Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 109

By February 23, 2022Commentary

The latest data from Minnesota and everywhere suggest two things:  one is that after the scorching Omicron wave, things are really cooling off, and the second is that even if that weren’t true, people are done with pretending like CV-19 is the end of the world.  I look forward to the end of all this stuff, til then I will keep cranking out data and summaries.

Okay, I have had trepidations about the unintended consequences from a strategy of repeatedly “boosting” people with new vax doses.  This study from China was done on an inactivated virus vax developed there, but I suspect the same results would be found with mRNA vax.  A fourth shot actually appears to downgrade the immune response to some parts of the virus, while elevating a few others.  Overall, little benefit.  Helps explain why in the Omicron wave, even boosters did little good after a relatively short time.  (Medrxiv Paper)

And this broader study of memory B cells, which are responsible for getting antibody production going, following 2 or 3 doses of the vaccine, has one similar finding.  If a person already has a good antibody response, another vax dose may be counterproductive.  In general, the study indicates that people have a good memory B cell response following vax, regardless of circulating antibody level.  (Medrxiv Paper)

And this study on a small group of infected persons indicates why an infection is protective against subsequent infection–it creates a strong and durable systemic and upper respiratory tract immune response.  (JID Study)

The New York Times is always late to the party, very late.  Here they discover that the CDC may have been failing to present, i.e., hiding, some data and that it may have been motivated by wanting to support certain epidemic measures.  Only a government agency, and the disastrously woke NYT, could fail to see the illogic in endorsing measures that it’s own data shows don’t work.  The Times attempts to provide excuses for the agency’s data manipulation, but there aren’t any.  (NYT Article)

This study is both dated and doesn’t include a long enough follow-up period, but in an urgent care setting, where vax status was self-reported, it finds high initial vax effectiveness against symptomatic infection, declining during the Delta period.  But one telling finding is that people who had been infected pre-vax, had much greater protection against subsequent symptomatic infection. (Medrxiv Paper)

Another piece of research to tell us the obvious–people who live in poorer neighborhoods tend to have worse CV-19 outcomes.  Unsaid, of course, is the painful truth that many of these people engage in very poor health behaviors and therefore have worse health that leaves them vulnerable to any pathogen.  But it must be due to structural racism or something like that.  (Annals Article)

And the epidemic has led to some really stupid practices, including excessive use of cleaning and decontamination methods that are themselves dangerous.  This article notes that use of ozone to clean is basically unproven in regard to CV-19, but it does have bad effects on building materials and potentially humans.  (Medrxiv Paper)



Join the discussion One Comment

  • joe Kosanda says:

    Regarding the NYT article and the CDC suppressing data

    As I have previously noted (and as has also been noted by Kevin Roche), their were two studies in particular both flawed and promoted by the CDC with agenda driven results.

    1) the Kansas mask mandated counties vs the kansas non mask mandated counties which had the conclusion that there was 40% increase in becoming infected in the non mask mandated counties. I noted numerous errors in the study along including the cutting off the study period after only 3 months which coincided with the gap closing. Kevin obtained data showing no difference in the infection rates after the close of the study period.

    I had requested data from the authors of the study for the post study period, though never received a response, likely because the post study period data conflicted with the study’s conclusion. As kevin subsequent data showed.

    2) the CDC heavily promoted the kentucky study which showed an unvaxed previously infected individual was approx 2.5x more likley to be infected than a vaxed previously infected individual. I emailed by the CDC liason for the study and one of the studies authors to get clarification of several items ( including clarification of the basic math calculation of the probability which didnt jive with my calculation by a wide margin) but never received a response to the multiple emails.

    In summary, its as if the CDC was trying to suppress/censor bad information

Leave a comment