Covid-19 News

  • Interesting

    Let’s Talk About Immunity
    Natural immunity comes from being exposed to a microbe that causes a disease. Vaccination-mediated immunity comes from being exposed to a vaccine that is…
    www.acsh.org


    Natural immunity comes from being exposed to a microbe that causes a disease. Vaccination-mediated immunity comes from being exposed to a vaccine that is similar to but not the same as the microbe. If we understand a bit more about our immune system and its memory, it will help us navigate the information and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, the COVID variants, and the length of our immunologic memory.



  • As in all countries that only used the two worst vaccines (Pfizer, Astra-Oxford) the UK see a constant uptick in deaths among vaccinated.

    As the last report (22) shows ICU/DEATH age > 50 among vaccinated/unvaccinated is 3:1. the ratio vaccinated/unvaccinated is close to 9:1. So the vaccine efficiency over all now is at 66% for death but < "0"! for a delta infection.

    https://assets.publishing.serv…_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf


    The UK CoV-19 death rate is high. 120/deaths a day or about 2 deaths/million, Here it is about 0.6/mio. 0.3 in Germany but 1.4 in France. So the difference to Germany is big albeit Germany has a much lower vaccination rate....

    The Uk, for political reasons, runs a very high infection rate => high death rate. It is not rocket science. To do the calculations you need infection rate, you also need profile of age versus infections. Germany has (known) in past been good at protecting its oldest people so they are not exposed to COVID. UK not. The UK is a bit to US-like in that - it has a significant very deprived segment of the population and poor social infrastructure.

  • A Conservative Doctors Group Sends a Letter to AMA Concerning the Ivermectin Declaration


    A Conservative Doctors Group Sends a Letter to AMA Concerning the Ivermectin Declaration
    The executive director of a conservative-focused physicians group known as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) sent a letter to
    trialsitenews.com


    The executive director of a conservative-focused physicians group known as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) sent a letter to Gerald Harmon, MD, president of the powerful American Medical Association (AMA), to raise concerns associated with an unprecedented campaign to vilify ivermectin as a potential supporting therapy in the war against COVID-19. Branded as a far-right affiliated physician association, TrialSite suggests that the letter won’t get far as the AMA has already declared war on the drug. At stake here are the biggest implications as to how medicine is even practiced now and into the future in America.


    In the letter, executive director Janet M. Orient, MD, raises questions concerning the AMA’s “startling and unprecedented position that American physicians should immediately stop prescribing” ivermectin, while “pharmacists should stop honoring their prescriptions” for the controversial drug in any off-label treatment regimen.


    Massive Increase in Prescriptions

    Of course, promoting what has become essentially fraudulent and misleading campaigns against the drug is the fact that about 88,000 ivermectin prescriptions per week have become the norm across America. As TrialSite reported, this represents a 2,344% increase over the baseline level of prescriptions previous to the pandemic. Reports from the CDC and others that a 3-fold increase in reported cases to poison control centers is repeatedly used in publications more than likely to frighten people—and doctors—away from any use. But no baseline data was reported—not until TrialSite was able to access the actual data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC).


    Claims of Toxic Reports

    Based on the voluminous increase in articles designed to jolt the American public, it would appear that health authorities, regulators and various communication agencies and media outlets are collaborating in some ways to exploit the AAPCC report of a 3-fold increase in ivermectin-related calls to the 55 poison control centers around the nation.


    However, no baseline data is included in these articles or even the CDC’s recent report, as indicated in a TrialSite OpEd. TrialSite did access and provide a report on the actual data last week.


    It turns out that the overwhelming number of calls, which went from 435 pre-pandemic to 1,143 as of the time of the AAPCC data, indicates far less risk than what is broadcast via the press. In fact, 80% of the calls are minimal, with no risk in nature. Only 1% (11 calls) appear severe, but it is not known if they are associated with hospitalization. There have been no deaths, and TrialSite analysis indicates that hand sanitizer is more dangerous during the pandemic than ivermectin. Meaning at least four deaths are associated with individuals swallowing this class of medical product.


