Interesting research discussing why the curve seems to go linear in many countries.
Why Covid 19 Infection Curves Behave So Unexpectedly.
"What we saw instead was a constant level of infections with a similar number of new infections every day," adds co-author Peter Klimek (CSH & Medical Univ of Vienna). "To explain this with standard epidemiological models would basically be impossible."
Like many I am on ACE inhibitors, so I have been tracking the debate on blood pressure medications and their relationship with Covid-19.
Initially there were concerns that some blood pressure medications could make the virus infection more dangerous.
However the results seem to be mounting that in fact they have a beneficial effect.
This article is on the WebMD site.
Interesting research discussing why the curve seems to go linear in many countries.
Why Covid 19 Infection Curves Behave So Unexpectedly.
Good article. I have been wondering about this very question. An epidemic should either increase or decrease exponentially. A plateau cannot be explained by conventional modelling. This article may explain it.
I guess this is a new pattern you would not have seen in previous epidemics. It has been brought about by changes in our lifestyle and the ability to test for the illness. That's my understanding of the article.
I am getting scared. Is it better in other parts of the world?
Authoritarians are dropping their facades everywhere --
In the U.S., Biden is proposing mandatory mask wearing (just for starters) --
Biden and Harris call for nationwide mandatory mask order
No doubt, corporations will make employment contingent on accepting vaccination.
Passports and travel may also be reserved only for the vaccinated.
COVID-1984 From A Two Week Lockdown To Mandatory Vaccination & Life In Prison
Thanks for posting Dr. Bhakdi's warning on rushing vaccines ---
Dr. Bhakdi speaking of the aftermath of the swine flu vaccination (English translation)
"Sweden had a very high vaccination rate that included children and young people, and
they were destined to bemoan many hundreds of cases of narcolepsy. Narcolepsy is a type
of sleeping disorder, which causes the sleep-wake cycle to be disrupted. People
suddenly get sleeping attacks where they cannot stay awake. Their lives are ruined.
In Northern Europe we have had about 2000 cases of narcolepsy due to the vaccine"
An observational study with favorable HCQ outcomes --
Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19:
A multi-center observational study
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.08.20.20178772v1
Trial Site News discusses impediments to inexpensive Covid treatments --
Big Money, Politics & Fed Gov Redirects & Captivates Mass Attention:
Obscuring Pragmatic Off-Label Studies Targeting COVID-19
https://www.trialsitenews.com/…udies-targeting-covid-19/
How much economic and social damage will continued lockdowns infllict?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya | Lockdowns, Vaccines and Debt
Regarding mask wearing.
I think wearing a mask should be a free decision and people should be free to choose.
If YOU don't want to wear a mask that is YOUR choice.
But if YOU want to come into MY house then I say you need a mask, or don't come into my house. Your choice
If YOU want to come into MY shop then wear a mask or go to another shop, YOU are free to choose.
If YOU want to come into MY country, then once vaccines are available I would expect either you show proof of vaccination, or self isolate for a suitable period, or do not travel to MY country, again you have a free choice.
Many countries already closed their borders to cut infection risk so this is just a continuation of that logic.
There are several articles online pointing out the similarity to when seat belts were made mandatory and some felt it interfered with their freedom to exit the vehicle via the windscreen.
Authoritarians are dropping their facades everywhere --
In the U.S., Biden is proposing mandatory mask wearing (just for starters) --
Was that also authoritarian in 1918, when people were sentenced to jail for not wearing masks? Or was society more authoritarian back then? I think it probably was more authoritarian, and I think it should be now. This is the golden era of personal freedom. I think we have gone too far in that direction, especially in matters of public health. We have too much freedom nowadays. We should not allow parents to refuse to vaccinate their children. That would have been unthinkable when I was growing up.
If we do not all wear masks in the U.S., experts estimate that 30,000 more people will die this year. That is a terrible price to pay for "freedom." Will we also allow people to drive without stopping at red lights or stop signs, the way they do in India and S. Korea? Will we allow parents to give their children beer, hard liquor and cigarettes? Parents used to be free to do that, in the 19th century. Why not now?
