Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 220

Another disgraceful piece of non-research appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association.  The medical power structure in the US has gone completely beserk woke and so is all in favor of censorship for deviation from the approved messages, and for ruining the livelihoods and lives of anyone who dares utter such heresy.  This article purports to discuss CV-19 “misinformation” spread by physicians.  Given the misinformation, also known as lies, spread by public health officials and government leaders, maybe more attention should be placed there.  And of course, the determination of what is “misinformation” is in this case, as in most involving the woke community, completely subjective and usually defines “information” as whatever those in power decide it is, with no regard for data, analysis, research or any other objective factors, and with no respect for the uncertainty inherent in most things medical and in science in general.  For this “study”, the CDC guidance was said to be “information”.  I am ROFL.  Unless you want to get really angry, don’t bother reading this.  (JAMA Article)

There was some variation across countries in terms of excess mortality during the epidemic.  This study examined why.  Countries with low gross domestic product but high urbanization had the highest mortality rates, indicating a role of crowding and lesser health resources in mortality.  Other factors included the prevalence of other diseases such as HIV and malaria.  (Medrxiv Paper)

Australia, largely through coercion, is one of the most highly vaxed countries in the world.  Notwithstanding this, about 20% of persons who got a CV-19 infection had a “long” CV-19 symptom 90 days after the acute infection, and not being vaxed was associated with a higher risk of such a symptom.  But given that well over 90% of the population had at least three doses, appears to me that being vaxed wasn’t much protection.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This research focuses on the pretty obvious fact that most current CV-19 infections are actually re-infections.  (They also are breakthrough infections in vaxed people.).  The researchers claim that having a severe prior infection overall increased the likelihood of the next CV-19 infection being severe, but the effect was widely variable in subgroups, with prior infection being protective against severe infection in most groups.  The negative effects were small, with wide confidence intervals.  I assume where prior infection was linked to severe subsequent infection, that has to be an effect of general poor health in the person, or the first severe infection causing a general deterioration in health.  The likelihood of second infections was somewhat higher for females (whatever that is these days) and people who had been vaccinated.  Given the limitations of the study and that some of its findings contradict other research, not sure I give it a lot of weight.   (Medrxiv Paper)

And here is an excellent review of the respective characteristics and advantages of infection-derived and vaccine-derived immune responses.  I think it fairly characterizes infection-derived immunity as superior in most respects, but also notes that the immune response derived from the combination of vax and prior infection is likely to superior to that of either alone.  (JID Article)