    None of the underlying data attributes, which again indicate a far less risky situation than promulgated, are included in any reports, from either government agencies at the federal, state, or county- level, or from the mass media which simply picks up on the “3-fold” increase in calls to poison control centers.


    More on the Letter

    The AAPS executive director emphasized the many physicians who disagree with the AMA position and evidence from around the world regarding the potential viability of the off-label, FDA-approved drug as a supporting therapy targeting early-onset COVID-19.


    For example, Dr. Orient refers to the recent Tokyo Medical Association Chairman, Haruo Ozaki, recommending that Japanese doctors start using ivermectin to treat COVID-19, which TrialSite covers.


    What is the criteria to refuse?

    Given the AMA tactic, undoubtedly connected to other federal agencies involved with the COVID-19 response, requests in the letter that AMA state its criteria for advising pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions or for stopping the off-label use of long-approved drugs, recognizing that some 20 percent of prescriptions are for off-label indications. This is not an unreasonable request.


    AAPS’ head requested an explanation of AMA’s demand to restrict ivermectin to use within a clinical study while promoting mass use of novel vaccinations outside of studies despite FDA warnings of serious adverse effects such as myocarditis.


    “We believe that these questions get to the heart of issues of physician and patient autonomy, as well as scientific principles such as the need for a control group in experiments,” states the AAPS letter.


    TrialSite Take

    We suspect that the AMA and pharmacy associations have been gently requested behind the scenes to take a proactive stand against the growing use of ivermectin. The government health authorities (CDC, FDA, NIH, etc.) wants no perceived interference with A) mass vaccination and B) nascent pharma therapies in development, some of which are already funded by the government, to address the COVID-19 antiviral therapy market. A great concern throughout the pandemic has been misinformation from all sides that clutter and confuse the public.


    The country has been far too divided along several lines associated with the pandemic, from lockdowns and mask policy to the use of off-label therapies and vaccine safety. The federal government (federal agencies) generally has good reason to seek to secure a clear, concise, and correct uniform message about what is right for public health during this crisis.


    However, as TrialSite has chronicled, the pathway to the truth is littered with nefarious special interests, commercial agendas, and material bias among all the actors involved. So, on the one hand, working to provide a clear and coherent, and most importantly, truthful set of public health messages is paramount, but on the other hand, as we have documented, bias has definitely impacted this effort, infecting not only right-wing fringe groups but also the heart and soul of the medical establishment with eager media outlets ready to publish any number of half-truths or outright lies.


    Although 63 studies from around the world evidence utility and value some key studies that the government, whether it be NIH or FDA or other agencies, as well as other key medical and research influencers such as the World Health Organization, absolutely don’t interpret any of the positive data as such and consider ivermectin not part of any COVID-19 response plan. That should be obvious by the unfolding dynamics, including recently challenged fake news stories circulating the media.


    TrialSite has chronicled ivermectin studies since the first discovery by a group of Australian researchers that the well-known drug used to treat parasite-bone conditions destroyed SARS-CoV-2 in a cell culture. The subsequent studies have mainly been conducted in low-to middle-income countries (LMICs), far away from elite academic and government hubs in America and England.


    Initially ignored as the drug’s acceptance gained velocity, such as its use in India during the Delta variant-driven spike, a concerted effort unfolded to delegitimize any use associated with COVID-19, despite any positive study result or testimony of any number of physicians.


    Recently, TrialSite suggested that war has been declared to eradicate all off-label use of ivermectin associated with COVID-19. For what we consider a genuinely objective (taking into account all the material data from around the world) position, see the TrialSite ivermectin fact sheet.


    TrialSite has no particular interest in ivermectin or any other therapy other than following the studies and uncovering the truth as to efficacy and safety. A review of the TrialSite fact sheet shows while ivermectin is not a cure (there are no cures for COVID-19) nor a “silver bullet,” there are significant data points from around suggesting intensive study would be of benefit.


    Given the drug’s approved status and well-known safety record (over 4 billion doses have been administered over the last few decades), should the decision to use the treatment early on for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 by a licensed physician in good standing and a consenting patient be blocked by a confluence of federally aligned interests? A striking question that has a profound impact on the future of medicine in America.


