Coronavirus COVID-19

[BDKJMU]

Meanwhile in LA: Masks back on.
https://abc7.com/los-angeles-county-hea ... /11777635/

[GannonFan]

Philly: Masks off, masks on, mask off. What a bunch of ass clowns..
https://6abc.com/philadelphia-indoor-ma ... /11778105/

The Philly thing was always suspect - you can't just go by percentages when the numbers are as low as they are. It's easy to get a 50% increase in cases when you go from 100 cases to 150 cases, but is that really a cause of concern? Math is hard like that.

At this point, everyone who would want a vaccine and booster have gotten them, COVID cases, among vaccinated or unvaccinated, are not resulting in strains on any health care system, and even with under 5's not eligible it's not a big concern since they were never a segment truly at risk anyway. There's literally no need for any further COVID restrictions. Even this thread should be coming to an end, assuming that politicians can come to that realization.

[SeattleGriz]

Liz Harrington is a Nazi aligned with the Azov Battalion. She has almost as little credibility as Trump and can't be trusted.

I heard she's been pulling people's pants down, taping them to a pole and spanking their bare asses. Only those who don't support Nazis though.

*Hoping you've seen the videos coming out of Ukraine showing the Azov battalion doing this to those they feel aren't quite supportive of their efforts*

[AZGrizFan]

Philly: Masks off, masks on, mask off. What a bunch of ass clowns..
https://6abc.com/philadelphia-indoor-ma ... /11778105/

The Philly thing was always suspect - you can't just go by percentages when the numbers are as low as they are. It's easy to get a 50% increase in cases when you go from 100 cases to 150 cases, but is that really a cause of concern? Math is hard like that.

At this point, everyone who would want a vaccine and booster have gotten them, COVID cases, among vaccinated or unvaccinated, are not resulting in strains on any health care system, and even with under 5's not eligible it's not a big concern since they were never a segment truly at risk anyway. There's literally no need for any further COVID restrictions. Even this thread should be coming to an end, assuming that politicians can come to that realization.

Yep. A 100% increase can be deceiving. Ask JSO.

[SDHornet]

These deaths are on the pro-lockdown crowd.

[SeattleGriz]

These deaths are on the pro-lockdown crowd.

She is 100% complicit and now trying to switch Jerseys. She a quack as well.

[SDHornet]

These deaths are on the pro-lockdown crowd.

She is 100% complicit and now trying to switch Jerseys. She a quack as well.

All these deaths are on the pro-lockdown crowd. They own this.

[JohnStOnge]

Posting a Web MD article on a fairly recently published controlled experiment on the effect of Ivermectin:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2022033 ... tudy-finds

Here is the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Here is a quote from the Web MD article that I think well-summarizes the situation:

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the newspaper.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

[JohnStOnge]

These deaths are on the pro-lockdown crowd.

There was never a question that lockdowns would have adverse impacts. The question was whether the benefits exceeded the adverse impacts. If you look at the study she is talking about you see that alcohol associated deaths increased by about 20,000 between 2019 and 2020. According to the recent article at https://record.umich.edu/articles/lockd ... g-forward/, a recent University of Michigan study estimated that lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths in the US by from 866,350 to 1,711,150.

And yes I know there have been reports of studies concluding not many lives were saved by lockdowns. Like the report at https://weartv.com/news/local/study-fro ... 02-13-2022.

But what I have inevitably noted when you see reports on studies like that is that they were done by economists, not public health experts and/or epidemiologists.

Here is one rebuttal:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ ... aily-mail/

It wasn't really a "Johns Hopkins" study and many say the methods are questionable.

I will go with public health experts and/or epidemiologist over economists on this matter. I think all indications are that the lockdowns prevented a lot more deaths than they caused.

Dr. Wen said that alcohol related deaths increasing during the COVID-19 thing is something we should pay attention to. She did not say that lockdowns were, on balance, a mistake. In fact, as far as I can tell, the consensus among public health professionals is that the net effect of lockdowns was saving a large number of lives.

