums was twice the official death toll.

The allegations of a cover-up have been particularly prevalent in Uttar Pradesh, where the state government is controlled by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the hardline chief minister, Yogi Adityanath, has insisted that the state has no shortage of oxygen and threatened to prosecute those who “spread panic”. Authorities have denied any cover-ups.

In the city of Muzaffarnagar, in Uttar Pradesh, data collected by the Observer shows a vast discrepancy between the official death toll recorded by the local authority and the accounts given by those who run its crematoriums and graveyards.

According to official statistics, Muzaffarnagar had just 10 Covid deaths over four days in late April. However, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, president of Muzaffarnagar’s city crematorium, said this was not even close to the scale of bodies he was handling.

“In normal times, we were cremating three bodies a day, but in the past 10 days it has increased,” he said. “One day it was 18, another day it was 20, then 22, and one day 25. In the past 10 days, we haven’t had any less than 12 bodies a day– 90% of them corona deaths.”

With only seven pyres in Muzaffarnagar’s city crematorium, Agarwal said they were so overwhelmed they were having to cremate the bodies on open ground, and send some to another crematorium 20 miles away. “The situation here is pathetic,” he said,

Agarwal alleged that “incorrect” figures were being published, and dismissed suggestions that the city had experienced any days this week with no Covid deaths or just two deaths. “The administration does not make the correct death figures public,” he said. “I don’t understand why they’re hiding them. Maybe they don’t want people to panic.”

Sanjay Mittal, at Muzaffarnagar’s only other crematorium, New Mandi, recounted similar scenes. He said he had “never seen such a situation in my life – we are burning pyres from morning till evening”.

According to Mittal, prior to the pandemic, the New Mandi crematorium usually saw five bodies arrive in a day. But on 27 April they received 21 bodies, on 28 April it was 15, and on 29 April it was 18. He could not confirm how many had been Covid-19 positive.

“It is midday and we’ve already had 12 bodies. Who knows how many it will be by the end of the day,” he said on Friday.

A similar recent surge in bodies was also reported by Abdul Quadir, who runs the Muslims cemetery in Muzaffarnagar. “Before corona, we buried two to three bodies a week, but now six to seven bodies arrive every day,” he said. “Only three of these bodies so far have come from hospital, the rest died at home and had not been tested.”

Official government data confirms very low Covid-19 testing rates in Muzaffarnagar; on Tuesday 27 April, no tests were done in the area, while on 29 April, only 561 tests were done, which all came back positive.

Just a comment on when a comment on COVID death rates is probably knowingly misleading you.

Ecological comparisons (death rates between different countries) are incredibly difficult to make. Serious people will not use them as evidence without an enormous amount of extra context, trying to find all of the factors that confound the results, and even then will be cautious.

Case counts nearly always underestimate infections by at least 30% - because asymptomatics are not picked up. In many countries, during epidemic peaks, the underestimate is much higher. In developing countries like rural parts of India it will be very high. Death counts are much more reliable generally, in developed countries, but again some countries with poor or nonexistent health systems will undercount them because they are never tested nor diagnosed in a hospital. India is a known bad example of that, and UP a known bad outlier even in India.

OK, you think. The stats are unreliable but at least undercounted cases might cancel out undercounted deaths. Fair enough - although in that case we have total unreliability where a large error could be in either direction.

It might. But not when a poster uses estimates of infection from seropositivity (rather than cases + 40% asymptomatics) and compares them with these undercounted deaths to get an artificially low result without noting that caveat.

Now, W, RB are both clever enough to understand all this stuff. It has been pointed out before. I'd appreciate it if they both conceded that the naked ecological comparisons they continue to make are worthless. Otherwise I have to suppose they are deliberately trying to mislead others here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I have not found it easy to get the "no comorbidity" data on death rate.

Tables 5 & 6 in any of the monthly xls's:

Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

FM1 - my comment about knowingly misleading others should perhaps include you, since I believe you take and interest in this stuff, and you liked W's mendacious post above. You know enough not to endorse false statements. Should you not understand whta I have just posted, or disagree with it, please give your reasons - otherwise i can only conclude that you are deliberately endorsing things that you know are misleading. Perhaps, like Shane, you think this is balance? Because i argue better those who stand up to me should be encouraged?