    About the AAPS

    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has represented physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is Omnia pro aegroto, everything for the patient. A conservative-based group—some would say controversially conservative—TrialSite is an apolitical platform meaning the politics of an organization is less important than the science they promote.

  • WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay


    WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay
    Covid-19 could become endemic like the flu and circulate in the population at low levels.
    www.cnbc.com


    Covid-19 is likely "here to stay with us" as the virus continues to mutate in unvaccinated countries across the world and previous hopes of eradicating it diminish, WHO officials said.

    "People have said we're going to eliminate or eradicate the virus," Ryan said. "No we're not, very, very unlikely."


    Officials at the global health agency have previously said vaccines do not guarantee the world would eradicate Covid-19 like it has other viruses. Several leading health experts, including White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and Stephane Bancel, CEO of Covid vaccine maker Moderna, have warned that the world will have to live with Covid forever, much like influenza.


    CNBC Health & Science

    Read CNBC's latest global coverage of the Covid pandemic:


    WHO says wealthy nations are prolonging pandemic by hoarding Covid treatments and vaccines


    WHO says Covid will mutate like the flu and is likely here to stay


    WHO says delta remains the 'most concerning' Covid variant despite emergence of mu


    Malaysia will start treating Covid as 'endemic' around end-October, says trade minister


    "People have said we're going to eliminate or eradicate the virus," Ryan said. "No we're not, very, very unlikely."


    If the world had taken early steps to stop the spread of the virus, the situation today could have been very different, WHO officials said.


    "We had a chance in the beginning of this pandemic," Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO's technical lead on Covid-19, said Tuesday. "This pandemic did not need to be this bad

  • Here is a long news report about ivermectin, covering many aspects of it. It is very depressing. This article not behind the paywall:


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/01/ivermectin-covid-treatment/


    It ends with this horrifying story:


    In Louisiana, 33-year-old Kortney Asevedo said she also fears the long-term effects of the vaccines, even after her unvaccinated mother died while sick with covid-19 and taking everything that doctors prescribed, including ivermectin.


    “Me and my mom are kind of the same,” she said. “We wanted to wait and just kind of see.”

  • "People have said we're going to eliminate or eradicate the virus," Ryan said. "No we're not, very, very unlikely."

    This shows how people have been manipulated by the big pharma and finance mafia. To eradicate a virus you need a sterile protection from a real vaccine not a gen therapy that simulates a vaccine...


    So may be the next generation of vaccines (Cuba! Novavax) can deliver it. But in the mean time we have produced a mess with thousand of CoV-19 mutations thanks to fake vaccines and prohibited treatment in most western countries.


    We soon will have 3 billion of partially immune compromised people if the fake vaccination will go on with fake boosters. So it is easy to predict that all countermeasure made to ensure vaccine,mask sanitizers profits will cause far more problems including death than CoV-19 ever will produce.

    We already face a RSV Virus pandemic among children far above anything seen in the past.

  • Higher Ct means lower viral load.


    Now how did I discover this fact? Funnily enough it was written in the first sentence below that 'figure 12' Wyttenbach was ranting about.

    I took a look at that Fig 12, and it seems to support what Wytten said. Patients with the Delta variant (All3P) who have had both jabs (more than 21 days before), are represented by the green line.


    Patients with Delta (All3P) who are unvaccinated are the blue line.


    The two graph lines merge in ~early June 2021, at a Ct (number of cycles run before the virus is detected) below 20. That means patients with Delta who are fully vaccinated, and those unvaccinated with Delta, now have equally low Ct's/high viral loads.


    You said "Higher Ct means lower viral load" which is correct. But Wytten said "lower CT means higher viral loads" which is also correct..


    Possibly, you may be looking at the red graph line? It represents patients with both jabs who had the Alpha variant (SGTF). It does show a higher Ct value/lower viral load, which means the vaccines are still doing well against the Alpha.


