Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 93

By January 27, 2022Commentary

Overwhelming amount of research, so it is likely going to take two posts to catch up.  A lot of vaccine effectiveness research but other items as well.  Most notably, the whacko progressive press continues to backslide on supporting epidemic terrorism and foreverism.  Here is the Atlantic magazine again returning to its contrarian roots to question why we are masking children.  For some of us this was an abomination from the start, so welcome to the party.  The article is well-written and thought out but is unlikely to change any mask religionist’s mind.  These people are literal delusional fanatics who would lemming-march off the cliff as long as they could wear nine masks, and a face shield.  And with Omicron we are seeing just how effective their little talisman is and has been, i.e., doesn’t make one bit of difference in community spread, or in this case, in spread among students or teachers.  This article is a must-have for those of you fighting against mandatory masking.   (Atlantic Article)

The issue of how many hospitalizations attributed to CV-19 are actually for treatment has become more prominent and finally many institutions and some states are releasing data on this topic, which is quite revealing. This study is somewhat of a step backward, but it is basically a modeling exercise.  The authors took a number of counties across the country and looked at high volume hospitals and came up with a model to estimate how many hospitalizations were currently incidental.  They come up with a, in one sense, laughably low number of 15%.  Many hospitals are directly reporting numbers in excess of 40%, as are some states.  With Omicron this problem has intensified, and states, like Minnesota, which are hyperfocused on messaging have a conflict with claiming that vaccination solves all problems but then seeing a ton of incidental hospitalizations of the vaxed, but they don’t want to minimize hospitalizations as it has been a key element of their terror campaign.  So they are paralyzed in their messaging.  The main issue with the study is, as it always is with models, the assumptions.  There is no actual chart review, the best method to determine true reason for and treatment during hospitalization and there is no review of claims which might through coding reveal primary and incidental hospitalizations.  (Medrxiv Paper) 

This study looked at circulating antibody levels from vaxed persons, prior infected individuals and currently infected ones.  It claims that vaccination produces 50 times higher antibody levels than infection.  The authors’ conclusion is that this means everyone should get vaccinated.  Unexplained is how in real life every piece of research is showing that infection alone results in lower levels of subsequent infection than does vaccination.  Maybe it is because these authors were so interested in getting the results that they did that they measured the vaccinated group shortly after vaccination and the infected persons at variable times past their infection, thereby ignoring the waning of vaccine effect everyone has reported.  Abysmal science.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Another paper reporting that exposure to CV-19 prompts a recall of certain immune responses to seasonal coronavirus and may help develop a stronger immune reaction to all coronaviruses.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This article, on the other hand, suggests somewhat paradoxically that the immune response to seasonal coronavirus may inhibit clearing CV-19.  I don’t buy it, because the vast bulk of the research suggests that those prior responses tend to limit infection and seriousness of disease.  And while the underlying research reported on covers a lot of ground, the supposed finding of interference with response to CV-19 is based solely on an animal model.   (JAMA Article)   The underlying research is here.  (Cell Article)

This small study from Japan finds that two doses of the vaccine prompted low levels of circulating neutralizing antibodies against Omicron, but that a booster dose restored the level of neutralizing antibodies to near 100%.  But the followup is short and we are seeing in real life that boosters aren’t stopping Omicron infection.  (Medrxiv Paper)

The title of this study is misleading and again is an indication of how this epidemic has perverted science to political ends.  The title says that vaccination leads children to have neutralizing responses to Omicron.  What the research says is that as in adults, the vax-prompted response to Omicron is far lower than to other variants, although it appears stronger than in adults.  Time from vax for measurement was extremely short so misleading in any event based on what we know of longer-term effects.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Another study of relative development of antibody levels in children versus adults following infection.  The process was relatively similar within 6 months, with the exception that children had lower antibody levels directed against the nucleo-capsid protein.  (Medrxiv Paper)



Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • Richard Allison says:

    Read the other day about a non-masked wearing person being challenged by a mask crusader on why that person wasn’t wearing a mask. Person’s response “I’m AN ATHEIST” was one I might use myself.

    Question is there a difference in antibodies from a natural Covid infection and from vaxed antibodies and can a test differentiate that difference? Or is an antibody pretty much standard issue?

  • Ann in L.A. says:

    The Atlantic has been posting about the downsides of our war against children since fall of 2020:

    Off topic: Since I’m posting links to The Atlantic, this is my favorite article of theirs, from back in 2002. It’s about computer simulations. Particularly of interest is the simulation were dots in a computer were given the constraints that they were perfectly happy being next to dots of a different color, but really wanted at least one dot of the same color. When the simulation was run, the neighborhoods became segregated over time.

    I think it was an important article, but one that few people probably ever saw, or understood the implications:

    >> In the same connection, look at Figure 2. This time the agents seek only one neighbor of their own color. Again the simulation begins with a random distribution (Frame 1). This time sorting proceeds more slowly and less starkly. But it does proceed. About a third of the way through the simulation, discernible ethnic clusters have emerged (Frame 2). As time goes on, the boundaries tend to harden (Frames 3 and 4). Most agents live in areas that are identifiably blue or red. Yet these “people” would be perfectly happy to be in the minority; they want only to avoid being completely alone. Each would no doubt regard itself as a model of tolerance and, noticing the formation of color clusters, might conclude that a lot of other agents must be racists.<<

  • Jersey JoePa says:

    I am not a regular follower of the Atlantic but I do appreciate contrarian perspectives, having read all of Malcolm Gladwell’s books. I did appreciate the data captured in their Covid Tracking Project but always suspected it was designed with a different motive than just providing information from the various DOH’s. Nonetheless it was useful for data geeks.

    There is a slow trickle from the left media outlets unwinding the narrative they crafted in the early days of Covid and they are hoping that not too many people remembered the position that they staked out during these early days. The authors of this article come to the conclusion that masks on children do more harm than good. Duh! Does this come under the heading of being “woke” or “woken” to reality? Many intelligent people were censored on public platforms by many less intelligent people who knew that there was no science, no fact based evidence that masking children did anything positive for anyone. As more and more of the totalitarians are forced to own up to their poor decisions it will also reveal how lockstep the media outlets were complicit in covering for those poor decisions by censoring opposing points of view that ultimately were accurate

Leave a comment