[GannonFan]

Hey, Fauci said the pandemic is over in the US. Any chance they finally open up the Capitol Building to the public again (and I don't mean VIP tours for your family alone with your Senator/Congressperson.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/health/f ... index.html

[AZGrizFan]

These deaths are on the pro-lockdown crowd.

There was never a question that lockdowns would have adverse impacts. The question was whether the benefits exceeded the adverse impacts. If you look at the study she is talking about you see that alcohol associated deaths increased by about 20,000 between 2019 and 2020. According to the recent article at https://record.umich.edu/articles/lockd ... g-forward/, a recent University of Michigan study estimated that lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths in the US by from 866,350 to 1,711,150.

Dr. Wen said that alcohol related deaths increasing during the COVID-19 thing is something we should pay attention to. She did not say that lockdowns were, on balance, a mistake. In fact, as far as I can tell, the consensus among public health professionals is that the net effect of lockdowns was saving a large number of lives.

Bullshit. In this country you fall into one of three groups either a) You've HAD Covid, b) you HAVE Covid or c) You're GOING to have Covid...and groups a & b are pretty fucking large....There are now estimates that upwards of 60% of Americans have had Covid at some point, and 75% of children. Point being, very, very few people were "saved" by not being exposed to Covid. Those who died, largely were going to die regardless of the idiotic and draconian measures implemented by most of the blue states. Then when you factor in the alcohol related deaths, increase in suicides, and the other medical issues that weren't addressed and caused fatalities you end up with even less "lives saved". That entire line of thinking of Dr. Wen smacks of a public health official looking for confirmation bias to help justify their actions over the past 2 years.

[GannonFan]

There was never a question that lockdowns would have adverse impacts. The question was whether the benefits exceeded the adverse impacts. If you look at the study she is talking about you see that alcohol associated deaths increased by about 20,000 between 2019 and 2020. According to the recent article at https://record.umich.edu/articles/lockd ... g-forward/, a recent University of Michigan study estimated that lockdowns reduced COVID-19 deaths in the US by from 866,350 to 1,711,150.

Dr. Wen said that alcohol related deaths increasing during the COVID-19 thing is something we should pay attention to. She did not say that lockdowns were, on balance, a mistake. In fact, as far as I can tell, the consensus among public health professionals is that the net effect of lockdowns was saving a large number of lives.

Bullshit. In this country you fall into one of three groups either a) You've HAD Covid, b) you HAVE Covid or c) You're GOING to have Covid...and groups a & b are pretty fucking large....There are now estimates that upwards of 60% of Americans have had Covid at some point, and 75% of children. Point being, very, very few people were "saved" by not being exposed to Covid. Those who died, largely were going to die regardless of the idiotic and draconian measures implemented by most of the blue states. Then when you factor in the alcohol related deaths, increase in suicides, and the other medical issues that weren't addressed and caused fatalities you end up with even less "lives saved". That entire line of thinking of Dr. Wen smacks of a public health official looking for confirmation bias to help justify their actions over the past 2 years.

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID. And once vaccines were out 9 months later, just get vaccinated and then boosted. If we followed that, schools should've been opened by May of 2020, every business should've been opened by May of 2020, and there wouldn't need to be any further measures.

Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster, and will be pored over and discussed for decades to come. The politicization of this (and yes, it was both sides - answer me who criticized Trump the moment he closed the borders to travelers from COVID-hit regions - it wasn't his own party, and who started the vitriol to mask wearing - both sides found ground to criticize the other) was appalling and resulted in people dying in large numbers and resulted in draconian lockdown measures that also killed people, as well as wrecked the economy, that are still reverberating today. This will forever be a case study on how not to respond to a pandemic and the public health departments and officials have a long way to go to ever get back the trust and respect that, if they handled this pandemic properly, they would already have.