    Note: UK data considers unvaccinated as anyone who has not had a jab yet, and also those who had the first jab...but 21 days has not yet passed since getting the shot. Those with the second jab are still considered single jabbed if 21 days has not yet passed. Here in the US, I believe it is 14 days.

  • Another IVM hit piece, another retraction:


    AP Corrects Ivermectin ‘Fake News’ — It’s Only 2% Poison Control Calls, Not 70% as Earlier Published - NewsRescue.com
    by Adan Salazar, The Associated Press issued a correction to a story last month that claimed a hospital in Mississippi was inundated with patients who…
    newsrescue.com


    "AP Corrects Ivermectin ‘Fake News’ — It’s Only 2% Poison Control Calls, Not 70% as Earlier Published"

  • The executive director of a conservative-focused physicians group known as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) sent a letter to Gerald Harmon, MD, president of the powerful American Medical Association (AMA), to raise concerns associated with an unprecedented campaign to vilify ivermectin as a potential supporting therapy in the war against COVID-19

    This is proof that many doctors are idiots. I have known that for years, because I read news stories about malpractice suits. The only mystery is: How did these people ever get through medical school?

    Given the drug’s approved status and well-known safety record (over 4 billion doses have been administered over the last few decades),

    That has to be stupidest comment about ivermectin yet. Chocolate ice cream is eaten millions of times a day. It has a well-known safety record. However, it does not cure COVID. There is little or no evidence that ivermectin cures COVID. If it does, the effect is so marginal it is almost impossible to detect. It cannot be the miracle cure that these nitwits at TrialSite and AAPS claim.

    should the decision to use the treatment early on for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 by a licensed physician in good standing and a consenting patient be blocked by a confluence of federally aligned interests?

    Any doctor can prescribe a drug off label, and no confluence of anyone can stop that. So that is an imaginary question about an alternative universe. No one is impeding ivermectin, because 88,000 prescriptions are being written per week. That is a large crowd of idiotic doctors and patients. And corpses. I expect that nearly all of those patients are taking ivermectin instead of a vaccine. I say that because a person who is vaccinated, who is very stupid, might also get some ivermectin. But he is not likely to take it every day. He will put it aside "just in case." So, only a few one-time prescriptions will go out to vaccinated people. Most of the 88,000, plus the other uncounted ones, plus the ones for animals are probably all being taken by people on a regular basis because they don't want vaccinations.


    There are many accounts of sick and dying people who said, "but I took ivermectin!" So many, it is now going beyond anecdotal evidence. If a large hospital would start logging the number, it would be a public service. Here is one number they have logged, which tells the whole story. In Georgia, where about half the population is unvaccinated, 97% of hospitalized patients are unvaccinated, and close to 100% of those who die are unvaccinated. It is extremely likely that many of those people took ivermectin. It has to be going somewhere. Anyone with half a brain can see that it does no good. Or possibly, a little bit of good, but probably no more than chocolate ice cream.

  • Another IVM hit piece, another retraction:

    If it had been a hit piece, they would not retract it. A hit piece is a lie: "an article, a documentary, etc. that deliberately tries to make somebody/something look bad by presenting information about them that appears to be true and accurate but actually is not." People do not retract lies. People who publish such things don't care about accuracy. See, for example, FOX News. They never retract anything.


    If they retracted it, that means it was an honest mistake. Only honest people retract things. Although, in American journalism, there is no penalty for refusing to retract a lie or a mistake. You just brazen it out. The Scientific American has been lying about the Wright brothers since 1906. Their latest hit piece against them was published in 2003. They will never retract a word of it, any more than they would retract their attacks on cold fusion.

  • That has to be stupidest comment about ivermectin yet. Chocolate ice cream is eaten millions of times a day. It has a well-known safety record. However, it does not cure COVID. There is little or no evidence that ivermectin cures COVID.

    You have no problem with people eating ice cream, so why the apoplexy over the people wanting to ingest an equally benign IVM?

    There is little or no evidence that ivermectin cures COVID. If it does, the effect is so marginal it is almost impossible to detect.

