We will never get the truth out of China about CV-19 origins. But clever scientists can make some progress on that front. This researcher found some supposedly deleted sequencing information from early Wuhan infection samples. Chinese scientists had asked for the sequencing info to be deleted from NIH databases (hmmm, what prominent Faustian public health expert do we know at NIH) but this enterprising dude was able to recover the sequences from Google Cloud. Supportive of a cover-up attempt is the fact that these sequences were not like the ones from the Wuhan wet market that was identified as the source by the Chinese/WHO report. Instead, the recovered sequences were more like bat coronaviruses that were being used in the Wuhan lab and that are closer to CV-19. This is a disgraceful manipulation of important information by the Chinese, with the complicity of WHO and the aforementioned Dr. Fasshole. I strongly encourage you to read this paper and you will be impressed with the heroic detective work of this scientist and by the deviousness of the Chinese government. (Medrxiv Paper)
Case and death rates appear to vary widely between countries and even states in the US. Partly this is clearly due to different testing policies, case definitions and death attribution methods. But it is also likely attributable to other factors. This paper explores the issue. (Medrxiv Paper) Four critical factors were examined across 190 countries. The factors were median age, obesity rate, island status and border restrictions. Those four variables explained 70% of the variation in case rates across countries. Other factors, including level of GDP and population density, had little explanatory power.
A study on CV-19 in intergenerational households. (Medrxiv Paper) The research was conducted in New York City and found that after adjustment for a variety of demographic and health factors, living in multigenerational and crowded households was associated with much greater transmission. Partly this may be due to just more contacts. But the authors note that stay-at-home, or lockdown, orders obviously raise transmission risks when so much spread appears to occur in homes, and raise those risks more in crowded or intergenerational households.
Another study, this one in children, finding the presence of antibodies to CV-19 in pre-epidemic samples. These antibodies derived from seasonal coronavirus infections and likely explain why children are both less likely to get infected and to have serious disease. (JID Study)
I don’t know what to make of this study, which uses very complicated modeling and statistical techniques to demonstrate that with a 10 to 14 day lag, lockdowns reduce case and death rates and reopening policies increase them. It appears that they actually merely match inflection points with policies and there is no causation shown and I think the analysis is inaccurate, based on other research. And Minnesota’s DOH tells us it takes four weeks for an intervention to take effect. (Cell Study)