[SeattleGriz]

Bullshit. In this country you fall into one of three groups either a) You've HAD Covid, b) you HAVE Covid or c) You're GOING to have Covid...and groups a & b are pretty fucking large....There are now estimates that upwards of 60% of Americans have had Covid at some point, and 75% of children. Point being, very, very few people were "saved" by not being exposed to Covid. Those who died, largely were going to die regardless of the idiotic and draconian measures implemented by most of the blue states. Then when you factor in the alcohol related deaths, increase in suicides, and the other medical issues that weren't addressed and caused fatalities you end up with even less "lives saved". That entire line of thinking of Dr. Wen smacks of a public health official looking for confirmation bias to help justify their actions over the past 2 years.

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID. And once vaccines were out 9 months later, just get vaccinated and then boosted. If we followed that, schools should've been opened by May of 2020, every business should've been opened by May of 2020, and there wouldn't need to be any further measures.

Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster, and will be pored over and discussed for decades to come. The politicization of this (and yes, it was both sides - answer me who criticized Trump the moment he closed the borders to travelers from COVID-hit regions - it wasn't his own party, and who started the vitriol to mask wearing - both sides found ground to criticize the other) was appalling and resulted in people dying in large numbers and resulted in draconian lockdown measures that also killed people, as well as wrecked the economy, that are still reverberating today. This will forever be a case study on how not to respond to a pandemic and the public health departments and officials have a long way to go to ever get back the trust and respect that, if they handled this pandemic properly, they would already have.

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, who advocated pretty much all you said, were vilified and attacked as fringe epidemiologists.

Interested to see if you had even heard of the GBD? Not implying you didn't care, just pointing out how well they suppressed opposing viewpoints.

Fauci and Collins emails discuss a 'quick takedown of the fringe epidemiologists'.

https://gbdeclaration.org/

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

[GannonFan]

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID. And once vaccines were out 9 months later, just get vaccinated and then boosted. If we followed that, schools should've been opened by May of 2020, every business should've been opened by May of 2020, and there wouldn't need to be any further measures.

Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster, and will be pored over and discussed for decades to come. The politicization of this (and yes, it was both sides - answer me who criticized Trump the moment he closed the borders to travelers from COVID-hit regions - it wasn't his own party, and who started the vitriol to mask wearing - both sides found ground to criticize the other) was appalling and resulted in people dying in large numbers and resulted in draconian lockdown measures that also killed people, as well as wrecked the economy, that are still reverberating today. This will forever be a case study on how not to respond to a pandemic and the public health departments and officials have a long way to go to ever get back the trust and respect that, if they handled this pandemic properly, they would already have.

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, who advocated pretty much all you said, were vilified and attacked as fringe epidemiologists.

Interested to see if you had even heard of the GBD? Not implying you didn't care, just pointing out how well they suppressed opposing viewpoints.

No, I had heard of them before and am/were familiar with them. Didn't know they advocated the above but not shocking either. And yes, the shaming of them by public health officials who were "the powers that be" was beyond unfortunate. Even scientists can behave badly and here they clearly did.

[SeattleGriz]

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, who advocated pretty much all you said, were vilified and attacked as fringe epidemiologists.

Interested to see if you had even heard of the GBD? Not implying you didn't care, just pointing out how well they suppressed opposing viewpoints.

No, I had heard of them before and am/were familiar with them. Didn't know they advocated the above but not shocking either. And yes, the shaming of them by public health officials who were "the powers that be" was beyond unfortunate. Even scientists can behave badly and here they clearly did.

[SeattleGriz]

Why do some people catch covid again and again? New study talks about an item I brought up a LONG time ago looking at Public Health England data, but in this study, they use Moderna clinical trial data.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22271936v1

Essentially the vaccines imprinted too hard on the immune system and they only seroconvert for S-Protein. The issue with that, is that we all know how much the S protein mutates and thus evades immunity. If you remember, I said I would rather have N-protein antibodies because the Nucleocapsid doesn't mutate very much, for it it did, the virus would mutate it's way out of existence. Those nucleocapsid genetic sequences are what is known as conserved.