    The one study you produced to prove how lame (unweighted) the studies on IVM were, actually showed a 2 day better recovery. Many prescription drug fortunes have been made over far more suspect evidence. Had that one study used the whole "medical kit", it would have shown even more efficacy.

    Any doctor can prescribe a drug off label, and no confluence of anyone can stop that. So that is an imaginary question about an alternative universe.

    Yeah right, but they know there will be consequences. You yourself have become part of the mob that will make them pay. Some can handle the threat to their livelihood, and reputations, most can not.

  • Now back to the Wyttenfacting…


    All statistics clearly show the vaccines after about 4 months do no longer work against delta.

    As the last report (22) shows ICU/DEATH age > 50 among vaccinated/unvaccinated is 3:1. the ratio vaccinated/unvaccinated is close to 9:1. So the vaccine efficiency over all now is at 66% for death but < "0"! for a delta infection.


    Both these statements are complete nonsense, as shown by this chart:


    External Content twitter.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.



    And explained by this one:


    External Content twitter.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.



    And handily, the souce of these charts is pre-approved by Wyttenbach, so I would imagine that he is unable to resort to his usual disturbed cries of “mafia” influences, or plain just refusing to read them. I wonder how he will deal with the cognitive dissonance?

  • You have no problem with people eating ice cream, so why the apoplexy over the people wanting to ingest an equally benign IVM?


    Can’t speak for Jed, but i think the general dismay for ivermectin comes from the understanding that it is a bad thing for doctors to be seen to be doling out quack remedies. It undermines patient trust, and reduces the appearance of a doctor’s professional standing.


    The latter is almost certainly why the AMA are against it. Their basic role is to uphold professional standards. It is absolutely in their interests to prevent the profession eventually falling in with the category of chiropractors, naturopaths, and muti men. (The AAPS don’t care about this, as evidenced by their wacky claims involving HIV and AIDs, and abortion and breast cancer).


    If I was forced to predict the outcomes of the two ongoing, and respectable, clinical trials of ivermectin, I’d guess it will show a weak positive effect, but it will not be the magic bullet that the facebook ‘horse paste’ lickers would have you believe. And that does not account for the negative effect of increased vaccine hesitancy that very likely comes from having misplaced trust in it.


    Anyway… on a lighter note… Republicans against ivermectin:


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    And on a darker note:


    The Herman Cain Awards …where ivermectin crops up relatively frequently.

  • The Intercept Document Dump Reveals Troubling Evidence of GoF Research: Did Dr. Anthony Fauci Lie to Congress?


    The Intercept Document Dump Reveals Troubling Evidence of GoF Research: Did Dr. Anthony Fauci Lie to Congress?
    Over the summer Sen. Rand Paul grilled Dr. Anthony Fauci in front of a Senate committee declaring Dr. Fauci “knowing it is a crime to lie to congress, do
    trialsitenews.com


    Over the summer Sen. Rand Paul grilled Dr. Anthony Fauci in front of a Senate committee declaring Dr. Fauci “knowing it is a crime to lie to congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11 where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of fund research in Wuhan.” The chief medical advisor and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the national Institutes of health (NIH) responded “I never lied before congress and I do not retract that statement.” Fauci immediately then held up a thick document declaring qualified staff reviewed this research up and down the chain and concluded this research was not gain of function. But now a major document dump sent to The Intercept indicates potential trouble for Fauci. The insider documents secured via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal NIH funded gain of function research in Wuhan, China.


    Gain of function research includes any research that makes viruses more transmissible and more deadly. According to the document obtained by The Intercept the NIH was specifically funding GOF to spike the gene of one coronavirus to other coronaviruses the document revealed thus the research has created “new more potent virus that could easily infect humans.” Gary Ruskin with US Right to know said the documents reveal “a roadmap to the high risk research that could have led to the current pandemic.”


    This grant has been known for months but the new internal documents expose exactly what went on during the virus infection on the mice. Richard Ebright, a chemistry professor at Rutgers pointed out “the materials for the first time indicate that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses. Was more pathogenic to humanized mice than the starting virus from which it was constructed” as reported by Fox.


