The terror campaign run by politicians and public health experts as a result of coronamonomania resulted in many people avoiding needed health care, including persons who were having heart attack symptoms failing to go to an ER and people with known cardiac disease failing to maintain routine checkups. The predictable result of this terror campaign and resulting care avoidance is more deaths from heart attacks that could have been prevented or treated more quickly. This meta-review and analysis of studies on the effect of the terror campaign on heart disease finds that there has been a 40% increase in heart attacks outside the hospital accompanied by twice the risk of resulting death. Congrats to the terror campaigners, I am sure this is just what you hoped for. But don’t despair, I am also sure some of the people may have tested positive on an ultra-sensitive PCR test, so you can call them CV-19 deaths too. (RS Study)
The mask religionists will never let go and it is pointless to argue with numbskulls who can’t distinguish between evidence and belief. So even when research clearly shows that masks don’t work to slow transmission in the community and why that is so, they have to find some way to weasel around the evidence. I love the title of this article, because instead of saying masks don’t work, it says we need better masks. (Mask Study Article) (Mask Study) This was another mannequin study, so not real humans with real human mask-wearing. And they just had the mannequin expel aerosols, no attempt to include virus and measure that. And the time measured was very short, but we are asking employees, the public and children in school to wear masks for hours at a time. The authors were looking at masks primarily as source control and found that cloth masks and surgical masks basically didn’t stop most aerosols, which recent studies pretty clearly show contain most virus that is emitted and those aerosols maintain that virus in airborne particles for an extended time. Now here is the truly hilarious part of the study, N95 masks, which are incredibly uncomfortable to wear for any length of time, only blocked 50% of aerosols, but the researchers say if we just wear them, everything will be hunky-dory. Please note also the finding that masks tended over a short interval to begin to concentrate aerosols and therefore emit them in larger concentrations than were emitted by unmasked persons. And they make this recommendation to wear N95 masks while noting that supposedly more effective masks pose a significant impediment to good breathing. And the researchers further find that ventilation improvements are far more effective than even N95 masks.
I have been saying this since the mask nonsense started. They might in an isolated instance of encounter with virus particles prevent transmission to you and they might prevent you, if you are infected, from spewing quite as much virus. But over any significant number of encounters, do the math if even N95s are only blocking 50% of particles. And that leaves aside issues about what happens to all the virus particles being collected by the mask, poor fit, touching the mask, and on and on. The question must be framed as “do masks slow community transmission in the population”. I find my answer by looking at epidemic charts, the answer is clearly no. Ianmsc on Twitter constantly shows this. And the failure of the religionists to do real trials to demonstrate how wonderful their little fetish is, tells you all you need to know about how well they work.
In light of evidence suggesting that vaccine effectiveness may lessen somewhat rapidly, the followup period for any study on vaccines becomes important. It was short for this study from Germany, but give the age of the participants, it is still informative. (Medrxiv Paper) The study examined vaccine effectiveness at preventing infections hospitalizations and deaths among persons over 80 years old. The study covered over 700,000 persons and even among this quite old group effectiveness against infection was 68%, against hospitalization 73% and against death 80%.
This study examined breakthrough infections among health care workers in Germany. (Medrxiv Paper) There was a low percent of vaccinated workers with breakthrough infections. All were asymptomatic or mild diseases resulted. Cycle numbers were lower in asymptomatic versus symptomatic individuals. But the really interesting finding was that cycle numbers for positive tests on these infections appeared similar to those from unvaccinated workers infected with the original strain, in other words Delta didn’t produce higher viral loads in vaxed persons, and the samples were less likely to actually culture for viable virus and the period of positivity was much shorter. This strongly suggests that many of these breakthrough “infections” aren’t infections at all, but testing that finds viral fragments from the repulsion of an attempted infection.
Is their a significant difference between the adaptive immune response resulting from infection and that occurring after vaccination? Another study examines this question and finds that while vaccination resulted in higher near-term antibody levels, those levels declined more rapidly in vaxed people as opposed to those with immunity from infection. (Medrxiv Paper)
There has been a lot of research on the relative costs and benefits of lockdown policies and it is difficult to assess accuracy because so many assumptions and different methods of analysis are involved. Here is another such study, focusing solely on economic costs and finding that those costs of lockdowns far outweighed any benefits. (SSRN Study)