In case you aren’t Halloweened-out, a lot of scary, scary research on the ultimate terror, CV-19. Of course we must start with the ultimate political puppet agency, our very own CDC.
And the CDC just continues to be the gift that goes on giving when it comes to pathetic studies designed solely to support messaging. This study was supposed to encourage previously infected but unvaxed persons to get vaxed because they are a higher risk if they don’t. (CDC Study) Multiple people have ripped this study apart on Twitter and elsewhere, for example Alex Berenson on substack, and see this Twitter thread. (Twitter Piece) As usual cherrypicked time periods and shady analytic methods figure prominently, liberally seasoned with a dose of author conflict of interests as many receive funding from drug companies selling vaccines. I am not sure where to start and don’t want to spend much time on it, but look at Table 1. Note that the headline item being measure is CV-19-like illness, which is weird. Note that there are far more of these among the vaxed than unvaxed, but this is where a per capita assessment or cohort matching would be important, not the absolute numbers. You just have to wonder though, when you see this monkey business, what is going on. You will note also in that table that the time period used is idiosyncratic, that is, unique to each person tested. Since the level of community transmission typically has a lot to do with individual risk of getting infected, this is a massive confounder, and in general, vaccination has been occurring over a period of lower transmission, and if you look at the table what do we see–far more of the hospitalizations in the vaxed group occurred later in the overall study period, when there was less spread. And finally, of course, there is no antibody test that the vaxed group had not actually been previously infected. You might also note that as you would expect, the vaxed group is substantially older, so they would have more hospitalizations for flu and other disease that has respiratory symptoms. So when your ratio is how many of these people hospitalized really for anything, then have a positive CV-19 test, that is just garbage. I could go on, but as I said, it is a CDC study, so we know it only has one purpose, and that is to support political messaging, which in this case is get vaccinated even if you have been infected. And because it is a CDC study we also know that the truth is the opposite of what the study is used to say–so in this case we know that the adaptive immunity from infection is actually better than that from vaccination. I would say the study is an embarrassment but the CDC isn’t capable of that.
Next up from our friends at an actual trustworthy research institution, the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, comes a review of the research on asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission of CV-19. As always, they exam the characteristics of the study and find that most have flaws. 18 pieces of research were included and found a highly variable rate of asymptomatic cases, and a highly variable proportion of those that ultimately displayed some symptom. While most studies found some transmission by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals, no common proportion could be identified. So we really don’t know, but most of the studies suggested that these persons contribute less to spread and are likely infectious for a shorter period. (CEBM Study)
And this study looks at viral loads, and presumably infectiousness, from Delta infections in vaxed and unvaxed persons. (Lancet Study) The study was done in a cohort of persons who had agreed to daily testing to identify infection and likely transmission events. The absolute number of infections was small. Transmission to vaxed household contacts with Delta was around 25% versus 38% for the unvaxed contacts. Transmission from vaxed and unvaxed persons was basically identical. Peak viral loads appeared similar, but vaxed persons tended to clear the virus more quickly. And the little nugget hidden in this study, since Delta is supposed to be oh so much scarier, is that viral loads for Delta were not higher than for Alpha, and that viral loads actually grew slower and declined faster in Delta cases. None of those findings support the notion that Delta is more transmissible.
For most CV-19 suppression measures, there was absolutely no evidence to support their use, but our public health experts recommended them anyway, doing immense damage. And now the research increasingly shows just how worthless these measures were. This study from Japan matched areas with closed and open schools in regard to association with transmission rates and found absolutely no difference. As the authors note, closing schools does great educational and social damage for no reason whatsoever. (Nature Article)
This research studied the long-term impact of infections after vaccination. Outcomes were examined for those who were infected after vax with those who were not vaxed for CV-19 but had received an influenza vaccine. In general, rates of adverse outcomes were lower in those who received a CV-19 vaccine, then became infected, but this effect was only observed in those under 60 years of age. So for the older cohort, the vaccine did not necessarily limit severe illness, including hospitalization. (Medrxiv Paper)
Yet another paper trying to understand the potential effect of adaptive immunity to seasonal coronaviruses in regard to CV-19 infection or vaccination. The authors find that infection by CV-19 boosts the immune response to seasonal coronaviruses, but that vaccination does not, suggesting that the immune response to seasonal coronaviruses involves more than just reaction to spike protein. Not clear if these prior responses help fight CV-19 or not. (Medrxiv Paper)
These reports have come under fire from the vaccine terrorists, but the latest vaccine surveillance report from the UK continues to show dramatically reduced effectiveness against infection over time, but continued good protection against hospitalization and death, especially among younger groups. (UK Report)