    The NIH was sending taxpayer funds to Peter Daszak of EcoHealth to make coronaviruses more dangerous. As recently Dec 2019 just before the pandemic began Daszak was bragging how easy it is to manipulate the coronavirus in an interview here.


    Daszak organized a letter to The Lancet from several virologists claiming that the virus didn’t originate in a lab. Fauci used this letter as proof that the virus was not man-made. However TrialSite has reported before that in December, right before the pandemic the EcoHealth Alliance director Daszak went on the record, again in an interview that not only were they manipulating coronaviruses but also that there could be hundreds of the pathogens.


    The Grant

    As reported in various media a proposal involved $3.1 million for the study “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence ” involving the screening of thousands of lab workers for novel bat coronaviruses reportedYahoo News. Finally awarded for five years (2014-2019) the grant was then renewed before being suspended by the Trump Administration. Note that in 2014 the Obama administration put a halt on gain of function research in the United States. The Wuhan Institute of Virology received $599,000 for research designed to make the viruses more dangerous and/or infectious while the author acknowledged the danger associated with such work reported Yahoo News.


    Potential Danger

    The recent document dump from the Intercept also reveals just how concerned researchers were about accidents that could happen, reported Fox. After reviewing the recently obtained documents a biologist named Alina Chan declared “In this proposal, they actually point out that they know how risky the work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten—and they keep records of everyone who got bitten” as reported on Fox.


    Fox’s Brian Kilmeade asked an important question: does EcoHealth Alliance actually have access to these records? And if not, how can they be so sure other accidents did occur?


    There have been concerns with the quality and safety at Wuhan’s facilities as video footage reveals from Australian television.


    Do these documents now indicate Fauci was lying under oath in front of Congress? If so, that’s a crime. Professor Richard Ebright went on the record that both Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci’s assertions that the NIH did not support gain of function research of potential pandemic pathogen enhancement are untruthful.


    Is Fauci correct in that this type of research technically is not gain of function or did he in fact lie in front of Congress? The pressure in this situation mounts as people want answers as to what is the true source of SARS-CoV-2.


    Call to Action: Visit The Intercept and read the documents for yourself here


    New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab
    More than 900 pages of materials related to US.-funded coronavirus research in China were released following a FOIA lawsuit by The Intercept.
    theintercept.com

  • COVID-19 Leading to Obesity Crisis Among Kids, Reports Large Observational Kaiser Permanente



    COVID-19 Leading to Obesity Crisis Among Kids, Reports Large Observational Kaiser Permanente Study
    A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network led by Kaiser Permanente Southern California reveals
    trialsitenews.com


    A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network led by Kaiser Permanente Southern California reveals that childhood obesity rises, augmented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Involving almost 200,000 children, the study reveals that the pandemic has led to a severe obesity crisis, especially among children between 5 and 11 years old. Corinna Koebnick, Ph.D., led as senior author and observed that weight gains occurred across all age groups during the pandemic. She continued that the youngest kids face the worst situation as those aged 5 to 11 “gained 5 extra pounds, while 16 to 17 year-olds gained 2 extra pounds.” The next result is a 9% boost in obesity for the youngest cohorts—a troubling data point.


    Health as a Mission

    TrialSite has emphasized the dangers of growing obesity rates in America and other countries. The pandemic has hit those with obesity and other comorbidities particularly hard. Key moving forward is a pivot in the health system to focus on lifestyle commitments to healthy living. This means, as the Kaiser researchers see it, “As children back to school, it will be important to focus on health and physical activity to help children not carry unwanted extra weight into adulthood.” TrialSite suggests the social determinants of health remain a vital factor in understanding the move toward healthier tomorrows, especially in lower socioeconomic cohorts.


    The Study

    The investigators at one of the largest health systems in America utilized the electronic health records of 191,509 members aged 5 to 17 from Mach 1, 2019 to January 31, 2021. As reported from Kaiser Permanente’s news service, the study team uncovered that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase in body weight and in the prevalence of obesity, particularly for children 5 to 11 years old.


