Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 103

By February 10, 2022Commentary

We now have confirmation that it is only politics that is driving a particular political party to desperately start pulling down CV-19 mandates and restrictions.  A number of stories have relayed concerns arising from focus groups conducted by this party.  If you were actually in touch with the populace instead of being driven by your internal fantasies and ideologies, you wouldn’t need a focus group to figure that out.  As I said yesterday, too little too late.  People will be happy to see the restrictions go, but won’t forget which party was all in on torturing children and putting women out of work, spreading epi-terrorism and making live miserable for everyone.

Minnesota DOH continues to just have some goofy reporting.  Some delays on hosp reporting showing up.  We got a death today from a year ago, you just have to wonder how this happens.

This study found that use of vax mandates, i.e., the isolation of supposedly non-immune individuals to limit transmission, basically made zero difference in transmission rates across a wide variety of countries.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study from the Netherlands finds that neither vaccination nor prior infection was particularly protective against Omicron, with vax having a slight advantage.  Both sources of adaptive immunity were equally effective against Delta.  The study included a time at risk element, which is good, and the protection from each appeared to wane over time.  A booster somewhat restored protection against Omicron.  Being both infected and vaxed boosted protection.  In general, protection of any type lessened with age.  (Medrxiv Paper)

The study also compared protection from prior infection and vaccination, finding both to be highly effective both against subsequent infection and serious illness.  This was a matched cohort design.  Contrary to what Minnesota and other data shows, this study found a higher rate of reinfection than breakthru infection, but there are some potential biases in the design and data.  Over time, however, prior infection looks much more protective than vaccination.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Prior infection protection against subsequent Omicron infection was reported in this paper from Qatar.  While protection against Alpha and Delta infections was very high, it was only 55% against Omicron, including after adjustment for time from prior infection.  Protection against hospitalization or death, however, was extremely high against all variants, including Omicron.    (NEJM Article)

Another paper from Qatar looking solely at mRNA vaccine protection against Omicron.  Protection against infection was lower than against prior variants, was restored somewhat by a booster, but then lessened again.  Protection against serious disease was higher and remained fairly high, with a booster again showing an increase in effectiveness.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study from Mexico suggests that prior infection generates a stronger and more durable B cell response than does vaccination.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Remember when the geniuses (that is sarcasm, these people have been revealed to be morons by their epidemic responses) who run our governments and public health agencies decided that keeping kids and young people from playing sports would reduce transmission opportunities?  This large study at a number of universities finds absolutely no difference in positivity rates among student-athletes versus non-athletes.  (JAMA Article)

A study from Norway uses household contact tracing to determine that Omicron was somewhat, but not hugely, more transmissible than Delta.  Vaccination did not provide significant protection against infection.  The authors attribute apparent faster transmission to declining vaccine effectiveness rather than inherent differences in the variants.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Another study suggests that boosting with a different vaccine than used in the original doses may increase protection.  (NEJM Paper)

Join the discussion 13 Comments

  • Do we really, at this point, need any more studies “suggesting” that natural immunity is better?

    – Like for whom is that an open question still?
    – Shouldn’t these “scientists” just accept the truth and go study something less worthless than a question we already knew the answer to before COVID started, and that we now know 20X more?

    The latest UKHSA report is out and things are looking, shall we say, continually worse for the Very Safe and Effective vaccines. If you want to look at graphs of real world data that tell you how well these shots do versus natural immunity, check it out: https://noline.substack.com/p/ukhsa-week-2022-06.

  • fred4d says:

    Traditionally a logistics curve is used to describe an epidemic, Equation f(x) = L/(1 + d^(-k(x – x0)))

    Where,

    L = the maximum value of the curve

    e = the natural logarithm base (or Euler’s number)

    x0 = the x-value of the sigmoid’s midpoint

    k = steepness of the curve or the logistic growth rate

    The derivative of f(x) gives you classic bell shape. There are some modifications of the equation that account for non-symmetric curves. You need to be well into the event to make a good prediction as it is very sensitive.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    yeah, we are playing around with various curve fitting exercises, which may be kind of futile, and obviously at this point the population has a fair amount of immunity. but the real value in the exercise is to try to think why does it have this shape. the math is interesting, but what is it telling us about reality. So why do epidemics follow a certain curve. I am going to ask Dave to look at your comment and possibly contact you because we value any thoughts on this topic.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    You might want to actually read the whole UK vaccine surveillance report, including all the notes and the blog posts, but then again, if you do that it won’t reinforce your beliefs, and they are just beliefs, about the vaccine

  • fred4d says:

    Typo in my equation, the d should be an e.