That is a false argument. I argue better in this case because those I am arguing against here are wrong on these oft repeated points. They must at some level know it. And so must you.

Quote from Zeus46

Tables 5 & 6 in any of the monthly xls's:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep…ingcovid19englandandwales

Thanks Zeuss - yes that is quite helpful because it gives a lower estimate of 20% deaths healthy. We cannot so simply turn this into relative probability without knowing the prevalence of those conditions. Also, those are death certificate mentioned things and obesity is a recognised comorbidity and not included there (and thus invalidates that lower estimate). I remember giving up on that data when trying to disentangle it, but you can see why W's Aryan super-healthy people are probably still quite high risk.

EDIT - I've just noticed - the most common column - influenza and pneumonia - would include most COVID cases since COVID-induced pneumonia is a common cause of death. So all of that row (82 vs 101 no other condition) could also have no comorbidities. There are also missing cases not covered by any of those rows but included in the overall results.

I'd say a good estimate of healthy deaths would therefore be 180/540 = 33%. But, we do not know the fraction of people healthy in the population. And, the question was < 60, not overall. It remains tangled, but an objective person would say from this that yes, COVID hits all of us, healthy and less healthy alike.

THH

Quote from Shane D.

The western health care power brokers will never forgive Sweden for doing things their way.

This is a silly hit piece as it shows the clear intention of the writer to harm one county a draw false pro vaxx profit. UK,USA,France,Italy,... have far more deaths per capita than Sweden. France is a CoV-19 terror state with a killing lockdown order in place. In fact all countries with France/German/"part of US" style lock downs have far more deaths than Sweden...

Quote from THHuxleynew

Are you saying we should dismiss the 42% of US adults who are obese as somehow deserving to die?

Of course not. But USA is on a suicide track anyway. Do you want to stop them?? Every 10 years they in average did add 10% more body weight... Other states (China) did add "brain weight"...

Quote from THHuxleynew

This site should be ashamed of itself to be backing repeated false statements and morally reprehensible attitude.

This site should be ashamed... to allow a sock puppet like THH to spread infinite pro vaxx FUD.

The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination We Should Rethinkthe Policy.pdf

For your Altzheimer memory why a natural infection is much better than a vaccine: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2021.04.20.21255677v1

SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells - Nature Communications

T cells are instrumental to protective immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Here the authors show that, in…

doi.org

May be once you read a paper before you FUD again...

Quote from THHuxleynew

New Delhi: The number of people who died in 24 Uttar Pradesh (UP) districts over nine months to 31 March 2021 was, cumulatively, 43 times higher than the total official Covid-19 death toll reported from these districts over this period, according to mortality data for India’s most-populous state.

FUD alert: A provaxx fake news site:

Advisory Board

SUNIL KHILNANI

Avantha Professor and Director

King's India Institute

Kings College, London

No more questions. The rest are lawyers and spin journalists...

But may be we you might have noticed that U.P. Ivermectin did start may 2021. So you personally are the silly FUD source. You are linking unrelated stuff mostly covering last year not related to the miraculous escape phase of Uttar pradesh

with the help of Ivermectin.

Quote from Wyttenbach

FUD alert: A provaxx fake news site:Advisory Board

SUNIL KHILNANI

Avantha Professor and Director

King's India Institute

Kings College, London

It seems like there are a lot of scientists pro-vax. I wonder why that would be?

But I posted two links. With direct independent journalism in one. It is also not surprising that deaths should be undercounted everywhere in india, and more in UP which is less developed, and also has a hardline government that wants to control information.

Your unsupported statements are not evidence.

Quote from THHuxleynew

FM1 - my comment about knowingly misleading others should perhaps include you, since I believe you take and interest in this stuff, and you liked W's mendacious post above. You know enough not to endorse false statements. Should you not understand whta I have just posted, or disagree with it, please give your reasons - otherwise i can only conclude that you are deliberately endorsing things that you know are misleading. Perhaps, like Shane, you think this is balance? Because i argue better those who stand up to me should be encouraged?

That is a false argument. I argue better in this case because those I am arguing against here are wrong on these oft repeated points. They must at some level know it. And so must you.

