Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 84I

By January 9, 2022Commentary

And it does, live forever.  I really want to stop doing this, but I feel compelled to keep trying to show people data and research and help them be more informed.  So here is the latest set of research summaries.

This study of household transmission from Denmark found that in regard to Delta, those who were vaccinated were both less likely to transmit and to be transmitted to than were the unvaxed.  Viral loads were lower in the vaxed, which may be a partial explanation.  Overall transmission was still pretty high.  But let’s make everyone stay home.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Another vaccine effectiveness study.  This one, done by a company that makes its money selling services to drug companies, finds a very high effectiveness of vaccines against infection and against symptomatic infection, but it completely ignores confounders, including time since vaccination.  But wait, it gets worse, the research was based on a survey.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Yet another paper on the hot topic of the day, vaccine effectiveness against Omicron.  The study comes from the Kaiser system which has access to good data and a history of producing solid research.  Effectiveness against Omicron infection was only 30% in the period shortly after vax and declined even further thereafter.  Having a booster made effectiveness 95% against Delta and 63% against Omicron.  Effectiveness against hospitalization was extremely high, with none of the Omicron infectees being hospitalized. Although not discussed in the paper, it appears from the table that prior infection is highly associated with a lower likelihood of infection.   (Medrxiv Paper)

We know that older people typically have less intense immune system reactions following vaccination, but why that is so is probed in this paper.  Specific changes in T cell development and functionality were found, along with other relevant differences, compared to younger persons.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study from India among hospitalized adolescents finds that most had asymptomatic or mild CV-19 infections, so my conclusion is that they weren’t admitted for CV-19 treatment.  An astoundingly small number of adolescents were even admitted with CV-19.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Rapid antigen tests, which form the basis of most at-home tests for CV-19, are not noted for their accuracy.  This research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that there is an extremely high rate of false positives.  42% in fact.  The authors blame it on a manufacturing issue and say that the tests are generally more reliable.  yeah, sure, if you say so.  (JAMA Letter)

This study among Portugese health care workers found a strong vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection in the first few months following vaccination, but the effective over time was not completely measured.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Concerns about heart issues related to vaccine receipt are legitimate but often over-stated.  This very large study from France looked at older persons who received the mRNA vaccines and found no higher rates of cardiac adverse events than the background rates.  (JAMA Article)

Join the discussion 5 Comments

  • Dan Waller says:

    Regarding Antigen tests, you might want to follow Michael Mina on Twitter if you’re not.

  • Stacey Atneosen says:

    We are testing our way to a NEVER ending state of covid19 paralysis. And if the IB wins re-election in November it will be another continued state of lockdowns, mask mandates, and ignorance.

  • Greg says:

    RE myocarditis risks of vaccination
    Today Rushworth (usually very reliable) points out that the risk is steeply age dependent. Negligible in over 40s but considerable in teenagers and younger. Also, of course, the specific vaccine matters: Moderna much worse than Pfizer.

  • Question about your Danish study. The “Danish CDC” (Statens Serum Institut) publishes a roughly bikweekly report similar to the UKHSA vaccine surveillance report. Their statisticians actually calculate vaccine efficacy against hospitalization and death. As of this week their OFFICIAL published number for Pfizer 2-dose efficacy in 65+ is -40% (negative forty percent) and their OFFICIAL published number for Moderna 2-dose efficacy in 65+ is -30% (negative thirty percent).

    How does this square with the claim that “those who were vaccinated were both less likely to transmit and to be transmitted to than were the unvaxed”? It’s like these researchers are living in a different world.

    I convert the Danish reports (snapshots in time) into lovely time series graphs. You can see the latest here:
    https://noline.substack.com/p/denmark-ssi-report-week-2022-01

    But you don’t need to take my word for it, just read the report, which is here: https://files.ssi.dk/covid19/gennembrudsinfektion/rapport/gennembrudsinfektion-covid19-uge01-2022-dk30. They’ve even started putting some key table headings and descriptions in English.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    that negative vaccine effectiveness stuff is crap and if you want to think for two seconds you would know why. The study was a very specific study of transmission in thousands of households, so it is highly accurate.

Leave a comment