Convalescent Plasma
"Major therapeutic breakthrough"
FDA Hahn apologizes for 10x error... without mentioning the numbers.
Hahn stated it had a 35% absolute risk reduction for death, should have been the 35% relative risk reduction
(absolute reduction of ~3.2%) between early vs. late transfusion..
Dr. Stephen M. Hahn
@SteveFDA · 19h I have been criticized for remarks I made Sunday night about the benefits of convalescent plasma.
The criticism is entirely justified. What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction not an absolute risk reduction.
I think wearing a mask should be a free decision and people should be free to choose.
If YOU don't want to wear a mask that is YOUR choice.
I think so too, but no stores, malls, schools or any other enclosed public space should be allowed to admit people without masks. It should not be up to the store owner. The owner has no right to endanger other customers by allowing people in without masks.
If you don't want to wear a mask, you should not be allowed to go out in public. We should not allow such irresponsible behavior to kill 30,000 people. So, stay home. Stay on private property, or outdoors 6 feet from other people. You can order all your groceries brought to your house, and order everything else by Amazon. That was not an option in 1918. It is much easier to live without going out in public now than it used to be. I do not see a problem here. There is no interfering in anyone's freedom, any more than there is when we say people are not allowed into the grocery stores naked, and they are not allowed to shit in a grocery store aisle. That would be a public health threat and a violation of social norms. So is going shopping without a mask. We don't allow such things now, and we never did.
Interesting research discussing why the curve seems to go linear in many countries.
Why Covid 19 Infection Curves Behave So Unexpectedly.
"What we saw instead was a constant level of infections with a similar number of new infections every day," adds co-author Peter Klimek (CSH & Medical Univ of Vienna). "To explain this with standard epidemiological models would basically be impossible."
I am very pleased to read this - it explains nicely and without fudging why the actual infection rates are so different from the exponentials expected.
I'm just a bit disappointed that the epidemiologists were not doing this stuff earlier - I think it is they have their models and that prevents them from moving to something more realistic.
Well done Zeno for finding one of the most (scientifically) interesting links. IMHO of course, I may get egg on my face.
THH
FDA Hahn apologizes for 10x error
Hahn stated it had a 35% absolute risk reduction for death, should have been the 35% relative risk reduction
(absolute reduction of ~3.2%) between early vs. late transfusion..
Yes. It was poorly explained. He did not mean to say it was a 35% absolute risk reduction, but it sounded that way. This is explained in detail here:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponli…s-outbreak-trump-fda.html
This sort of misunderstanding often occurs in matters of public health and disease risk. For example, you read something like:
Processed Meat -- There is No Safe Amount of Processed Meat
"Just one hot dog or a few strips of bacon consumed daily increases cancer risk by 18 percent."
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutr…nformation/processed-meat
It probably does increase risk by 18%, but not in absolute percent terms. You have to ask: 18% from what to what? It is not like 18% of people who eat bacon get colon cancer. The risk factor (RR) for colorectum cancer rises from ~1.8 to ~1.9. It rises a lot more for gastric cancer. It falls for lung cancer (which I suspect is experimental noise). See:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12543
Potential health hazards of heat red meat
You might as well say, "there is hardly any significant safety problem with processed meat." That is also what the numbers show.
You can learn many other devious ways to manipulate percentages and statistics, by accident or deliberately, in a marvelous little book titled "How to Lie with Statistics."
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie…/dp/B00351DSX2/ref=sr_1_1
My late mother, a noted statistician, introduced me to this book at a tender age. I have her first edition copy from 1954. It is as relevant today as it was then.
Display MoreRegarding mask wearing.
I think wearing a mask should be a free decision and people should be free to choose.
If YOU don't want to wear a mask that is YOUR choice.
But if YOU want to come into MY house then I say you need a mask, or don't come into my house. Your choice
If YOU want to come into MY shop then wear a mask or go to another shop, YOU are free to choose.
