Coronavirus – Covid 19 | The Homa Files

Archive for the ‘Coronavirus – Covid 19’ Category

Have you been catching more colds this year?

October 5, 2022

Your immune system probably got weaker during covid-induced isolation …. but not to worry.
=============

In a couple of recent friend & family chats, it became evident that more folks are catching more colds more often.

One hypothesis is that the cold-wave is a result of immune systems that weakened during 2 years of covid-confinements.

Might be … but not to worry.

Just follow the late George Carlin’s advice for building (or re-building) a strong immune system.

His prescription for building a strong immune system to battle germ attacks is a bit contrary to current conventional wisdom and CDC guidance.

============

WARNING: Adult content – profanity-laced, politically-incorrect, totally insensitive to the current COVID situation and likely to offend practically everyone. Do not play in earshot of children, co-workers or sensitive adults. Hit delete now if you self-classify in that latter group.

In other word, this is classic George Carlin.

click to view (if you dare <= you’ve been warned!)

Posted in Comedy - Jokes, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

What are your chances of dying on the job?

February 17, 2022

Pretty slim if you’re a teacher working in a classroom … even during covid.
=============

The urban teachers’ unions have tried to position in-classroom teaching as more deadly than lobster fishing … and, I expect them to escalate as student mask mandates gets shelved.

So, let’s put things in perspective.

=============

According to a BLS report channeled by Statista…

The overall worker fatality rate across all industries is an infinitesimal 3.4 deaths for every 100,000 full-time equivalent workers (0.0034%)

But, among fishermen & hunters, the rate is 132 deaths for every 100,000 full-time equivalent workers (about 40 times the average rate).

I understand commercial fishermen since I’ve watched “Deadliest Catch” … but, I didn’t even know that hunting constituted a profession.

The highest number of deaths are racked up by truck drivers and delivery drivers … mostly a function of their population size.

Infographic: The Most Dangerous Jobs in the U.S. | Statista

It doesn’t surprise me that roofers are high on the list. We’ve had a couple of roofs replaced and I get scared just watching those guys work.

My bet: If “working from home” constituted a job classification, it would probably make the “most dangerous” list.

Why is that?

According to the CDC, over 17, 000 people die in the U.S. annually because of falls and 60% of falls happen at home.

Hmm.

Come to think of it, more teachers have probably died from falls while Zooming from home than have died from Covid contracted in the classroom.

Double hmm…

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - Return to Normalcy, Death - Causes, Mortality - Death rates | Leave a Comment »

Finally, the CDC has released some interesting data…

February 16, 2022

In case you missed it, last week the CDC released a study (with data!) on vaccine efficacy.

Specifically, the CDC researchers looked at emergency room and urgent care visits and hospitalizations in large participating medical centers in 10 states.

The data was gathered from August 2021 thru January 2022, when both delta and omicron variants were in circulation.

=============

WaPo’s headline:

“mRNA booster shots lose effectiveness after about four months — but still provided significant protection in keeping people out of the hospital during the omicron surge.”

In numbers, the boosters provide 91% protection from hospitalization right after vaccination … and 78% protection 4 months out.

My opinion: That’s formidable protection … and, not really new news.

=============

Drilling Down

What I found more interesting (with some new news) was buried in the report’s exhibits.

Teaching Point: I used to tell students to always start cases by going through the exhibits before even starting to read the case narrative.

Here’s my recap … below are my takeaways…

> Again. the data was collected from large participating medical centers (and their urgent care affiliates) in 10 states. A representative sample, reporting high quality (consistently defined) data.

> Over the 6-month study period, 241,204 patients (row 3, column 1) visited an Emergency Room (ER) or Urgent Care Center (UC).

> Of the 241,204 … 54% had been vaccinated, 46% hadn’t. That’s roughly the country’s mix with minimal skew one way or another.

Point of interest: That mix doesn’t sync with the widespread narrative that ERs and UCs being entirely overrun with unvaccinated people.

==============

> Of the 241,204 ER/UC visits … 61,826 (25.6%) tested positive for covid.

The 1 in 4 number strikes me as being low low since, I presume, the vast majority came to the ER/UC with covid-like symptoms

> Drilling deeper, 14.4% of the vaccinated patients tested positive; 38.8% of the unvaccinated patients tested positive.

So, in a relatively balanced sample, unvaccinated patients accounted for about 70% of the positive covid results.

==============

> Of the 241,204 ER/EC patients, 93,408 (38.7%) were hospitalized;

> Of the 110,873 unvaccinated patients, 32.6% were hospitalized; of the 130,131 vaccinated patients 40.9% were hospitalized.

In other words, a higher percentage of vaccinated patients ended up being hospitalized.

Now, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

=============

Drilling down on Demographics

> Patients visiting ERs & UCs were split 72.5% under 65 and 27.5% 65 and older.

> 73.9% of the 65+ were vaccinated; only 46.5% of the <65 were vaccinated

> Commensurately, only 19.3% of the 65+ tested positive for covid; 28% of the <65 tested positive

> But, 75% of the 65+ were hospitalized; only 24.9% of the <65 were hospitalized

> Of those who were hospitalized, only 23% had tested positive for covid.

Said differently, over 2/3s of the hospitalized patients were admitted to the hospital for something other than covid.

That, in my opinion, is the most interesting number!

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Covid-19 Testing, COVID-19 Tracking | Leave a Comment »

Remember when Trump advised us to use scarves during mask shortage?

February 11, 2022

Of course, he was eviscerated by the med-science community and the mainstream media
=============

Yesterday, we posted about the absurd “scientific” conclusion that the best way to stop covid spread was for everybody to start wearing panty hose over their faces, under their masks.

And, we asserted that if Trump had recommended pulling panty hose over our heads, he would have been ridiculed, called a science-denying moron and a misogynist for telling people to appropriate a gender-specific piece of clothing.

For a case in point, let’s flashback to a May 2020 HomaFiles post…
=============

In late March 2020 when community spread of the coronavirus was ramping up…

The WHO, the CDC, US Surgeon General and Tony “Mr. Science” Fauci were advising against wearing masks … saying that they were, at best minimally protective, could exasperate the problem if worn incorrectly and would distract people from handwashing and social distancing.

“The science” of covid transmission was unsettled. Scientists were unsure how the virus was transmitted … by touch or by air. There were published peer-reviewed studies on both sides of the issue.

That said, the underlying tiebreaker for the science community’s advisories: masks were in short supply and the supply chain was impaired by Chinese hoarding and off-shored manufacturing.

In a Task Force press conference, Trump cut to the chase … said the real reason was the need to supply hospital workers with masks first … and he casually opined that, in the short-run, folks could stop-gap by using scarves or other face coverings as a make-shift protective shield.

click to view video (90 sec.)

Of course, Trump said it — and he’s an MSM-certified idiot, so the media pounced:

Of course, there’s more to the story…
(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Masks - Face coverings | Leave a Comment »

JHU Study: Lockdowns didn’t reduce COVID-19 mortality…

February 8, 2022

… but, they did reduce economic activity and schooling, imposing “enormous” economic and social costs.
=============

Up to now, Johns Hopkins has been regarded as the Gold Standard for Covid data collection and scientific analysis.

So, it’s disappointing (but not surprising) that the mainstream media has given so little coverage to a study released this week

Why so little coverage?

Though the study rigorously “followed the data and the science” … it’s headlined conclusion doesn’t square with the Faucian-driven. pro-lockdown narrative

==============

The study

The study was a “systematic review and meta-analysis designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that lockdowns reduce COVID-19 mortality.”

The authors defined lockdowns as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI).

NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.

This study “employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies were identified that could potentially address the belief posed.”

After three levels of rigorous, well-documented screening, 24 studies qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

The 24 were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place-order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies.

=============

The conclusion

“An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”

More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.

SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average.

Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

“While this meta-analysis (i.e. review of other studies) concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects … they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.”

In summary, the authors don’t mince words…

“In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Ouch!

=============

The Rebuttal

Predictably, “experts” are saying that the study has serious flaws and is being misinterpreted.

According to Medscape, the objections being raised are:

The paper hasn’t been peer reviewed
The lead author is an is an applied economist, not an epidemiologist, public health expert, or medical doctor.
The authors are anti-lockdown libertarians.
The studies selected for the meta-analysis were cherry picked to support a preconceived conclusion.
The authors applied a questionable definition of “lockdown.”
The authors fudged the numbers, “deriving some mathematical estimates indicating less benefit than the papers suggest.”

My take: The authors spell out — in excruciating detail — their methodology, sources and mathematics. That’s more than most of the “experts” have done the past couple of years.

I’d love to see the authors and their critics face off in a debate on this one … that would beat just dismissing a counter-narrative finding.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Covid - Economic Consequences | 1 Comment »

The origins of Covid … smoking guns?