    Youth age 5 to 11 years gained 5.07 pounds more during COVID-19 than during the same period before COVID-19, while youth aged 12 to 15 years and 16 to 17 years gained an excess of 5.1 pounds and 2.26 pounds over the prior year, respectively.

    Among 5-to-11-year-olds, this weight gain resulted in almost 9% more children becoming overweight or obese compared to 5% in youth aged 12 to 15 years and 3% in youth aged 16 to 17 years. Most of the increase among youths 5-11 and 12-15 years old was due to increased obesity.

    Dr. Koebnick emphasized the urgency of this crisis, commenting, “We need to immediately begin to invest in monitoring the worsening obesity epidemic and develop diet and activity interventions to help children achieve and maintain a healthy weight.”


    Other Authors

    Other authors on the study include co-lead authors Susan J. Woolford, MD, of the Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, University of Michigan, Northville, Mich, and Margo Sidell, ScD, of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation; as well as Veronica Else, RN, of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Yorba Linda, Calif.; Xia Li, MSc, and Deborah Rohm Young, Ph.D. of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation; and Ken Resnicow, Ph.D., of School of Public Health, University of Michigan Department of Health Behavior and Health.


    About Kaiser Permanente

    Kaiser Permanente is committed to helping shape the future of healthcare. We are recognized as one of America’s leading health care providers and not-for-profit health plans. Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente has a mission to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve. We currently serve approximately 12.5 million members in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Care for members and patients is focused on their total health and guided by their personal Permanente Medical Group physicians, specialists, and a team of caregivers. Our expert and caring medical teams are empowered and supported by industry-leading technology advances and tools for health promotion, disease prevention, state-of-the-art care delivery, and world-class chronic disease management. Kaiser Permanente is dedicated to care innovations, clinical research, health education, and the support of community health.


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Corinna Koebnick, Ph.D., MSc, Research Scientist II, Senior Author


    Body Mass Index Among Children and Adolescents During the COVID-19
    This study compared body mass index of youngsters during the COVID-19 pandemic to the same time in 2019 to determine whether they experienced pandemic-related…
    jamanetwork.com

  • You do realize chili suffered through the latest surge while 76% vaccinated. You claimed in June that the Chinese vacs don't work, now all of a sudden they do? You flip flop like a fish out of water!!!

  • Those Israeli figures that form a constant WyttenCrusade *:


    Deaths were - until very recently - going up a lot: but, like the UK, are relatively low relative to infections. Infections however have been 3X the high UK rate (the UK may go there this winter, we don't know).


    WyttenFactoid:

    That is because the vaccine is becoming ineffective


    Real reasons:

    COVID R value > 1 - maybe a bit because vaccines are becoming less effective at stopping delta infection. Mainly country specific factors - levels of social contact, indoor meeting, ventilation, etc

    ==> infection rates are increasing exponentially

    ==> death rates are increasing exponentially


    Israel now has a staggering 5% of population infected by COVID


    This is exactly what the let-it-rip warriors were calling for at the start of the pandemic. It means natural immunity will stop things fairly soon.


    Delta COVID enormously (2X) increases R-value. 80% adult vaccination, as in Uk or Israel enormously ( 2X) decreases it. Based on UK experience it looks as though vaccination at UK levels slightly outweighs delta, since we now have stable rates. But you need to take into account increasing levels of natural immunity as well, so it is difficult to be sure.


    • Anyway what everyone notices is the overall infection rate which goes up or down exponentially according to R value >1 or R value < 1
    • Most people do not understand how exponentials work (based on posts here W does not). In UK or Israel a small +30% change in tramsmissability, e.g. maybe everyone or no-one wearing masks diligently in shops, makes the difference between fast increase and fast decrease in infection rate. What looks tiny 1 week will look frightening and terrible in 8 weeks time, even though nothing has changed. Then, due to immunity kicking in (how epidemics work) it will look fine like zero rate in another 8 weeks.
    • What doctors, hospitals and governments notice is the overall hospitalisation rate
    • Delta COVID has an unvaccinated IFR of only 1.5% (in old demographics countries - much less in young demographics countries).
    • Even though hospitals and doctors notice the deaths, most people won't, because for most people (even old people) COVID may be very nasty but you recover. For 1 in 10 there is a long COVID long or no full recovery. But that is not noticed till long after


    Back to Israel.



