Coronamonomania Lives Forever, Part 236

This is an important study which looks at the question of whether the apparent effectiveness of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” i.e., lockdowns, and vaccines, was actually due to seasonality of coronavirus infections.  Those interventions weren’t particularly effective in any event, but the authors conclude that the well-known seasonality of coronavirus waves was largely responsible for any theoretical association with reduced case levels.  The researchers used data from six northern European countries, so the results may have  limited geographic relevance, since seasonality varies by latitude, but it definitely did appear and still does, that the human coronaviruses are seasonal.  (JCM Article)

This article discusses the supposed “discovery” of long flu.  As we have noted before, many serious illnesses have lasting symptoms or consequences, most of which disappear over time and few of which are actually debilitating.  In our victimhood, slacker, snowflake society, however, any of these becomes an opportunity to get government benefits and not work, not to mention garner sympathy.  Using patients (the vast majority of whom are obviously not victims, slackers or snowflakes) treated in the Veterans’ Affairs system, so not a representative sample of the population, the researchers found that CV-19 had a higher risk for longer-term effects on most organ systems, which the exception of the respiratory system, but that both flu and CV-19 created some risk of longer-term health consequences.  (Lancet Study)

Several pieces of research have suggested a decline in cancer detection, at least early in the epidemic.  This piece confirms that, noting that while fewer cases were reported, they were on average discovered at a later stage, strongly indicating that missed opportunities for earlier detection are responsible for the apparent, but likely not real, decline in cases.  (HA Article)

Sparked by findings that CV-19 infection may be associated with greater risk of certain neurological conditions, and prior research suggesting a connection between some viral infections and dementia, these authors undertook a comprehensive examination of potential association of various viral infections with neurological conditions.  They found that the largest association was with encephalitis virus and Alzheimer’s, but viral pneumonia was associated with increased risk of several neurological diseases.  (Neuron Article)

So I will just start on this study by saying I simply don’t believe it, at all.  It purports to define the effectiveness of the CV-19 vax in children and adolescents and claims that it was, at least initially, 98%, and during Omicron, 74%.  Using EHR data, it claims to do a better job of identifying who was actually vaxed.    Supposedly the vax were even better at preventing serious disease, but the usual waning of effectiveness over time was observed.  I simply don’t believe it, and one reason is the usual failure to account for unrecorded prior infections, which were extremely common among children and adolescents, in fact any child with a prior infection was excluded from the study, highly biasing the results.  Also, a bizarre inclusion criteria was some prior interaction with the health system in the last 12 months, and there was a substantial difference in testing behavior between the vaxed and unvaxed groups.   Since basically every child in the US has had at least one CV-19 infection, I would say effectiveness is zero.   (Annals Article)

This study examines the levels and role of hybrid immunity, that derived from vax and infection, in the population of Canada.  As of December 2022, about 78% of the population was estimated to have been infected.  Spike protein antibody levels were higher in infected than uninfected persons, regardless of vaccination doses or status.  The authors think that vaccination after infection lessens the decline in spike antibodies, I am not sure the data can be read that way, as it appears that for persons infected more than six months pre-vax, their antibody levels actually fell faster.  (Medrxiv Paper)

This study indicates that the protection offered by CV-19 vaccines against severe disease was fairly modest, particularly after a few months.  As usual, the study is confounded by lack of identification of who did and didn’t have a prior infection, which either could make vax effectiveness look better or worse than it really was.  (Medrxiv Paper)

And this paper also looks at the effect of being vaxed after a CV-19 infection.  It comes from China and examines whether giving people who had one Omicron infection a dose of vaccine after than helped prevent a second one.  And again, the results appear quite modest.  (Medrxiv Study)