January 26, 2022

Great piece of reporting by Bret Baer, based on emails and other docs obtained through FOIA requests.

click for 11 min. video … <= must see TV … Cliff notes below

=============

Here’s my Cliff notes recap (with screenshots from the video report):

> Initially, virologists queried by Fauci, argued (in writing) that the Covid source was a lab leak.

=============

> Fauci immediately tasked a lieutenant to see if if there was evidence that NIH was complicit in the WUHAN lab work.

==============

> NIH (and Fauci as the grant awarder) was complicit, having channeled money through the Eco Health Alliance to the Wuhan Lab.

> Efforts quickly focused on damage control, labeling the lab leak as a conspiracy theory that was a threat to “the science”.

===============

> NIH awarded almost $9 million in research grants to two of the virologists who were initially adamant that the virus originated in the lab.

==============

> The award winning scientists “evolved” their thinking on the subject.

=============

Bottom line: It’s hard to “follow the science” when the scientists are covering their butts and “following the money”.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Fauci, Dr. Anthony | Leave a Comment »

NYT: “CDC hoping that we’ll figure Covid out on our own”..

January 13, 2022

Yesterday, we spotlighted a Washington Post editorial headlined

The essence of the editorial:

As Covid-19 swept the world one year ago, the United States under-prioritized the need for data and the tests that produce it.

The data-deficient response to Covid-19 is why this pandemic’s been so deadly, so disruptive and so costly.

=============

Putting it more viscerally, the NY Times says:

Some snippets from the Times article:

The government’s haphazard and disorganized Covid response has put the whole country at risk.

We aren’t expecting officials to have crystal balls about everything, but…

The highest-ranking public health officials are making statements that seem more aimed at covering up or making excuses for ongoing failures, rather than leveling with the public.

it’s so disappointing to enter 2022 with 2020 vibes, scouring for supplies, trying to make sense of official declarations that don’t cohere, and wondering what to do.

Why, two years into the pandemic, are people are grasping to know whether they should see a grandparent or an elderly relative or go back to work if they are still testing positive?

Why are we still trying to figure this out on our own?

My question: Why has it taken the WaPo and NY Times so long to notice that “the science” has been letting us down.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - Return to Normalcy, Government & Politics | Leave a Comment »

WaPo: “Flying blind is no way to survive a pandemic”

January 12, 2022

Finally, I agree with a Washington Post editorial.

Amid the omicron spike, the recent uproar about testing and quarantine rules has spotlighted the current unscientific nature of “the science”.

Biden’s scientific team offers up simultaneously contradictory points of view, small scale ad hoc studies that incite reactionary course reversals, and no logical, fact-based “theory of the case”.

In the words of Rajiv J. Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation:

“The United States has been flying virally blind.”

More specifically, Shah argues:

Data is the secret weapon that has helped beat every disease outbreak over the last century.

Data is what moves us from a panic-driven response to a science-driven one, telling us how to fight back and which tools are best.

But, as Covid-19 swept the world one year ago, the United States under-prioritized the need for data and the tests that produce it.

The data-deficient response to Covid-19 is why this pandemic’s been so deadly, so disruptive and so costly.

Currently, only a handful of countries (e.g. Israel, South Africa, Britain) are systematically collecting, analyzing and sharing data that is sufficiently comprehensive, precise and timely to help public health authorities and scientists make informed decisions about relaxing precautions or adapting vaccines and treatments.

Unfortunately, from a data perspective, the United States is in no better position to understand and stop a viral variant today than it was before the pandemic started.

The United States has not yet built a real-time system of viral surveillance that would allow comprehensive tracking of variants as they move through the population.

As it is now, the CDC pulls together viral surveillance data from a variety of sources, including its own facilities, state public health labs, and university and private laboratories.

The frustrating complexity and diversity of electronic medical records is an ongoing challenge.

The data sets are minimally standardized, key data is often uncollected, data file formats vary and data reporting is sporadic.

So, it can take weeks to build a complete and reliable picture of how a variant is spreading.

By then, it’s often too late and a newer variant must be battled.

The U.S. must take crucial steps to support a national viral surveillance network to defeat Covid-19 and prepare for the next pandemic.

Bottom line: It’s not surprising that there’s no over-riding theory-of-the-case, confusion re: pivotal factors (e.g. prevalence, transmission, re-infection, mitigation effectiveness) and a seemingly endless pandemic.

Posted in CDC, Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - Return to Normalcy | Leave a Comment »

Covid: “Now, everybody knows somebody…”

January 11, 2022

Why it feels different this time around…
=============

A couple of months ago – during the last Covid spike – I opined that Covid was an abstract notion for most people since they hadn’t been personally and consequentially touched by it.

As evidence, I cited a broad-scale YouGov survey that found that, despite hundreds of thousands of covid-related death, 2/3’s of Americans didn’t “personally know anyone who had died due to complications from covid-19”.

Sure, people had heard about people getting infected but “they” were either newsworthy celebrities or very distant relationships … distanced by 4 or 5 degrees of separation.

It was like a serious crime epidemic that hadn’t struck “my neighborhood”, let alone “my house”.

For sure that sense has changed …

For openers, we’ve now reached the point where everybody knows somebody who has been infected, and those “somebodies” are closer to home … they’re not a cousin’s neighbor’s son-in-law’s co-worker’s friend … they’re close friends and family … within zero or one degree of separation.

And, there seem to be more “batches” of “theys”, not single isolated cases.

Specifically, entire neighborhoods are getting hit … and once the virus penetrates a household, most family members get sick.

When they get sick, nothing seems to make sense.

Being fully vaccinated is proving to be a porous barrier to infection.

Within households, symptoms vary widely from person to person … seriously symptomatic people are testing negative … asymptomatic people are testing positive (when they can find a test!)

Go figure.

When it hits close to home like this, people seek reliable (and actionable) “what to do” answers … have less tolerance for misdirection, obfuscation and butt-covering bull-bleep.

It becomes evident to all effected that the government’s political-scientists — always assertive, occasionally right – are flying blind … spewing illogical, data-short guidance that confuses rather than clarifies.

As NBC News put it “The rapid spread of the variant has created a level of disruption in many Americans’ lives not seen since the early days of the pandemic. We have gone backwards.”

I think we’ve reached a turning point … and, that’s a difference time around.

=============

P.S. Your read that right: NBC News … article is worth reading.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - Return to Normalcy | Leave a Comment »

MUST READ: How will we know when we’ve turned a COVID-19 corner?

January 6, 2022

Stay focused on the number of Daily New Deaths!
==============
This is a relevant excerpt from a long ago prior post (May 2020)
==============

From the begining of the Covid pandemic, I’ve focused on Daily New Deaths (DND) as my key metric.

Why is that?

First, saving lives is our paramount objective, right? If yes, caused fatalities should be our focus metric.

Second, I think that most other metrics that are being bandied about are quite problematic.

Counting deaths — while a bit macabre — is a more reliable process than counting, say, the number of infected people.

Sure, I’d like to know the number of people infected with COVID-19.

But, unless everybody — or at least a large statistical sample — is tested, the number of confirmed cases is subject to disqualifying statistical issues.

Most notably, who is being tested and who isn’t? What about the asymptomatic “hidden carriers”? What are the criteria for confirming a COVID infection? What about false positives (and false negatives)? How to standardize the reporting processes across states? How to keep governmental units from fudging the numbers?

Importantly, if testing increases, then confirmed cases goes up.

Is that an indication of more virus spread or just a reflection of more testing?

I sure can’t tell … and, I doubt that anybody else can with any degree of reliability.

=============

Again, counting fatalities is probably the most reliable metric.

Fatalities are discrete events – so they’re countable.

Still, even deaths may have some counting imperfections.

For example, many non-hospitalized people die and are buried without autopsies. Some may be uncounted COVID victims.

On the other hand, some people may die and be diagnosed with COVID infections. That doesn’t necessarily mean that COVID killed them. That’s especially true with COVID since it’s most deadly for people with other health problems.

And, as we stated above, the definition of COVID deaths has changed over the course of the pandemic:

COVID-related” means “COVID present”, not necessarily “COVID caused” … and , along the way, “present” was redefined from “confirmed” to “presumed”

Further, COVID deaths are a function of two drivers: the incidence of the virus … and, the nature, level and timing of therapeutic healthcare.

Said differently, more effective therapeutic healthcare will dampen the death toll.

==============

Bottom line: “Daily New Deaths” is the number we should be watching.

If it shows a consistent downward trend, then we’ll know we’ve turned the corner.

If it stays stable (at a high level) or turns upward, we’ll know that we’re in deep yogurt.

===============

Next up: So, how are we doing?

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Covid-19 Testing, COVID-19 Tracking, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Vax: Maybe the “hesitants” are being completely rational…

September 16, 2021

Behavioral economics prevail when personal risks outweigh the personal benefits.
=============

Yesterday, we reported a study by researchers at researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh concluded that vaccine hesitancy follows a U-shaped curve with the highest hesitancy evident among those least and most educated.