If YOU want to come into MY country, then once vaccines are available I would expect either you show proof of vaccination, or self isolate for a suitable period, or do not travel to MY country, again you have a free choice.
Many countries already closed their borders to cut infection risk so this is just a continuation of that logic.
There are several articles online pointing out the similarity to when seat belts were made mandatory and some felt it interfered with their freedom to exit the vehicle via the windscreen.
In a country with highish COVID infection rates then people moving around in enclosed spaces (perhaps public ones) without masks will increase R. We don't know by how much, but it seems likely significant.
Since the value (locally) of R has such great significance, determining shutdowns and hardship for so many people, surely government should have a right to prevent this harm by enforcing mask wearing.
We are not saying this enforcement should be too draconian. but it is well known that once something is mandated by law - even if only civil law (e.g. you get speeding penalties or fine for not wearing a seat belt) compliance increases a lot.
Greater compliance with mask wearing => lower R.
Interesting the comparisons above with seatbelt wearing that seem to me specious.
(1) In reality for everyone wearing seatbelts reduces injuries and deaths. A lot. If somone makes a personal decision against the evidence (exiting via windscreen) they are indisputably wrong and the state does have some interest in avoiding messy and expensive (health service) road injuries.
(2) The situation with marks is similar to whether drivers should be responsible for passengers wearing seatbelts. In this case driving while your passengers are not belted up is clearly putting them in greater, and unnecessary, danger.
Zeno - I'd be interested in your reply. Context here in UK is that I and many others thought seatbelts were silly till they were made compulsory. Since then there has been high compliance and looking at the change in statistics for road injuries, I would feel morally in peril if I drove without requiring my passengers to belt up. For myself? Less so, but I'm not an idiot and I wear belts too. In the UK this common sense can be a matter for the state because when somone has a bad RTA they typically cost the health service (and hence tax payer) a lot of money. Even in the US the fact that ERs are available to all perhaps means this arguments holds, though i'd guess it is less strong - you do not pay for long and expensive rehabilitation etc.
Living in a civilisation is always a trade-off - you sacrifice some personal liberty for collective benefits. We all have a different idea of what is best - and different countries make this trade-off in different ways. I think it is justifiable in almost any way, though some societies are not to my taste. Bottom line, if you don't like your local civilisation - go somewhere else. Libertarians should want emigration, and hence immigration, to be much easier.
I'm just a bit disappointed that the epidemiologists were not doing this stuff earlier - I think it is they have their models and that prevents them from moving to something more realistic.
I believe they have been hard at work on this, for months. I read some technical literature pointing out this anomaly. They were trying to figure out why.
I am a rank amateur in epidemiology, but I saw this pattern weeks ago, and it puzzled me. I am sure all the professionals saw it and debated why it was happening. It took no great skill for me to see this. A simple comparison of the curves from the 1918 epidemic, other epidemics earlier in history, and the natural course of an epidemic among animals shows that this one is different. For that we should be thankful. It was easy for me to see this, but I had no idea why. I was just glad to see a plateau instead of a catastrophic increase.
The plateau does not appear in all countries. I don't see it in the data from China, Italy or Japan. These are the expected exponential rises, followed by exponential declines. See, for example, Japan:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/
I believe the sharp rise followed by a slower but still exponential decline is characteristic of previous epidemics. There is hardly any steady state, except at the very low infection rates between May 16 and June 27.
I totally agree.
An interesting video of Prof. Bhakdi (german with subtitles) about the covid vaccination I highly recommend:
External Content www.youtube.comContent 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.
This is an important video and addresses the absolute danger of this attempt at vaccination and of vaccines in general.
It covers off many of the risk factors addressed on this blog - of T-cell immunity already being in the population. The fact that he says there is an obviously non-existent risk/reward for those under 65, is notable.
There aren't too sides to this debate, anyone pushing mandatory vaccination is an authoritarian anti-science shill. As mentioned a long time ago, this was the intent all along from the very beginning.