  • Kevin, I do read the notes. And the notes don’t comport with the data, which is why I highlight the data. The notes are nothing but spin and it’s sad that you put so much stock in them when they continuously and consistently contradict the data.

    Speaking of data, have you shared with your readers the data behind this study in The Lancet? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext#seccestitle10

    And oh, no, Kevin, I don’t mean the main text of the study. To put it in your condescending language, you might want to read the whole study, including all the supplements. Then perhaps you’ll come across real data, not the spin, and you will see the graph entitled “Supplemental Figure 1. Vaccine effectiveness (any vaccine) against COVID-19 hospitalization or death in 842,974 vaccinated individuals matched to equally number of unvaccinated individuals for up to 9 months of follow-up. The association was illustrated using proportional hazards models with 95% CIs (shaded areas) and restricted cubic splines. The model was adjusted for age, baseline date, sex, homemaker service, place of birth, education, and comorbidities at baseline.”

    It’s quite an interesting chart. Your readers would I’m sure love you to cover it, as it tells you a lot about the “Muh Severe Outcomes” narrative and how this narrative can persist if you bury the data deep enough that nobody looks at it. Since you like to remind us that you read absolutely everything, especially stuff that contradicts your biases, I’m sure you’ll come across it eventually.

    In the very long meantime, your readers who want to learn something can find a deep and thoughtful analysis of this study by the bad cat here: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/telling-the-truth-in-the-age-of-sponsored

  • Kevin Roche says:

    well that says it all doesn’t it, the explanation of the data doesn’t comport with the interpretation I like, so I will ignore it.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    you have a huge blind spot, you selectively pick data that supports your view that vax are bad, you have taken to flat out lying, and you are obviously desperate, completely desperate to justify your decision about not getting vaxed. i don’t care what you do personally, I do care about people being misled and lied to

  • Kevin, I only hope some of your readers can see through your aggressive bluster and angry tone to your singular failure answer any questions or back up any claims. It’s always wild swipes at straw men with you and then straight to ad hominem on any pushback.

    Now you have stepped up your rhetoric to say that I have “taken to flat out lying”.

    Could you please point out where I flat-out lied, or lied at all? Please attempt to support your defamation of me with some kind of evidence or else withdraw it.

    Readers who aren’t persuaded by Kevin’s angry calumny are invited to check out Igor’s substack where he talks about Public Health Scotland’s decision to delete all the transparent statistics that are unfavourable to the vaccines as of today, February 16: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/scotland-will-hide-vaccinated-and. Are you persuaded by their claim that they have to delete all the data because of “muh misinformation”?

  • As a small addendum, astute readers will note that you can “vaccinate” at any time, but you can never “unvaccinate”.

    If I am persuaded that choosing not to take the injection was the wrong idea, I can simply go ahead and take it. I don’t need to justify my decision, because I can change my decision at any time.

    You, on the other hand, are triple boosted.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    if a vaxed person gets sick, they can rest easy knowing that they are far less likely to become seriously ill, if an unvaxed person with any risk factor becomes ill, it is too late for them to get vaxed, do a little googling and you will find these stories of regret

  • Kevin Roche says:

    If a vaxed person becomes infected, they can rest easy knowing it is far less likely that they will become seriously ill. If an unvaxed person becomes infected and seriously ill, it is too late for them to get vaxed. Do a little googling and you will many these stories of regret about not getting vaxed.

  • Kevin Roche says:

    I think what readers can discern is that you will only read things that support your BELIEF that the vax are bad and will dismiss any research suggesting they may be beneficial. And the only thing I get angry about is having to repeatedly read the same willfully blind comments

Leave a comment