People without a college degree — mostly Rural Whites and Urban Blacks — are highly hesitant, citing mistrust of government.

But, the highest hesitancy is among those holding a PhD degree.

The primary reason for hesitancy among PhDs: “the data just doesn’t add up.”

Let’s dig a little deeper…

Economist-YouGov released survey results that asked people about their Covid experience and attitudes.

Here are a couple of the questions that caught my eye….

==============

19. Do you personally know anyone who has tested positive for covid-19?

> 39% did not personally know a close friend or family member who tested positive for Covid.

20. Do you personally know anyone who has died due to complications from covid-19?

> 67% did not personally know a close friend or family member who had died from Covid.

My take: Except for people who are undeniably vulnerable (e.g. seniors), those who haven’t been personally touched by covid’s health consequences are less likely to be vax-inclined. And, many have not been personally touched by covid health consequences.

=============

32. Which do you think is a greater risk: possibly contracting COVID-19, or possibly having a bad reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine?

> On average, 39% perceive that the risks outweigh the benefits, but…

> Those over 65 perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks — 72% to 28% (a ratio of 2.5 to 1)

> Those who are 45 to 64 perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks — 63% to 37% (a ratio of 1.7 to 1)

> Those 18 to 44 perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks — 53% to 47% (with rounding, a 50-50 proposition)

So, just based on the perceived risk – benefits numbers, you might expect seniors to be more vax-inclined … and, they are, with a 90% vax rate.

And, you’d expect younger folks to be less vax-inclined … and they are (with vax rates running in the 50s or 60s).

==============

I think that just about everybody buys into the vaccines’ benefits: 90%+ protection against hospitalization and death.

So, what about the risks?

==============

30. Among people who have been vaccinated: Have you experienced any negative reactions to the vaccine?

> About 1 in 5 vax recipients report that they experienced “negative reactions” (i.e. side effects) from receiving the vaccine.

> A slightly higher percentage of those 18 to 29 reported a negative reaction … almost 1 in 4

=============

Those are just the immediate negative vax reactions.

What about the longer term risks?

The CDC — speaking on behalf of “the data” and “the science” — says that there are absolutely no long-term risks of serious complications.

There isn’t data to conclude that there won’t be negative reactions in, say 20 years.

And, while “the science” may conjecture about future health risks being inconsequential … there’s no experiential certainty … and there are plausible arguments to the contrary.

See our summary post: “Unexpected things happen when you start fiddling with the innards of living cells.”

So, what?

=============

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there is a low but statistically significant risk of future health consequences (i.e. a probability greater than zero).

If so, it logically follows that the longer a person’s remaining expected life span, the higher the probability that they would incur a negative health consequence.

So, an older person (highly vulnerable to severe covid health consequences) might reasonably conclude that the expected benefits from getting vaccinated (protection from hospitalization and death over a short time horizon) exceed the risks of future related health consequences (over a short expected “natural” life span).

Conversely, a younger person who has low vulnerability to a consequential covid infection may perceive the vax benefits to be minimal compared to the possibility (albeit low) of a severe future health consequence (given their otherwise long expected life span).

Said differently, it’s completely rational for a vulnerable senior to rush to get vaccinated … and, conversely, quite reasonable for a low-vulnerability young person to wait & see.

That’s how risk-benefits behavioral economics works.

Again, it’s completely rational…

Posted in Behavioral Economics, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | 1 Comment »

Seriously, why hasn’t the Afghan Taliban been besieged by Covid?

August 25, 2021

A week or so ago, the Babylon Bee ran this satire piece:

Fake-quoting CNN anchors:

“The Taliban is showing all of us the proper way to behave during a pandemic — something those horrible idiot Trump supporters don’t seem to get.”

=============

That got me thinking…

Why are there no reports of a rampant Covid spread around Afghanistan.

Despite the odds, has Afhganistan been spared from the virus and his consequences ?

Seems unlikely.

When I see pictures coming out of Kabul, I see large crowds, tightly packed, minimal sanitation … ripe for superspreading.

Despite the Bee’s insinuation to the contrary, the Taliban warriors aren’t pictured wearing N-95s.

Gotta believe that the Afghan hospital system is a mess … and focused on fighting casualties.

So why haven’t there been reports of soaring Covid case rates … and high Covid-related death counts?

Hmm…

Posted in Afghanistan, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Vax: Maybe the “hesitants” are being completely rational…

August 13, 2021

Behavioral economics prevail when personal risks outweigh the personal benefits.
=============

Economist-YouGov released survey results that asked people about their Covid experience and attitudes.

Here are a couple of the questions that caught my eye….

==============

19. Do you personally know anyone who has tested positive for covid-19?

> 39% did not personally know a close friend or family member who tested positive for Covid.

20. Do you personally know anyone who has died due to complications from covid-19?

> 67% did not personally know a close friend or family member who had died from Covid.

=============

32. Which do you think is a greater risk: possibly contracting COVID-19, or possibly having a bad reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine?

> On average, 39% perceive that the risks outweigh the benefits, but…

> Those over 65 perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks — 72% to 28% (a ratio of 2.5 to 1)

> Those who are 45 to 64 perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks — 63% to 37% (a ratio of 1.7 to 1)

> Those 18 to 44 perceive the benefits to outweigh the risks — 53% to 47% (with rounding, a 50-50 proposition)

So, just based on the perceived risk – benefits numbers, you might expect seniors to be more vax-inclined … and, they are, with a 90% vax rate.

And, you’d expect younger folks to be less vax-inclined … and they are (with vax rates running in the 50s or 60s).

==============

I think that just about everybody buys into the vaccines’ benefits: 90%+ protection against hospitalization and death.

So, what about the risks?

==============

30. Among people who have been vaccinated: Have you experienced any negative reactions to the vaccine?

> About 1 in 5 vax recipients report that they experienced “negative reactions” (i.e. side effects) from receiving the vaccine.

> A slightly higher percentage of those 18 to 29 reported a negative reaction … almost 1 in 4

=============

Those are just the immediate negative vax reactions.

What about the longer term risks?

The CDC — speaking on behalf of “the data” and “the science” — says that there are absolutely no long-term risks of serious complications.

There isn’t data to conclude that there won’t be negative reactions in, say 20 years.

And, while “the science” may conjecture about future health risks being inconsequential … there’s no experiential certainty … and there are plausible arguments to the contrary.

See our summary post: “Unexpected things happen when you start fiddling with the innards of living cells.”

So, what?

=============

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there is a low but statistically significant risk of future health consequences (i.e. a probability greater than zero).

If so, it logically follows that the longer a person’s remaining expected life span, the higher the probability that they would incur a negative health consequence.

Said differently, it’s completely rational for a vulnerable senior to rush to get vaccinated … and, conversely, quite reasonable for a low-vulnerability young person to wait & see.

That’s how risk-benefits behavioral economics works.

It’s completely rational.

Posted in Behavioral Economics, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | 1 Comment »

Psaki: “Why do you need to have that information?”

July 28, 2021

Ordinary people are confused … and docs say that they are flying blind.
==============

It’s hard to follow the data when there’s no data presented … just assertions from oft-wrong political-scientists who command “just trust me”.

Case in point, as reported by USA Today…

Last Friday, Jen Psaki — Biden’s press secretary — was asked for data about Covid “break-through infections” — cases of people getting re-infected with Covid even though they have been fully vaccinated.

When Psaki tried to duck the question, the reporter pressed her for a specific answer.

“Why not just provide the number? Are you trying to hide something?”

Psaki shot back, “Why do you need to have that information?”

Say, what?

The reported countered: “For transparency, in the interest of the public, and for a better understanding of how breakthrough cases work”.

Frustrated, Psaki simply moved on to another topic.

===============

This was a stark example of what Biden-Harris might call a ”root cause” … a root cause of public distrust and, maybe even, of vaccine hesitancy.

Loosely quoting Jerry Maguire “Show me the data!”

Posted in Biden, Joe, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Did Fauci disclose his conflicts of interest to Trump?

June 21, 2021

Yesterday, we posted: A scientist shreds Fauci’s “attacking me is attacking science” canard.

Following up on that theme — that science and the scientific method are inherently good, but that science can be compromised by “bad actors”….

I haven’t heard or seen the headlined question raised by anybody on media.

Specifically, as it relates to the highly plausible (i.e. likely) lab-leak source of the virus:

> Did Fauci brief Trump on gain-of-function research, it’s ethical and safety issues, and Obama’s EO putting a moratorium on U.S. based research and research funding?

> Did Fauci indicate to Trump that he (Fauci) was on record as a strong advocate for gain-of function research?

> Did Fauci tell Trump that gain-of-function research was being done in the Wuhan lab … specifically on coronaviruses?

> Did Fauci admit to Trump that research grants approved by him (Fauci) may have been channeled to the Wuhan lab via an intermediary which was known to support gain-of-function research?

