Skip to main content

Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 187

By January 21, 2023Commentary

As the hysteria sort of winds down, I would like to see some serious investigations into 1) the extent to which humans played a role in creating the epidemic–i.e., did China modify bat coronaviruses to make them more transmissible and virulent and did any such modified coronavirus get released from the lab where such work was occurring?  This is important, because if it was human-caused, the world somehow needs to get a grip on this kind of research; the next such virus could be infinitely more deadly.  And if it was natural, we can expect other variants to emerge and the world needs a far better international monitoring system for early identification of viruses which may jump to humans.   2) the adequacy of information gathering and analyses during the epidemic, including the role of modeling.  Modeling in particular was pathetic during the epidemic and drove bad decisions, and information was similarly distorted toward the side of panicked and excessive responses.  3) the role of draconian suppression efforts–business closings, school closings, banning social gatherings, etc.–in damaging the broader public health.  What is the long-run toll of such idiotic and futile efforts, given their complete lack of effectiveness in stopping transmission.

The vax cause all all kinds of safety problems, especially for hearts and the vascular system, but a CV-19 infection is just nothing.  Right, that is so true and so supported by the research–NOT.  Here is a meta-review of the research on cardiac health issues following a CV-19 infection.  As is often the case with research, out of all the studies on the topic, only about 16% were judged to be high quality–good methods and analysis.  Chest pain and arrythmias were the most commonly reported symptoms.  In the high-quality studies, while there was persistence of some symptoms, the rate was quite low, suggesting that long CV-19 is largely fictional, just like vax safety issues.   (Medrxiv Paper)

Here is a report on the updated vax booster trial done by Pfizer.  It is worthless because the follow-up period is basically one month after vax and it is only measuring antibody levels, not actual real-world effectiveness against infection.  As you should expect, the new formulation was more effective than the original against Omicron, but not so much for current Omicron variants.  I seriously don’t see any reason for anyone to take more boosters.  (NEJM Study)

This study examines the effect of a prior infection on a subsequent Omicron infection.  It comes from Qatar and the major flaw, which may or may not affect the outcome, is relying on testing postive to determine prior infection.  Otherwise it is a well-designed matched cohort study of people with and without prior infection.  A pre-Omicron infection provided very low protection, around 6%, but a prior Omicron infection had about a 50% protective effective.  A late-variant Omicron infection provided around 56% reduction in risk of another late-variant infection.  A combination of pre-Omicron infection and Omicron infection offered 56% reduction in risk of another infection, but the combination of early and late Omicron variant infections gave a person a 92% effectiveness rate against another infection.  Being vaxed in addition added some very minor additional protection, compared to being unvaxed.  (NEJM Article)

As usual I will caveat this discussion with my skepticism about “long” CV-19, and the fact that many studies show a lot of us have a lot of “symptoms” all the time.  But this study suggests that after an infection people who weren’t vaxed, and those who had more serious illnesses, are more likely to report symptoms and issues and to seek health care for certain concerns up to six months after the infection.  (JAMA Article)


Join the discussion One Comment

Leave a comment