    In fact, looking at the cases, new infections, even deaths graphs, it looks as though infections are now rapidly dropping. Not because of an introduction of ivermectin - but because that is what epidemics do when they run out of hosts. Or maybe this is the effect of booster vaccines - not sure if we have yet had enough time for that to kick in on R value. Probably a it of both.


    I'm not totally certain - maybe the recent days 7 day average lower case numbers are a reporting artifact? But if not this is very good news. Israeli doctors are reporting a levelling off of admissions etc.


    Israel is a special case because it is adult higjly vaccinated but it has a very large young unvaccinated population. This drives the infections and R value, and means anyone vulnerable (anti-vaxer, poor immune system) can gets serious COVID at a higher rate.


    90% of the newspaper reports talking about coronavirus deaths (like W here) do not factor in the high case rate. they see exponentially increasing deaths as somehow a failure of vaccines, the health system, etc.

    In reality it is a failure of social distancing measures. Or, if you are a let-it-rip warrior it is a success of the opening up, and will get things over with quickly.


    • The number of false COVID deaths - where somone dying of a normal heart attack is tested in hospital and found to have asymptomatic COVID - goes up with the infection rate. With 90% of > 65 adult population vaccinated that will look like reduced vaccine protection against death but will not be that. It would be worth investigating whether this is significant.
    • The high proportion of vaccine vs non-vaccine deaths is explained by the vulnerable get vaccinated effect and Simpson's Paradox

    Do false COVID deaths count?


    If we suppose most deaths occur in hospital, then the false COVID rate will simply be the infected population fraction multiplied by the normal population mortality rate.


    Israel - death rate 2009-2019 | Statista
    The statistic shows the death rate in Israel from 2009 to 2019.
    www.statista.com


    Annual 2018 mortality rate 5 deaths / 1000 people / year => 35,000 deaths per year => 100 deaths per day.


    5% of this is 5 deaths per day.


    Israeli COVID death rate: 30 deaths per day (at current peak)


    So it looks as though false COVID deaths are significant at these very high infection rates - accounting for maybe 20% of the overall apparent death rate - but still this rate is roughly correct.


    There are quite a few uncertainties in this calculation of false COVID deaths. for example, deaths within 28 days of a COVID test will bring in a whole load of extra no longer infected people.


    So:

    • How much of the Israeli higher IFR is waning vaccine efficacy, how much of it is increasing false COVID rate caused by super-high case rate? I'm not sure, a month ago it would have been 100% vaccine efficiency. Israel has consistently had much lower figures than otehr places and i wonder if there is some other factor here as well, though it could juts be longer time from vaccination.
    • How much of the higher mortality figures is higher infection, how much is vaccine efficiency? Almost all higher infection rate
    • How much of the higher R value is waning vaccine efficacy against infection, how much is other factors? Really difficult to tell because other factors - air conditioning and ventilation, do people meet indoors, how many people gather regularly in indoor places of worship with poor ventilation - are very significant.
    • Given Israel infections, deaths are now falling, how much is that due to boosters? Really difficult to tell.
    • Israeli infection rates are now also falling. How much is that due to boosters, how muhc to increasing natural immunity? I'd expect more natural immnunity due to that very large young population all getting COVID and driving infection.


    Trying to do these estimates gives you a real sense of sympathy for the public health officials who have somehow to communicate this complex picture to the public - who are then misinformed by viral antivax posts on social media and conspiracy theories about how doctors throughout the world (e.g. the AMA) want to kill people by denying treatment.


    If people gave these really difficult to tell answers to everything, then we have antivax lies which are simple and certain, public health announcements no-one can understand, and guess which people rememeber?


    It makes you really annoyed at 1-D Wyttenfactoidal thinking.



    * WyttenCrusade. A (slightly varying) real fact followed by a repeated constant Wyttenfact and explanation involving capital letters and the word Mafia.