> Did Fauci warm Trump that if any of the above became public, the U.S. might be held partially culpable if the Wuhan lab was the source of the virus?

==============

It’s easy to conclude that the answers to all 5 questions are NO.

If the answers to any or all of the questions was YES, then…

> Trump would have been unlikely to have picked Fauci to lead the covid task force

> Trump would not have jumped on the lab-leak hypothesis so quickly and so forcefully.

Knowing what is now being discovered (in writing and on video) about Fauci’s conflicts of interest, wouldn’t you think that Fauci — the noble scientist — would have self-disqualified?

Hmmm

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Fauci, Dr. Anthony, Wuhan - Lab Theory | Leave a Comment »

Tell me again why I should trust “the science”…

June 18, 2021

Prominent scientist admits that info was withheld because it lent credence to Trump’s claims
=============

Yesterday, we posted: A scientist shreds Fauci’s “attacking me is attacking science” canard.

Today, let’s throw another log on that fire…

NBC News published a nice recap of the lab-leak controversy.

So, what changed since since early 2020 when a gold standard scientific journals published a letter from 28 scientists dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis as “unfounded” and “debunked”?

The article points out that the was scant data to prove (or disprove) the lab-leak hypothesis at the time … and, given China’s stonewalling, there isn’t much more data now.

According to NBC interviews with virologists:

While public discussion of a potential lab leak has shifted significantly in recent months, as more people pay attention to a theory that was originally promulgated by former President Donald Trump and his followers, the scientific evidence has remained unchanged, according to interviews with five virologists who have experience in microbiology, infectious disease ecology and viral evolution.

So, what changed?

The politics.

The shift reflects how some scientists who previously avoided the topic or were quick to dismiss it are grappling with enduring uncertainties about the virus’s origin, free from the politicization that clouded such discussions during the Trump administration.

=============

Alina Chan was one of 18 scientists who published a letter in the journal Science last month calling for a more in-depth investigation into the virus’s origin.

She bluntly told NBC:

Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support Trump fueled accusations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in the city where the first Covid-19 cases were reported, was connected to the outbreak.

Said differently, if Trump said it, it’s probably wrong … and, even if it’s true, it’s “noble” to withhold evidence and public support.

=============

Bottom line: “Science” may be be pure and worthy of being followed … but some “scientists” not so much.

That raises a dilemma: How to “follow the science” if scientists are distorting — either through omission or commission?

That question may linger long after covid is a distant memory.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Science | Leave a Comment »

“Pandemics naturally thrive most in big cities”

June 11, 2021

So, don’t paint suburban and rural locales with the same herd immunity paintbrush.
=============

In a post earlier this week post, we concluded:

Covid transmissibility is, in the final analysis, a local dynamic.

So, a national vaccination rate may be an interesting barometer, but it’s not determining.

Said differently, some communities will likely reach the herd immunity threshold, even if the entire United States does not. Source

Specifically, viral spread in dense urban areas has little relevance to sparsely populated rural areas.

To provide some added context to that last point, let’s flashback to one of our early-on covid posts …

=============
Originally posted April 6, 2020

Previously, we recapped the IHME Murray Model — the coronavirus forecasting model that was foundational to the Coronavirus Task Force’s thinking.

See: What you need to know about the IHME Model

The model’s developers make clear that the model does not consider either population density, household size or the utilization of public mass transit.

In other words, it doesn’t consider the effect of urbanization.

I expect that the model will be refined to consider the urbanization variable since Dr. Birx keeps saying “we’ll be drilling down to the county level” … and since some pandemic historians note that pandemics naturally thrive most in big cities.

Here’s what they’re talking about…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Why are so many old people still dying of covid?

June 8, 2021

With an 86% vaccination rate, shouldn’t fatalities be closer to zero?
=============

I still think that the covid death rate, while itself a bit fuzzy, is still the cleanest covid severity metric.

So, I’m trying to understand why covid death rates — which have dropped from pandemic highs — are stubbornly hovering near 600 per day.

Who’s dying?

One might expect them to be relatively young and unvaccinated.

Certainly not vax-prioritized seniors, right?

============

Let’s look at some data…

The CDC doesn’t report the demographics of daily new covid deaths … or, at least, I can’t find it.

So, I’ve tried to decompose the cumulative data that is reported…

Below is data for February 2021 (about 6 weeks into the vax rollout) and May 2021 (the most current) … and, calculated data for the period between those 2 dates.

Cumulatively since the start of the pandemic, the 65 & over cohort accounted for around 80% of covid-related fatalities.

OK, that’s not new news.

Most notably, the senior cohort has still been accounting for a 75% share of covid deaths over the past couple of months.

Said bluntly, the vast majority of covid deaths are still among those 65 & over.

What’s going on?

Are all of these deaths are coming from the 14% of seniors (roughly 8 million) who haven’t been vaccinated?

Or, are the vaccines’ effectiveness rates being overstated — and not preventing 90% of fatalities, as promised?

Hmm.

Something just doesn’t smell right…

================

I wish the CDC, et. al,, would start reporting more meaningful data.

Case in point: I’d like to see daily covid deaths broken down by age (seniors young adults, teens, kids) … and by their vaccination status.

But, as usual, I won’t hold my breath.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID-19 Tracking | Leave a Comment »

COVID origins: Vanity Fair “smashes the scientific consensus to smithereens”…

June 4, 2021

… by following the money, outing bureaucratic infighting and connecting the dots.
=============

Yesterday, Vanity Fair — hardly a right-wing, conspiracy-minde rag — published a “must read “ article:

The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins

The article is relatively balanced politically (including the obligatory swipes at Trump), thoroughly sourced (with names) and documented (with links), very logical and well argued.

Note: The article is long and very detailed. If you want a quick read (or are pay-walled by Vanity Fair, here’s a PDF version (complete with my highlighting).

VF’s overall conclusion:

Throughout 2020, the notion that the novel coronavirus leaked from a lab was off-limits.

Those who dared to push for transparency say toxic politics and hidden agendas kept them in the dark.

Specifically, VF builds the case supporting the lab-leak theory of covid’s origin … and reports how China “doves” within the government and self-interested, grant-funded scientists tried to shut-down consideration of a possible lab-leak explanation.

Here are some highlights…

=============

Hostility to “open inquiry”

> National security and public health experts and officials across a range of departments in the executive branch were locked in high-stakes battles over what could and couldn’t be investigated and made public.

> Investigators inside the U.S. government were operating in an environment that was politicized and hostile to open inquiry.

> Investigators were told “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued.”

=============

A “conflicted” scientific community

> Conflicts of interest, stemming in part from large government grants supporting controversial virology research, hampered the U.S. investigation into COVID-19’s origin at every step.

> Many leading scientists had either received or approved funding for gain-of-function research. Their conflicted status played a profound role in muddying the waters and contaminating the shot at having an impartial inquiry.”

> If the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear science. It could mire the field indefinitely in moratoriums and funding restrictions.

=============

A gain-of-function bureaucracy

> Investigators were told not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research … because that would make clear that “there is a huge gain-of-function bureaucracy” inside the federal government.

> In one State Department meeting, officials were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s gain-of-function research, because it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it.

> Inside the NIH, which funded such research, the P3CO approval framework was largely met with shrugs and eye rolls.

If you ban gain-of-function research, you ban all of virology.

Ever since the moratorium , everyone’s gone wink-wink and just done gain-of-function research anyway.

===========

About the Chinese military…

> On January 15, five days before President Joe Biden’s swearing in, the State Department released a fact sheet about activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, disclosing that:

Researchers there had collaborated on secret projects with China’s military and “engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.”

===========

Oh my…

Again, the entire article is worth reading for details and context.

Original online article Highlighted PDF

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Wuhan - Lab Theory | Leave a Comment »

Fauci: “Doing gain-of-function research was worth the risk of a pandemic.”

June 3, 2021

Rhetorical question: Why isn’t this getting more media coverage?
============

According to The Weekend Australian (channeled thru Townhall)….

In October 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in the Journal of the American Society for Microbiology that “continuing gain-of-function research (on coronaviruses) is worth the risk of a pandemic”.

Say, what?

==============

To put the quote in context…

> Gain-of-function (GOF) research modifies viruses to make them more transmissible and more dangerous (i.e. lethal) to humans.

> Ostensibly, the research is (was) done to understand how the mutations can occur … and to fast-start development of preventive therapeutics and specific antidotes should they occur.

> Prior to 2014, GOF research was conducted in the U.S. in both military and private (e.g. university) laboratories.

> At the time, there were broadening ethical concerns that such research could be weaponized … and posed a public health risk (i.e. accidental release of the virus)

> In 2014, President Obama — nudged by a handful of reported laboratory “accidents” — issued an executive order banning GOF research in the U.S. and the funding of such research.

> But, of course, Obama’s EO had no force to stop GOF research outside the U.S., say, in China.