Thomas, I have taken a different view of the pandemic. I have posted study after study that you always seem to find lacking, same as in cold fusion studies. I find it hard to take you seriously, nothing is ever good science. To be honest, I think you all have it wrong, especially India. India has 4 flu seasons along latitude lines and the rise and fall of cases reflects that but you continually deny that, instead using age demographics to support your view against ivermectin. I have said from the beginning that early treatment was the only way to end this, you think the vaccine is our only hope. I told you in March that by September we would see wide vaccine failure, I told you of the rise in cases first in the UK and the fall of cases same in the US. But again you tell me I'm wrong. I don't follow you, W or anyone else. I designed a model that has predicted every aspect of this pandemic from progression to vaccine failure and you all laugh at me. I haven't been wrong yet with the progression. I don't follow Thomas, I lead!!!

Advancing a Covid-19 vaccine means countering science denial - STAT

Science denial underlies opposition to a Covid-19 vaccine. Overcoming it requires addressing its emotional underpinnings.

www.statnews.com

Written last year but you might notice some of these elements posted here (substitute ivermectin for hydroxychloroquine).

The continued spread of SARS-CoV-2 is a practical demonstration of what happens when science denial supplants evidence-based decision-making at multiple levels of government, from mask mandates to reopening schools mid-pandemic. Denial has led to needless deaths and suffering.

How can denial be identified? In 2009, Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee defined science denial as employing some or all of five characteristic elements. All five of these have been deployed in the last few months, sometimes by the government. Public health advocates should be ready when they are deployed again.

The first characteristic is the use of conspiracy theories to frame a scientific consensus as the product of a conspiracy of bad actors. A bevy of conspiracy theories concerning SARS-CoV-2 have already been spread on social media. The president has used coronavirus briefings as a platform to share conspiracy theories, such as physicians lying about Covid-19 to hurt his reelection chances. A widely circulated conspiracy video bizarrely claims that SARS-CoV-2 is human-made, and that Bill Gates was involved in distributing it to profit from a future vaccine. Online, anti-vaxxers have begun framing a future coronavirus vaccine as a part of a conspiracy to enforce compulsory vaccination.

Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, described these kinds of conspiracy theories as being like Homer’s conception of the gods’ behavior on Olympus as determining events in day-to-day human life. Conspiracists believe that the actions of secret puppeteers control the impersonal and otherwise unpredictable events in our lives.

Conspiracy theorists are rarely effective in identifying real conspiracies or enacting counter-conspiracies for a simple reason: Things rarely go to plan. Conspiracy theories often hinge on unlikely events and large groups of people successfully keeping secrets for long periods. When real conspiracies are uncovered, it is often because secrets are hard to keep, especially when they require the coordinated actions of hundreds or thousands of people.

The second characteristic of denial is the use of fake experts. These are often credentialed individuals who hold views outside the broader scientific consensus. For example, the president has shared videos of Dr. Stella Immanuel (and several other lab-coat-attired individuals) to promote false claims that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19, and that masks do not slow transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, science denial marginalizes legitimate experts, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has become a trusted voice about the pandemic for many Americans.

Fake experts exploit the dual nature of expertise. An expert is someone who is highly skilled and knowledgeable, and is identified as an expert by the perception of skill and knowledge. That perception, created by language, dress, and other accoutrements, is not always accompanied by actual skill. Given the number of people carrying credentials like M.D., R.N., or Ph.D.,” it will always be possible to find “experts” who speak outside of their domains of knowledge, or who create the perception of knowledge without truly possessing it.

A third characteristic of science denial is selectivity. As more and larger studies are published, it has become clearer that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for Covid-19. But it will always be possible to select weaker elements of research to attempt to discredit a larger body of research, such as those who cherry-pick papers to discredit the use of masks.

Anti-vaxxers have now spent more than two decades selectively reading the scientific literature to cast doubt on vaccines, centering their arguments around ever-smaller minutiae. A prominent 2016 anti-vaccine documentary implied a “cover-up” over a minor disagreement about the interpretation of a statistical study of measles vaccination, premised on a now-retracted reinterpretation of the statistics, which had made a number of errors.

We should expect to see no less than a fully dishonest misinterpretation and mischaracterization of whatever clinical trials are conducted in the lead-up to the approval of a vaccine to prevent Covid-19.