The risk factor (RR) for colorectum cancer rises from ~1.8 to ~1.9. It rises a lot more for gastric cancer. It falls for lung cancer (which I suspect is experimental noise).
If you look closely at that graph, you will see that it seems to show that processed meat greatly reduces the likelihood of liver cancer. I expect that is an experimental error, not an actual, statistically meaningful discovery. But it makes you think. Suppose eating bacon does reduce liver cancer? And lung cancer. Suppose that as shown here, bacon has only a small effect on most other forms of cancer, such as colon cancer, but it increases kidney cancer a lot. So what are the odds? Where do you place your chips on this roulette table?
Liver cancer deaths per year: 27,000. Goes down!
Colon cancer deaths per year: 53,000. Pretty much unchanged, along with most other types.
Kidney cancer deaths per year: 14,000. Way up, but from a small percent to another small percent. 14,000 people is 0.004% of the population.
Lung cancer deaths per year: 149,000. Goes down!
Since lung cancer is more prevalent, it would seem that eating bacon reduces your overall chances of dying from cancer.
Needless to say, that is preposterous. I suspect it is an example of trying to draw conclusions from experimental noise. I don't suppose all of this data is noise. I wouldn't know, and this is mere speculation, but perhaps the dramatic increase in kidney cancer is caused by processed meat. The kidneys are directly affected by digestion, whereas lungs are less directly affected. My point is, a causal connection would shore up the finding.
As Mark Twain explained:
"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . . . There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
There aren't too sides to this debate, anyone pushing mandatory vaccination is an authoritarian anti-science shill.
As you say, there are not two sides. There is only one. The whole history of modern medicine going back to Jenner shows that vaccination has saved far more lives than any other breakthrough in history. It shows that without vaccination, millions of people, mainly children, will suffer and die in agony. Whereas vaccines kill or disable a few dozen people a year. What you present here are lies. Evil lies that will kill millions of people if they become widely believed. Why you or anyone else believes this I cannot say, but it is like believing the earth is flat, or the moon landings were faked. Except that thinking the earth is flat is a harmless delusion, whereas your belief would cause more deaths than World War II.
This not anti-science. It is authoritarian, in the same sense that telling people they most stop at red lights is authoritarian, and telling people they are not allowed to shit in the grocery store aisle is authoritarian. Without that level of authoritarian control over society, things become hellishly dangerous very quickly. If you don't believe me, try crossing a road in South Korea or India when there are no policemen around. In a 25 mph zone, the light turns red, you step out into a striped pedestrian crosswalk, and a car comes bearing down at you at 40 mph from the other side of the red light. It does not stop. It does not slow down. The driver leans on the horn, and if you do not jump back out of the way, you will be killed. That is what happened to me several times before I realized that traffic laws are not enforced in Korea, and pedestrians never have the right of way.
If you want to live in a society where vaccination is not enforced, or where drivers are free to threaten pedestrians with death, or for that matter where anyone is free to shit on the floor in a store or on the street, you should move to some third world country. Do not expect people in an orderly, developed nation where public health has meaning to believe your conspiracy theory garbage.
This is an important video and addresses the absolute danger of this attempt at vaccination and of vaccines in general.
Which is nonexistent. Like the absolute danger of being gored to death by a unicorn.
Display MoreAs you say, there are not two sides. There is only one.
This not anti-science. It is authoritarian, in the same sense that telling people they most stop at red lights is authoritarian,
If you want to live in a society where vaccination is not enforced, or where drivers are free to threaten pedestrians with death, or for that matter where anyone is free to shit on the floor in a store or on the street, you should move to some third world country. Do not expect people in an orderly, developed nation where public health has meaning to believe your conspiracy theory garbage.
Which is nonexistent. Like the absolute danger of being gored to death by a unicorn.
Until you address his argumentation, people will see this as mindless drivel. The "authority" who gave this talk has become a conspiracy theorist to Jed Rothwell - persona non-grata.