=================

OK, that sets the stage…

Again, Fauci is on record as a proponent of GOF research:

In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?

Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. Source

That was in 2012

In 2014, Obama issued his EO banning U.S. involvement in GOF research.

==============

Subsequent to the 2014 EO, the NIH (i.e. Fauci) continued to fund internationally-based scientific research.

No problem with that, except …

Despite Fauci’s initial denials and obfuscations, it is becoming increasing evidentially apparent that some of the Fauci-approved NIH grants made their way to the Wuhan labs and — given the fungibility of research grants — likely supported their GOF research.

To be fair: (1) The potentially problematic Wuhan grant amounts were small — reported to be under $1 million (2) the grants were funneled through an intermediary not-for-profit (the EcoHealth Alliance), and (3) arguably, there were implied restrictions on the grants’ usage and a presumption that grantees would operate in compliance.

Nonetheless, (1) the grants were made under Fauci’s signature, (2) they were channeled to Wuhan and (3) Wuhan was doing GOF research.

Said differently, Fauci has deep self-interest in positioning the pandemic’s source as a “natural evolutionary species-jump (from bats)” … and pooh-poohing the possibility that the source was a predictable lab-leak (with his fingerprints on it).

Otherwise, Fauci and the NIH have complicity in triggering the coronavirus.

Hmm.

=============

So, the question that I’d like somebody to ask:

“Dr. Fauci, given a covid fatality rate of more than a million deaths globally — and over 600,000 deaths in the U.S. — do you stand by your 2012 position that gain-of-function research on coronaviruses was worth the risk of a pandemic?”

My hunch: His views have “evolved”…

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Fauci, Dr. Anthony | 1 Comment »

Fauci: “Doing gain-of-function research was worth the risk of a pandemic.”

June 1, 2021

Rhetorical question: Why isn’t this getting more media coverage?
============

According to The Weekend Australian (channeled thru Townhall)….

Say, what?

==============

To put the quote in context…

> Gain-of-function (GOF) research modifies viruses to make them more transmissible and more dangerous (i.e. lethal) to humans.

> Ostensibly, the research is (was) done to understand how the mutations can occur … and to fast-start development of preventive therapeutics and specific antidotes should they occur.

> Prior to 2014, GOF research was conducted in the U.S. in both military and private (e.g. university) laboratories.

> At the time, there were broadening ethical concerns that such research could be weaponized … and posed a public health risk (i.e. accidental release of the virus)

> In 2014, President Obama — nudged by a handful of reported laboratory “accidents” — issued an executive order banning GOF research in the U.S. and the funding of such research.

> But, of course, Obama’s EO had no force to stop GOF research outside the U.S., say, in China.

=================

OK, that sets the stage…

Again, Fauci is on record as a proponent of GOF research:

In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?

Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. Source

That was in 2012

In 2014, Obama issued his EO banning U.S. involvement in GOF research.

==============

Subsequent to the 2014 EO, the NIH (i.e. Fauci) continued to fund internationally-based scientific research.

No problem with that, except …

Nonetheless, (1) the grants were made under Fauci’s signature, (2) they were channeled to Wuhan and (3) Wuhan was doing GOF research.

Otherwise, Fauci and the NIH have complicity in triggering the coronavirus.

Hmm.

=============

So, the question that I’d like somebody to ask:

My hunch: His views have “evolved”…

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Fauci, Dr. Anthony | Leave a Comment »

Currently, which states have the highest (and lowest) covid death rates?

May 27, 2021

Cumulative death rates — since the beginning of the pandemic — are largely irrelevant.

What matters now is recent covid activity!

============

Yesterday, we pointed out that, in total, there were just under 22,000 covid deaths in the US over the past month.

Disaggregating that number…

10 states — which house about 1/2 of the US population — accounted for about 2/3’s of the total covid deaths in the past month.

The high death counts are not just a matter of states’ big populations.

The death rate in Top 10 states is running about 20% higher than the national average … and is about 50% higher than in the other 40 states (79.7 deaths per million versus 51.4).

=============

Today, let’s dig a little deeper on the state death rates over the past month….

Michigan — which tops the above Top 10 list — had more than triple the national average rate of covid deaths over the past month (215 deaths per million versus to 67).

Pennsylvania and New Jersey follow with more than 100 deaths per million in the past month.

=============

Re-sorting the data, below are the 10 states with the highest death rates over the past month.

3 states that are in the Top 10 for number of deaths aren’t in the Top 10 for death rates: California, Texas and Ohio … suggesting that their high death counts are largely population driven

7 states (highlighted in light red above) are in the Top 10 for number of deaths and the Top 10 for death rates… suggesting that high death rates are a major contributor to their high fatality counts.

3 states that didn’t make the Top 10 for death counts, do make the Top 10 in death rates: Hawaii, Kentucky and Maryland … raising obvious concern.

=============

Flipping the data, here are the states that have had the lowest death rate over the past month:

Note that these low death states are relatively small, geographically diverse and politically skewed (8 Red, 4 Blue).

Note: West Virginia made a significant downward adjustment to its reported fatalities and is excluded in this ranking.

Click here for a list of all stats’ data

=============
OK, enough for the descriptive data…

What’s going on with the recent death rates?

A popular hypothesis is that states with high vaccination rates have have low death rates … and vice versa.

Spoiler alert: It’s not vaccination rates.

Stay tuned … we’ll dig into the Vaccination – death rate relationship tomorrow.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - vaccine | Leave a Comment »

Shocker: Mask policies fraying teacher-student relationships…

May 25, 2021

Shoulda seen this coming, right?
==============

Predictably, these incidents have started spreading like wildfire: teachers being called out for bullying, hypocrisy and irrationality.

The first incident that caught my eye:

Source: DailyMail.com

The name-calling is unacceptable … and the teachers premise “I don’t want to get sick and die” is laughable.

“The science” has said all along that kids have a low risk of catching and transmitting covid.

Vaccinated kids pose zero risk — with or without.

On the other hand, obesity is very high covid risk factor.

BMI Categories
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obese = greater than 30

The kid showed restraint by not pointing out that — if the teacher was really concerned about her health — she might accept some personal responsibility for her well being and speed dial Jenny Craig.

=============

Calculate your BMI here

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Masks - Face coverings | Leave a Comment »

Do you personally know anyone who has died from covid?

May 11, 2021

Specifically, immediate family members or close friends?
=============

From the jump, I’ve opined the obvious: the people most likely to be vax-enthusiastic (the inverse of vax-hesitant) would be (1) those who are most vulnerable to dying if infected and (2) those who have been personally touched by the loss of a family member or close friend.

Since I’m age-qualified for the first category, I rushed to get vaccinated … as have about 85% of my fellow 65 and overs.

Nonetheless, I’ve been intrigued by the 2nd category — those who have a close friend or family member who has been hospitalized or died.

With almost 600,000 covid-related deaths, you’d expect that there would be a lot of folks in the “know somebody” category, right?

I don’t want to jinx my family and close friends by saying it, but (thankfully) I don’t personally know anybody who has been hospitalized or died of covid.

I wondered if I was just a lucky anomaly, so I started asking friends the headlined question.

After some head-scratching, most either answered “no” … or had to go a couple of “degrees of separation” to ID a victim … that is, go down a couple of layers to “friends of friends” or “some guy in the neighborhood”.

Expanding from my very small sample, YouGov did a broad-scale survey and found that 2/3’s of Americans are like me, and don’t “personally know anyone who has died due to complications from covid-19”.

So, for two-thirds of the population (minus those in the vulnerables’ categories) … covid has been more of an abstract notion than directly personal consequential .

So, it might make sense that these people might be less vaccination-energized than folks who have been more directly impacted.

If true, that might be a partial explanation for some of the oft-talked about vaccine-hesitancy.

=============

To that point…

YouGov also found that 43% of Biden voters have lost a close friend or family member… only 1/3 of Trump voters have.

That’s a statistically significant difference!

Maybe vax-hesitant Trump supporters aren’t just dumb rubes as the MSM reports … maybe they don’t live in dense metro hot spots… do enjoy relatively healthy (outdoor) lifestyles … and, as a result, have not been as deeply touched personally by covid.

If so, the need to be vaccinated may seem less urgent.

Hmm.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

MUST READ: How will we know when we’ve turned a COVID-19 corner?

April 13, 2021

Stay focused on the number of Daily New Deaths!
==============
This is a relevant excerpt from a long ago prior post (May 2020)
==============

Why have I centered on Daily New Deaths (DND) as my key metric?

First, saving lives is our paramount objective, right? If yes, it should be our focus metric.

Second, I think that most other metrics that are being bandied about are quite problematic.

Counting deaths — while a bit macabre — is a more reliable process than counting, say, the number of infected people.

Sure, I’d like to know the number of people infected with COVID-19.

But, unless everybody — or at least a large statistical sample — is tested, the number of confirmed cases is subject to lots of statistical issues.