Importance of Oral and Nasal Hygiene in COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance of Oral and Nasal Hygiene in COVID-19 Pandemic

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. We are constantly reminded wash

trialsitenews.com

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

We are constantly reminded wash our hands with soap or alcoholic solutions that kill the coronavirus. But the coronavirus does not live on hands. COVID-19 starts in the upper respiratory tract (URT). The largest load develops in the nasopharynx. From there, it spreads into the lungs through the pharynx mucosal surfaces. Therefore, it stands to reason that we should frequently cleanse the upper respiratory tract: nasal cavity, oral cavity, nasopharynx, and oropharynx. The most promising antiseptic is Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I), because it has been used for this purpose in dentistry and otolaryngology for decades.

PVP-I is active against a broad spectrum of viruses, bacteria, and fungi. Before COVID-19, it was found effective against influenza viruses, common cold coronaviruses, SARS and MERS. No repurposing is needed. Recent trials have confirmed its safety, useability, and efficacy against SARS-COV-2.

Simultaneous mouth rinsing, gargling, and nasal drops of PVP-I, performed a few times daily, provides three benefits: prophylaxis (killing any virus that may land on these mucosal surfaces), preventing transmission to others, and improved clinical outcomes (killing most of the virus on the URT mucosal surfaces before it spreads to the lower respiratory tract).

A well sized clinical trial in Bangladesh showed a nearly 90% decrease in hospitalizations and deaths among patients using PVP-I vs. those in a control group. A review of PVP-I against COVID-19 trials confirms this efficacy. The relevant concentrations (0.5%-1%) do not stain teeth.

PVP-I is recommended by FLCCC as part of early COVID-19 treatment. Listerine and Crest Scope can be used for mouth rinsing and gargling.

PVP-I is used to prevent nosocomial transmission of COVID-19.

Gargling and nasal drops or nasal irrigation may sound like “folk medicine” to some and may be slightly unpleasant. However, numerous clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as the confirmed use in dentistry and otolaryngology show these practices to be very effective against COVID-19.

PVP-I can be used alongside other prophylactic and therapeutic medicines for COVID-19. Such use is recommended by FLCCC.

Wearing masks outside of healthcare settings has opposite effect of soiling the UR. It is bad hygiene, contradicting 150 years of medical experience. Masks accumulate not only SARS-COV-2, but various pathogens that happen to be in the environment. Adults and children, wearing masks over mouths and noses, can inhale or get those pathogens by contact.

This is not medical advice. There are some contra-indications for using PVP-I. Excessive use of iodine-containing products might interfere with thyroid gland function.

Effect of 1%Povidone Iodine Mouthwash/Gargle, Nasal and Eye Drop in COVID-19 patientBioresearch

View of Effect of 1% Povidone Iodine Mouthwash/Gargle, Nasal and Eye Drop in COVID-19 patient

Quote from Fm1

I told you in March that by September we would see wide vaccine failure, I told you of the rise in cases first in the UK and the fall of cases same in the US. But again you tell me I'm wrong. I don't follow you, W or anyone else. I designed a model that has predicted every aspect of this pandemic from progression to vaccine failure and you all laugh at me. I haven't been wrong yet with the progression. I don't follow Thomas, I lead!!!

I am not telling you that you are wrong over what you have said there (though if you explained precisely your reasoning I might view it is wrong - I don't know. Certainly you have not supported it with evidence here). All i know is that you view COVID R value as influenced by weather - where we agree. But I suspect you rate that influence higher than I would. Still, that is a reasonable debate.

I am saying that W's and RBs ecological comparisons about India and UP as proving ivermectin works are rubbish. Provably so. I've just done that. I've corrected them, in detail, many times. They go on posting the same false numbers, saying this proves ivermectin is an effective treatment (or sometimes prophylactic - the above posts are about low IFR and hence a claim it is a good treatment) and ignoring the refutations which are as clear as your nose.

If you don't see that, after reading the above posts, you could try to explain why. Otherwise I'll view you as posting dishonest rhetoric that you know is false when you back them. You may have a whole load of other ideas I disagree with - I don't see that as dishonest and would never normally accuse anyone of that. But, over this one issue, because it is so clear, RB and W have continued to argue it, and it has been comprehensively refuted. Yes, persisting with it without addressing the refutation is dishonest.