A few studies to catch up on.
There are a few brave voices in the medical community willing to challenge the standard political message. Here is a Lancet editorial arguing that people who have been infected should be recognized as having immunity at least as good as that provided by vaccination. And they take notice of the fact that increasing proportions of events are in the fully vaccinated. Finally, they point out that stigmatizing people because of vaccination status is wrong. (Lancet Article)
A reader sent me this one, which should encourage the FDA and the CDC to be very cautious about child vaccinations. The study was presented at the American Heart Association and is published in the journal Circulation, which is reputable. The patients involved were part of a preventive cardiology practice and were regularly screened for markers of heart disease. After receiving mRNA vaccines they were rescreened. The results showed substantial increases in the proteins which signified heart inflammation and heightened cardiac disease risk. The FDA should be doing intensive monitoring through its contracted databases to determine if there is a problem. And we should definitely not be pushing these vaccines on young people. Now I will say, serious infection with CV-19 leads to the same issues, so the risk/benefit calculation is whether the vaccine or the disease causes more of these problems. (Circ. Article)
This study compared immune response development resulting from natural infection to that from full vaccination. A third group was included who became infected less than 15 days after the first dose. The patients were quite old, median age in the 80s. The paper found the typical decline in antibody levels following vaccination. The natural infection group started at a slightly higher level, and experienced less of a decline. The combination of infection and vaccination appeared to produce the strongest and slowest declining levels. (Medrxiv Paper)
This paper is a meta-analysis of other research on vaccine effectiveness overtime and confirms the usual findings that protection against infection lessens overtime, but stays stronger against serious disease. (SSRN Article)
Rapid antigen tests are routinely used in school and other screenings. Prior research has shown they do a good job of avoiding false positives and probably are more accurate than standard PCR tests at indicating infectiousness. This study evaluated the use of three of these tests in the Netherlands health system. The tests were found to be good at avoiding false positives, and missed some true positives. (Medrxiv Paper)
Interesting report on excess mortality over the pandemic period compared to earlier averages in the European countries. Notice which country is near the bottom, actually has negative excess mortality? Sweden. One thing that is striking if you look at these charts going back five years or more is that we had a number of years of declining mortality, which provided lots of fuel for the epidemic. (ONS Data)
This article, based on Chinese data, claims that 20% of infections are transmitted 14 days or more after the index case was infected. That is completely contrary to any other research, which all shows that transmission beyond about 10 days is non-existent. Chinese trying to keep the West in a tizzy and locked-down forever. (Medrxiv Paper)