Importantly, if testing increases, then confirmed cases goes up.

Is that an indication of more virus spread or just a reflection of more testing?

I sure can’t tell.

=============

Again, counting fatalities is probably the most reliable metric.

Fatalities are discrete events – so they’re countable.

Still, even deaths may have some counting imperfections.

For example, many non-hospitalized people die and are buried without autopsies. Some may be uncounted COVID victims.

And, as we stated above, the definition of COVID deaths has changed:

COVID-related” means “COVID present”, not necessarily “COVID caused” … and that, along the way, “present” was redefined from “confirmed” to “presumed”

Further, COVID deaths are a function of two drivers: the incidence of the virus … and, the nature, level and timing of therapeutic healthcare.

Said differently, more effective therapeutic healthcare will dampen the death toll.

==============

Bottom line: “Daily New Deaths” is the number we should be watching.

If it shows a consistent downward trend, then we’ll know we’ve turned the corner.

If it stays stable (at a high level) or turns upward, we’ll know that we’re in deep yogurt.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Covid-19 Testing, COVID-19 Tracking, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Biden: “We’re bringing back science.”

March 22, 2021

But, Fauci has said: “Trump was saying what we were telling him.”

So, why isn’t Biden listening to his chief political-scientist’s affirmation that Trump, too, was listening to the scientists?

Sounds like Biden isn’t listening to his chief political-scientist.

Hmmm…

Good time for a flashback…

=============
Originally posted on Sept. 13, 2020 with a timeline of who said what, when they said it … and how Trump responded at the time

Last fall, Bob Woodward set the media’s collective hair on fire with his “bombshell” that Trump “knew” that the coronavirus was more serious than he was telling the American people.

Biden: “Clear evidence of incompetence and dereliction of duty”.

Trump: “Listening to the scientists, and didn’t want to prematurely cause a panic”.

How to settle the question?

Let’s start with what Dr. Anthony Fauci had to truth-tell on the matter:

click to view 4-minute video

By Fauci’s own admission, Trump was “following the science” … contemporaneously channeling what Fauci and other “scientists” were telling him at the time.

Let’s dig a little deeper on that and look hard at the timeline…

(more…)

Posted in 2020 Presidential Campaign, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

More: Fauci confirms “Trump was saying what we were telling him”

March 19, 2021

MUST READ: Originally posted on Sept. 13, 2020 with a timeline of who said what, when they said it … and how Trump responded at the time.

=============

Woodward certainly set the media’s collective hair on fire with his “bombshell” that Trump “knew” that the coronavirus was more serious than he was telling the American people.

Biden: “Clear evidence of incompetence and dereliction of duty”.

Trump: “Listening to the scientists, and didn’t want to prematurely cause a panic”.

How to settle the question?

Let’s start with what Dr. Anthony Fauci had to truth-tell on the matter:

click to view 4-minute video

By Fauci’s own admission, Trump was “following the science” … contemporaneously channeling what Fauci and other “scientists” were telling him at the time.

Let’s dig a little deeper on that and look hard at the timeline…

(more…)

Posted in 2020 Presidential Campaign, Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Biden: “Trump blundered, I’m saving the day”

March 12, 2021

In fact, Operation Warp Speed was much more than fast vaccine R&D. Biden’s claims are, at best, disingenuous.
============

Biden frequently makes 2 related Covid-specific claims:

1. “There were no vaccines available when I took office and not enough to vaccinate America.”

2. “The Trump administration didn’t have a plan for getting people vaccinated. We had to start from completely from scratch.”

==============

The first claim — not enough vaccine ordered — is indisputably false

Let’s start with the pre-approval vaccine commitments made mid-2020.

As part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration entered into contracts with multiple drugmakers … while their potential vaccines were still in clinical trials.

Pfizer-BioNTech: 100 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Moderna: 100 million doses (two-dose regimen)
J&J: 100 million doses (one-dose regimen)
AstraZeneca: 300 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Novavax: 100 million doses (two-dose regimen)
Sanofi-GSK: 100 million doses (one- or two-dose regimen)

In all, the amounts agreed to under these pre-commitment contracts totaled about 800 million vaccine doses, or enough for more than 450 million people. Source

The Pfizer vaccine was approved on December 11, 2020.

Roughly 2 weeks later, on December 23. 2020, HHS signed an agreement with Pfizer for an additional 100 million doses … with options to purchase an additional 400 Million doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Source

So, Trump’s Operation Warp Speed delivered to the Biden administration orders and options for 600 million doses of just the Pfizer vaccine — enough to vaccinate 300 million Americans.

Add in just the pre-commitments to Moderna and J&J and the total swells to 800 million doses — enough to vaccinate 450 million people.

By inauguration day, almost 40 million doses had already been distributed to the states and the daily vaccination rate was passing through the 1 million shots per day mark.

Since inauguration day, an average of about 1.6 million shots have been administered daily — a function of increased supplies (from manufacturers) and improved coverage and efficiency.

The supply flows have continued to increase.

How much of that is attributable to Team Biden’s claimed magic touch and how much of that is simply implementation ramp-up of Trump’s OWS plan?

That’s a question which naturally raises the second claim…

=============

So, is the second claim “no vaccination plan, starting from scratch” true?

While there may be some dispute about the depth and appropriateness of the Trump administration’s plan, there was one … and, by and large, it’s exactly the plan that Team Biden is implementing.

Let’s get specific…

(more…)

Posted in Biden, Joe, Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - vaccine, Operation Warp Speed, Trump, Donald | 1 Comment »

If I test positive for COVID, am I infected?

March 10, 2021

The answer may surprise you, and it has big implications for how individuals & organizations respond to positive Covid test results.
=============
Originally posted 05/27/2020; updated January 17, 2022

In a prior post, we reported that “Asymptomatics” are not rushing to get tested and provided some subjective reasons why that might be (e.g. no doctor referral, high hassle factor, privacy concerns).

OK, let’s up our game a notch or two and throw some math & economics at the problem.

==============

I’m a fan of “Freakonomics” … the popular call sign for a discipline called Behavioral Economics … the study of the rationality that underlies many seemingly irrational decisions that people sometimes make.

And, in my strategic business analytics course, I used to teach something called Bayesian Inference … a way to calculate probabilities by combining contextual information (called “base rates” or “priors”) with case-specific observations (think: testing or witnessing).

Today, we’ll connect Freakonomics and Bayesian Inference and apply them to the COVID testing situation…

(more…)

Posted in Bayes - Bayesian Inference, Coronavirus - Covid 19, Covid-19 Testing, Statistics - Probabilities | Leave a Comment »

CDC guidance for vaccinated people…

March 9, 2021

Good news, common-sensical, scientifically-based … and, of course, politically-motivated.
==============

Yesterday, all media headlined CDC guidance for the steadily increasing pool of vaccinated Americans.

The political motivation: High risk seniors who are frustrated re: vaccine access and scheduling processes are asking: “Why go through the hassle of getting vaccinated if I still won’t be able to see my grandkids?”.

That vax-hesitancy is not good if the goal is to cut the Covid death rate and reach herd immunity.

Cutting to the chase: Based on the new CDC guidance, grandparents can now — without masks or socially distancing — visit their grandchildren.

Of course, there’s plenty of fine print in the CDC guidance.

So. here’s what you need to know….

(more…)

Posted in CDC, Coronavirus - Covid 19, COVID - vaccine | Leave a Comment »

Is herd immunity by the end of April possible … or pure folly?

February 23, 2021

The math says that it’s a stretch, but a real possibility.
=============

In a WSJ op-ed, Hopkins doc Marty Makary boldly asserted the possibility that “We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April”.

Immediately, Dr. Fauci — our nation’s chief political-scientist — hit the talk shows to hose cold water: “Maybe by Christmas, or mid-2022”.

Note: Mid-2022 is right before the mid-term elections. Hmm.

To calibrate Makary’s logic, I went back to re-read the article and run the numbers…

The essence of Makary’s logic is that people develop immunity to COVID in 2 main ways: (1) by surviving a COVID infection or (2) by getting vaccinated.

And, Makary concludes that we’re already approaching herd immunity.

How can that be?

Let’s work the numbers, starting with the herd immunity threshold: How many people have to be immune to achieve herd immunity?

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

COVID: McKinsey report says…

February 19, 2021

Progress has instilled hope that vaccines may, indeed, save the world.
=============

McKinsey just released a COVID update that “reviewed the initial results from clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines and explored several remaining uncertainties”, including:

How many doses will we have and by when?
How will the logistics work for distribution and administration?
And, critically, will consumers agree to be vaccinated?

I thought the article was concisely informative and readable.

Here are my notes from the article…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

MUST READ: How will we know when we’ve turned a COVID-19 corner?

February 18, 2021

Stay focused on the number of Daily New Deaths!
==============
This is a relevant excerpt from a long ago prior post (May 2020)
==============

Why have I centered on Daily New Deaths (DND) as my key metric?