By analyzing the Moderna trial data, they show that only 40% of the vaccinated seroconverted to N-protein antibodies when they caught Covid, while the unvaccinated seroconverted 93% of the time. Now realize the immune system is a little more complex that I am presenting, but when that is all we hear about is antibodies, don't you think this is important and we should have heard of this result. The FDA and Moderna knew this before granting the EUA.

[SeattleGriz]

Is highly vaccinated New Hampshire moving the covid goalposts? Sure looks like it.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2022/0 ... 0hospitals.

It looked like exceptionally good news Wednesday when the state reported just seven COVID-19 hospitalizations, far fewer than the 20 to 25 reported over the prior week. It was good news – just not the whole picture.

That drop reflected the state’s new way of defining COVID-19 patients, not the number of COVID-19 patients hospitals say they are treating. They put that number at 104 Wednesday – 74 of whom are no longer infectious but too ill to be discharged.

That more complete count is crucial, hospitals say, to measure the true burden COVID-19 is putting on the hospitals, especially when that burden limits their ability to care for non-COVID-19 patients.

Oh, only those on remdesivir or dexamethasone now count in the hospitalizations. Nice effort. You don't get to use one definition when the unvaccinated are being hospitalized and then change the definition when it flips over to the vaccinated.

In an announcement Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services said it had redefined COVID-19 hospitalization to include only patients being treated with remdesivir or dexamethasone, drugs used for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe illness. Those hospitalized with milder symptoms or primarily for another cause are no longer included – even if they continue to take up a hospital bed because they are too ill to be discharged.

[JohnStOnge]

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID.

Not true. There is something to the part about understanding that outdoor gatherings were not as much of a risk. But that came more than 1 or 2 months after this started. The idea of trying to isolate people over 60 has been debunked man times. It smacks of the debunked "Great Barrington Declaration" thing that has also been thoroughly debunked.

Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster,

The disaster was political interference with public health response. The public health response will always be to err on the side of public health. And that's how it should be. So, for instance, if you don't know that being outdoors lower the risk you assume it does not. That's the way it is supposed to work.

The disaster, again, is that it became political. If this thing had been just left to public health agencies like CDC, FDA, and various State public health agencies without having politicians jump in it would've gone much better.

[JohnStOnge]

Is highly vaccinated New Hampshire moving the covid goalposts? Sure looks like it.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2022/0 ... 0hospitals.

It looked like exceptionally good news Wednesday when the state reported just seven COVID-19 hospitalizations, far fewer than the 20 to 25 reported over the prior week. It was good news – just not the whole picture.

That drop reflected the state’s new way of defining COVID-19 patients, not the number of COVID-19 patients hospitals say they are treating. They put that number at 104 Wednesday – 74 of whom are no longer infectious but too ill to be discharged.

That more complete count is crucial, hospitals say, to measure the true burden COVID-19 is putting on the hospitals, especially when that burden limits their ability to care for non-COVID-19 patients.

Oh, only those on remdesivir or dexamethasone now count in the hospitalizations. Nice effort. You don't get to use one definition when the unvaccinated are being hospitalized and then change the definition when it flips over to the vaccinated.

In an announcement Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services said it had redefined COVID-19 hospitalization to include only patients being treated with remdesivir or dexamethasone, drugs used for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe illness. Those hospitalized with milder symptoms or primarily for another cause are no longer included – even if they continue to take up a hospital bed because they are too ill to be discharged.

As it happens, just this afternoon, I looked once again at correlations between State case rates and death rates vs. vaccination rates. Once again, correlations suggesting that States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower case and death rates at >99% confidence. Didn't have easy access to hospitalization rates. But do you really think it'd be different?