I'm not sure what club you are in that pushes you to market your ideas here-- and that believes this medical intervention is mandatory - when that is illogical from the outset. Interventions (especially those with serious risks) must be tailored to the person involved. The first principle is not "inject" but "do no harm."
I say this with total conviction you have no idea what you are saying and it just a bunch of emotional blather. I hope those who read this and see you how you respond, learn how to deconstruct the mainstream narrative for the empty marketing it is.
So when the vaccine comes out, who should governments mandate vaccinations for...all age groups, or only those at high-risk?
Until you address his argumentation, people will see this as mindless drivel.
The whole HISTORY OF MEDICINE, from 1770 to the present is irrefutable proof that vaccinations save millions of lives. This is as certain as Newton's laws, Darwin's theory of evolution, or Pasteur's germ theory. The proof is overwhelming. This person's "argumentation" cannot amount to anything more than flat-earth garbage, because his conclusions are wrong.
Some aspects of science are questionable. Some of the canon is incomplete, or an approximation, and some is probably wrong. But much of science and medicine is true beyond question. The efficacy and safety of vaccines is not in doubt.
I say this with total conviction you have no idea what you are saying and it just a bunch of emotional blather.
Your conviction and $1.49 will get you a Hershey bar at Wall Mart. When conviction leads you to deny some of the most certain scientific facts there are, your convictions are delusional. Conviction alone is worth nothing, and proves nothing. You must look at facts.
So when the vaccine comes out, who should governments mandate vaccinations for...all age groups, or only those at high-risk?
If this were 1963, the government would order everyone to get it, and everyone would line up and be vaccinated. That is what happened when the oral polio vaccine was developed. That would be the best thing to do. That saved thousands of lives. Unfortunately in the present era people no longer follow the rules and do what experts say they should do. People have ridiculous ideas about what constitutes "freedom." They do not trust science or experts. I blame the Vietnam war and right-wing radio for that. Regardless of what brought it about, you can no longer order people to be vaccinated. So, we will have to let people do as they please. I expect that enough people will get it to ensure herd immunity. If I were the Emperor of America I would be tempted to make a rule:
You don't have to get the COVID-19 vaccination. But if you don't get it, and you get sick, you are on your own. You will have to pay 100% of hospital costs. No insurance, and no government help of any kind will be given to you.
To put it another way, the people who die from the disease after a vaccine is made available should be given a Group Darwin Award for improving the overall intelligence of the population.
Vaccinations for children is a different matter. An adult has a de facto right to kill himself. He can drink himself to death. He can refuse medical treatment that could easily cure him. But a parent should not be free to endanger a child by refusing to have the child vaccinated against common childhood diseases. That was not allowed in the past. It is no longer allowed in California, Mississippi or West Virginia. It should not be allowed anywhere. The child's life, health and welfare trumps the adult's lunatic conspiracy theory beliefs. For the same reason parents are not allowed to cut off their children's hands.
Having said that . . . it might be prudent to withhold a COVID-19 vaccine from children at first. I would wait until it has been administered to millions of adults and we are certain it is safe. Children seldom die from COVID-19 so we should not risk vaccinating them at first. Old people (including me) should get it first because if it knocks us off, so what? We are old and will die soon anyway. Compared to children we should be considered expendable and well suited to be guinea pigs.
So when the vaccine comes out, who should governments mandate vaccinations for...all age groups, or only those at high-risk?
The highly respected professor in the video states at the end
- nobody under 65 should get it, as they have virtually no risk of morality, especially given a new genetic paradigm of vaccine is being used. Taking the vaccine coupled with the natural T-cell defense may thrown the immune system off leading severely bad outcomes (mortality). He literally said, the risk/benefit is infinity (because the denominator is zero). Watch what he said for details, this isn't the entire argument you have to know about the immunology of why he said that
- over 65, if this is tested on people with comorbidities and not tested only on those under 65, then if that safety check is done perhaps the community should openly debate this