First, saving lives is our paramount objective, right? If yes, it should be our focus metric.

Second, I think that most other metrics that are being bandied about are quite problematic.

Counting deaths — while a bit macabre — is a more reliable process than counting, say, the number of infected people.

Sure, I’d like to know the number of people infected with COVID-19.

But, unless everybody — or at lest a large statistical sample — is tested, the number of confirmed cases is subject to lots of statistical issues.

Importantly, if testing increases, then confirmed cases goes up.

Is that an indication of more virus spread or just a reflection of more testing?

I sure can’t tell.

=============

Again, counting fatalities is probably the most reliable metric.

Fatalities are discrete events – so they’re countable.

Still, even deaths may have some counting imperfections.

For example, many non-hospitalized people die and are buried without autopsies. Some may be uncounted COVID victims.

And, as we stated above, the definition of COVID deaths has changed:

COVID-related” means “COVID present”, not necessarily “COVID caused” … and that, along the way, “present” was redefined from “confirmed” to “presumed”

Further, COVID deaths are a function of two drivers: the incidence of the virus … and, the nature, level and timing of therapeutic healthcare.

Said differently, more effective therapeutic healthcare will dampen the death toll.

==============

Bottom line: “Daily New Deaths” is the number we should be watching.

If it shows a consistent downward trend, then we’ll know we’ve turned the corner.

If it stays stable (at a high level) or turns upward, we’ll know that we’re in deep yogurt.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Covid-19 Testing, COVID-19 Tracking, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Mask wars: How many masks are too few? Too many?

January 31, 2021

Sometimes, it’s hard to take “the Science” too seriously…
=============

Let’s trace this through the headlines, starting with March, 2020.

click for video

===========

A couple months later, the nation’s Chief Political-Scientist had “modified” his position.

============

Now on the cable news circuit, Dr. Fauci is raising his game and telling folks to wear 2 masks (like he does,even though he has gotten 2 doses of the COVID vaccine).

=============

But, other members of “the science” started staking out a higher ground: 3 masks.

=============

As might be expected, some other members of “the science” raised the ante to 4 masks.

=============

This would be funny if COVID weren’t such a serious matter.

The escalating scientific advice brought to mind a parody piece that The Onion ran several years ago.

Back then, razor companies had gone from 1 blade to 2 … to 3 … to 4.

Gillette razors only had 3 blades at the time and the company’s CEO was issuing a call-to-action for his troops to innovate and leap frog the competition: We’re Doing Five Blades!

Trust me, the parody is hilarious.

WARNING: Content is strictly adults only due to extreme profanity.
Definitely not for prudes or children.

Still interested? Click here

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, The Onion | Leave a Comment »

Still more on the COVID vaccines’ 95% effectiveness rate…

December 29, 2020

WHO says “no evidence that vaccines prevent people from getting infected”
=============

True, but no reason to go anti-vax.

Bias alert: I’m pro-vax and plan to get vaccinated as soon as I can.

In a prior post, we parsed the Pfizer study results … honing in on one of the study’s limitations: it only counted the number of participants who exhibited at least one COVID symptom.

Said differently, the study was silent on the number of participants who might have been infected but asymptomatic.

So, I wasn’t surprised when the WHO’s chief scientist quipped:

“At the moment, I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines, to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from getting the infection and passing it on,”

Based on the study’s design and results, I think that it’s reasonable to conclude:

1. The vaccines substantially decrease the probability of catching COVID and developing any symptoms … probably not by 95%, but by a very high number (say, 70%)

2. But, there is an undetermined (or unreported) chance of catching COVID but not developing any symptoms.

3. And, “the science” is still fuzzy on the likelihood of asymptomatic COVID infectees transmitting the virus to other people.

On the last point, some scientists say that asymptomatics are the primary transmitters of the virus.

Others argue that asymptomatics don’t develop symptoms because they have a low “viral load” … and, if their viral load is low, their contagiousness is low … so they’re not transmission threats.

=============

Bottom line: There’s little news in the headline that has gone viral … an no reason to fret.

I still plan to get vaccinated as soon as I can.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Does Fauci think before he speaks?

December 23, 2020

Loyal readers know that I’m no fan of Dr. Fauci.

It continues to amaze me that, despite all of his errant pronouncements and advice, that the MSM and half of America hangs on his every word.

This week, the media ubiquitous pop-doc went on CNN to reassure children that Santa is safe … that he (Fauci) personally vaccinated Santa and made sure that he was good to go.

All right, I understand that it was all intended to be in good fun, but…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Fauci, Dr. Anthony | 1 Comment »

What if the COVID vaccine had been launched sooner?

December 22, 2020

Bias alert: I’m pro-vax and plan to get vaccinated as soon as I can.
=============

On one hand, Trump has been justifiably basking in the success of his Operation Warp Speed program that encouraged and enabled pharma to speed up the development process.

It has been a sheer delight seeing the video loops of media pundits and “experts” looking ridiculous when previously dismissing the possibility of a vaccine by now.

See It’s official: Fauci whiffs, again!

Even Sen. Dickie Durbin — to his credit — stepped to the podium on the Senate floor to give Trump a shout-out for a job well done.

And yesterday, Biden conceded that “the Trump administration deserves some of the credit”.

But, headlines the past couple of days seem to be highlighting the logistical challenges, priority controversies and possible negative consequences of the COVID vaccines: “Man in Alaska Suffers Serious Side Effects”, “40% of Chicago Medical Staff Refuses the Vaccine”, etc.

So, I realize that I may be swimming upstream today, channeling a very provocative point-of-view that I saw offered up by Holman Jenkins in the WSJ:

Science triumphed but shouldn’t we have cut corners and moved faster?

Let’s drill down that…

(more…)

Posted in Clinical trials, Coronavirus - Covid 19, vaccines - immunization | Leave a Comment »

More on the COVID vaccines’ 95% effectiveness rate…

December 18, 2020

Probably overstated but, nonetheless, I’ll get vaccinated as soon as I can!
==============

It’s undeniable that Operation Warp Speed’s financial support and streamlined regulatory processes motivated rapid development of COVID vaccines,

That was largely predictable.

What wasn’t so predictable was the apparent sky high effectiveness of the early-launch vaccines.

Both Pfizer and Moderna report about 95% effectiveness.

Gotta ask: Are these effectiveness rates too good to be true?

In a prior post, we noted that the 95% effectiveness is, indeed, sky high compared to previous flu and pandemic virus vaccines.

Today, let’s drill down on the 95% number…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, vaccines - immunization | 1 Comment »

How do COVID vaccines’ effectiveness stack up against prior vaccines?

December 17, 2020

Answer: 95% is sky high compared to previous flu and pandemic virus vaccines.
=============

Today, let’s put the current COVID vaccines into perspective.

A September 2019 White House report looked specifically at flu and coronavirus vaccines, noting that….

There is considerable variation from year to year in how much the flu vaccine reduces the risk of contracting the seasonal flu and flu-related illnesses.

Over the past 14 years, influenza vaccine effectiveness has ranged between 10% and 60%.

Much of the variability depends on which viral strains predominate in a given year and, more specifically, whether the vaccine matches the viral strain that is circulating in a given flu season.

Although a mismatch between the vaccine and the virus circulating during a flu season reduces efficacy, vaccines still provide some protection against flu illness and decrease the severity of the illness, due to immunologic similarity between the viruses.

=============

When it comes to pandemic viruses …

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, vaccines - immunization | Leave a Comment »

So, who is social distancing and who isn’t?

December 14, 2020

The “Covid States Project” recently published their most recent survey of how Americans are (or are not) complying with the CDC’s COVID mitigation guidance (e.g. wash hands, disinfect surfaces, wear masks, socially distance)

In a prior post, we noted that mask wearing compliance has steadily increased to over 75% (the light yellow diagonal line running from the lower left to upper right corners).

But, “socially distancing” behaviors are declining … both the percentage of people avoiding contact with people outside their home (red line) and those avoiding crowded or public places (green line).

More specifically, the survey indicates:

Education: Mask-wearing and social distancing is statistically unrelated to level of education
Gender: Women wear masks and socially distance more than men
Race: Proportionately fewer Whites wear masks than other racial groups; Whites and Hispanics tend to socially distance less than Blacks and Asians.

But, the differences among education levels, gender and race are relatively modest … probably within the margin of error.

There are a couple of identity characteristics that do show significant differences…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | 1 Comment »

Mask wearing up, cases up, deaths up … huh?

December 9, 2020

A team of northeastern academic researchers, doing a “Covid States Project”, recently published their most recent survey of how “the human behaviors that have been shown to inhibit the spread of COVID-19 have evolved across the US since April, 2020.”

Said differently, they were evaluating whether or not people were complying with the CDC’s COVID mitigation guidance.