[SeattleGriz]

Is highly vaccinated New Hampshire moving the covid goalposts? Sure looks like it.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2022/0 ... 0hospitals.



Oh, only those on remdesivir or dexamethasone now count in the hospitalizations. Nice effort. You don't get to use one definition when the unvaccinated are being hospitalized and then change the definition when it flips over to the vaccinated.

As it happens, just this afternoon, I looked once again at correlations between State case rates and death rates vs. vaccination rates. Once again, correlations suggesting that States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower case and death rates at >99% confidence. Didn't have easy access to hospitalization rates. But do you really think it'd be different?

Well, as the unvaccinated have pretty much been cleaned out and we are now seeing that happen in the vaccinated, I would ask how you are compensating for not only that, but the changing definitions as we both know have been happening since the first breakthrough cases. Lastly, are you committing the data crime of dumping anyone without their 3rd or 4th shot into the unvaccinated?

This is what was happening in UK before they suddenly quit publishing this data a couple weeks ago. Wonder why.

[kalm]

(CNN) Nearly 60% of adults and 75% of children have antibodies indicating that they've been infected with Covid-19, according to new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data come from an ongoing study of blood samples sent to commercial laboratories across the US.

At the beginning of December, an estimated 34% of Americans had antibodies showing that they had once been infected with the virus that causes Covid-19. By the end of February, after an avalanche of cases caused by the Omicron variant, that number had jumped to 58%. and 75% of children have antibodies indicating that they've been infected with Covid-19, according to new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/26/heal ... KzeG2HFmo8

[SeattleGriz]

(CNN) Nearly 60% of adults and 75% of children have antibodies indicating that they've been infected with Covid-19, according to new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data come from an ongoing study of blood samples sent to commercial laboratories across the US.

At the beginning of December, an estimated 34% of Americans had antibodies showing that they had once been infected with the virus that causes Covid-19. By the end of February, after an avalanche of cases caused by the Omicron variant, that number had jumped to 58%. and 75% of children have antibodies indicating that they've been infected with Covid-19, according to new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/26/heal ... KzeG2HFmo8

4 out of 5 in our house still haven't caught Covid, as far as we know, but those numbers are great. Many people now have much better immunity.

Why are you surprised at the numbers?

[SeattleGriz]

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID.

Not true. There is something to the part about understanding that outdoor gatherings were not as much of a risk. But that came more than 1 or 2 months after this started. The idea of trying to isolate people over 60 has been debunked man times. It smacks of the debunked "Great Barrington Declaration" thing that has also been thoroughly debunked.

Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster,

The disaster was political interference with public health response. The public health response will always be to err on the side of public health. And that's how it should be. So, for instance, if you don't know that being outdoors lower the risk you assume it does not. That's the way it is supposed to work.

The disaster, again, is that it became political. If this thing had been just left to public health agencies like CDC, FDA, and various State public health agencies without having politicians jump in it would've gone much better.

Who changed the public health agencies plans? Who exactly said, "we're not following" the guidelines. Also Sweden.

[kalm]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/26/heal ... KzeG2HFmo8

4 out of 5 in our house still haven't caught Covid, as far as we know, but those numbers are great. Many people now have much better immunity.

Why are you surprised at the numbers?

They’re higher than I expected.

[SDHornet]

(CNN) Nearly 60% of adults and 75% of children have antibodies indicating that they've been infected with Covid-19, according to new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data come from an ongoing study of blood samples sent to commercial laboratories across the US.

At the beginning of December, an estimated 34% of Americans had antibodies showing that they had once been infected with the virus that causes Covid-19. By the end of February, after an avalanche of cases caused by the Omicron variant, that number had jumped to 58%. and 75% of children have antibodies indicating that they've been infected with Covid-19, according to new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/26/heal ... KzeG2HFmo8

Virus gonna virus. Which is why the "lockdown to save lives" narrative was the stupidest idea during the whole event.