The researchers found that, since Spring, mask wearing compliance has increased from slightly over 50% to over 75% (the light yellow diagonal line running from the lower left to upper right corners).

Hmmm.

Mask wearing has increased to a relatively high level, yet the number of confirmed cases are spiking to record highs.

Seems counter-intuitive, doesn’t it?

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19, Masks - Face coverings | 1 Comment »

Gallup says that 90% regularly wear masks…

November 24, 2020

So, if masks work, why are COVID cases soaring?
================

COVID cases are soaring … and while the infection-to-fatality rate has dropped significantly, the daily tally of new deaths has been creeping up.

CDC Director Redfield has testified:

Face coverings are the most powerful public health tool” the nation has against the coronavirus and “might even provide better protection against it than a vaccine.

The COVID death rate will be cut in half if mask compliance were 100%

With that in mind, a recent WSJ article on “COVID" Fatigue” had a chart that caught my eye.

The high red line below is the percentage of people who claim that they regularly wear masks when they leave home.

Bottom line: Gallup says that over 90% of respondents claim they wear masks in public settings … that’s up from 80% who said so in May.

=============

Connecting the dots: Redfield says masks are more effective than vaccines … and, the vast majority of people say they regularly wear masks … but, cases are soaring.

How can that be?

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | 1 Comment »

So, how risky is a Thanksgiving gathering?

November 23, 2020

Let’s throw some math at the question…
=============

It’s not a conscious thing, but these days, our brains are constantly running risk assessments:

What’s the likelihood that I get exposed to COVID?
What’s the likelihood that I get infected?
How bad will it be if I do get infected?

Unfortunately, “the science” hasn’t been providing us with much useful “data to follow” on those questions.

So far, the best data is on question #3: How bad will it be if I do get infected?

CDC: 95% survivability rate if over 70 … higher with no symptoms, no co-morbidities or younger.

Those are pretty good odds, right?
==============

Today, let’s look at question #1 — the likelihood of getting exposed to the virus, say, at a Thanksgiving gathering.

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

The temperature – COVID connection …

November 15, 2020

A team of researchers at Goldman Sachs turned on their regression machines and found a compelling relationship between outside temperature and CODID case confirmations.

Goldman’s bottom line: As temperatures get colder, the incidence of COVID cases increases — pretty dramatically, regardless of local COVID mitigation policies. Source

Goldman points out that’s not surprising since:

Most other coronaviruses (i.e. the common cold), along with various influenza strains, are heavily influenced by temperature and seasonal effects (hence “flu season.

Why is that?

Researchers have found that the human immune system weakens in cold temperature, making people more vulnerable to viruses
Cold weather forces more people to be indoors more often, making them susceptible to infection if a “carrier” breaches their poorly ventilated “bubble”.

===== =======

My add: Note that 72 to 80 degrees is the sweet spot. That’s the temp at which most people turn off their homes HVAC systems, reducing the circulation of any airborne contaminants. Hmmm.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Seriously: Why the push for a national mask mandate?

October 29, 2020

Biden has made it a focus of his campaign … and, the politico-scientists are all in.
================

For the sake of argument, let’s just accept the WSJ observation that:

Some studies show that widespread use of masks can reduce spread.

Even if masks are only incrementally helpful, they are among the least economically costly and burdensome options for reducing COVID spread.

OK, so there’s potential upside and no significant downside

With that in mind, a recent WSJ article on “COVID” Fatigue” had a chart that caught my eye.

The high red line below is the percentage of people who regularly wear masks when they leave home.

Bottom line: Gallup says that 91% of respondents said they wear masks in public settings … that’s up from 80% who said so in May.

Let’s dig a little deeper on those numbers…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Lessons learned from the White House COVID outbreak…

October 28, 2020

Now that the dust has kinda settled from the White House COVID outbreak, it’s a good time to step back and take inventory of lessons learned.

For what they’re worth, here are my takeaways:

> Screening — via temperature checks & rapid tests — doesn’t protect against viral breaches.

There are 2 stark realities:

The tests are blunt instruments that are highly susceptible to false negative results.
It only takes 1 infected person (i.e. an “index case”) to start the viral chain reaction.

So, other defense mechanisms (e.g. keeping a safe distance — especially from unmasked strangers) are absolutely necessary.

============

> Applying a Grandma Homa adage: Nothing is ever as good or as bad as it initially seems.

On a practical level, the WH outbreak wasn’t all that bad.

From what I’ve heard or read, about 30 people ended up testing positive, but …

Nobody died (which is slightly better than the 99% overall survival rate)
Only 2 people were hospitalized (Trump & Christie)
Nobody is showing any after-effects now — especially a re-invigorated Trump who seems to have benefited from a couple of full night’s sleep.

As a doctor-friend of mine likes to say: “Getting infected isn’t a death sentence”.

============

> The key: Find it fast and hit it hard!

The biggest advantage that the White House guests had was that they had ready access to re-testing via methods more reliable than the rapid tests … and, Trump’s infection lit a fire under all attendees to get tested, pronto.

That’s probably the best example yet of self-identified contact tracing.

Everybody who got infected (whether at the event or elsewhere) “found it fast”.

And, at least in Trump’s case, they “hit it hard”.

For months, Trump had been headlining the importance — and speedy development — of effective therapeutics.

When talking vaccine development, he usually added “… and therapeutics”.

Little did he know that he’d become a poster-child for the cause.

Whether it was the Regeneron or the uber-steroids that he was dosed, it’s indisputable that the combo of therapeutics got him on his feet and back in action at record speed.

Bottom line: Find it fast and hit it hard!

My view: Fast & hard is a resolute principle whether the disease is COVID … or, from our family experience, breast cancer … or, any other life-threatening disease.

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Even more unsettled (and unsettling) science…

October 20, 2020

After the WHO & CDC have done a couple of u-turns (and full 360s) on masks, what’s the current “truth”?

==============

Let’s start with a basic question, how is COVID transmitted?

Initially, the science community (think: Fauci channeling the WHO and China’s disinformation) told us not to worry … that COVID was not transmitted human-to-human.

Then, we were told that it was transmitted human to human (to human) … via large droplets that contaminate surfaces (think: countertops and doorknobs) and hands … and transfer by handshaking and face-touching.

We bought into that … we started washing our hands and cleared store shelves of hand sanitizers and surface disinfectants (which are still in short supply).

Then, we were told that COVID is transmitted via large droplets that are delivered when infected people cough, sneeze and spray-talk on us.

That conclusion ushered in social distancing and masks went from “won’t help, might hurt” to “best line of defense”. Most recently, CDC Director Redfield — apparently auditioning for a role as the village idiot –testified that wearing a mask is more of a viral deterrent than vaccines.

Then, a short-lived CDC guidance revision threatened to upset a big apple cart.

Here’s the back story…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

“What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science”

October 15, 2020

Bias, overconidence and politics can sometimes lead scientists astray.
=============

That’s where the WSJ comes out in an essay by Matt Ridley — author of “How Innovation Flourishes”.

Mr. Ridley makes a couple of transcending points:

> Organized science is indeed able to distill sufficient expertise out of debate in such a way as to solve practical problems. But, science is a flawed and all too human affair.

> Scientists are fallible.They are not omniscient demigods whose opinions automatically outweigh all disagreement.

> There is no such thing as “the science”. Rather, there are different scientific views that need to be tested and debated.

More specifically…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

NYT: “Pandemic will be over sooner than expected”

October 14, 2020

Begrudging credit finally given to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed
==============

Donald G. McNeil Jr. is a science reporter who has covered epidemics and diseases for the NYT since 1976.

He confesses that he has been “a consistently gloomy Cassandra, reporting on the catastrophe that experts saw coming: that the virus would go pandemic, that Americans were likely to die in large numbers.”

His view now: After taking the obligatory Trump-shot that, “with stronger leadership, the death toll would have been far lower”, McNeil concedes that:

Experts are saying, with genuine confidence, that the pandemic in the United States will be over far sooner than they expected, possibly by the middle of next year.

Why the sudden gush of optimism?

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | Leave a Comment »

Even more unsettled (and unsettling) science…

October 8, 2020

The CDC does another u-turn, turning a near-full 360 on how COVID is transmitted.

Spoiler Alert: It has to do with masks.
==============

So, how is COVID transmitted?

Initially, the science community (think: Fauci channeling China’s disinformation) told us not to worry … that COVID was not transmitted human-to-human.

We bought into that … we started washing our hands and cleared store shelves of hand sanitizers and surface disinfectants (which are still in short supply).

Then, we were told that COVID is transmitted via large droplets that are delivered when infected people cough, sneeze and spray-talk on us.

That conclusion ushered in social distancing and masks went from “won’t help, might hurt” to “best line of defense”.

That’s where we were, but a short-lived CDC guidance revision threatened to upset a big apple cart.

Here’s the back story…

(more…)

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid 19 | 1 Comment »

Archive for the ‘Coronavirus – Covid 19’ Category

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY