All Things Coronavirus (Part 2)

[Dashinka 24,419]

The best study I could find looking at re-infections.  For those younger than 65 the protection is on par with that of a single jab of Pfizer/Moderna/J&J.  They still do not cover the outcomes of those re-infected though.

 

Findings

During the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]). Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5). The alternative cohort analysis gave similar estimates (adjusted RR 0·212 [0·179–0·251], estimated protection 78·8% [74·9–82·1]). In the alternative cohort analysis, among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7–62·8). We found no difference in estimated protection against repeat infection by sex (male 78·4% [72·1–83·2] vs female 79·1% [73·9–83·3]) or evidence of waning protection over time (3–6 months of follow-up 79·3% [74·4–83·3] vs ≥7 months of follow-up 77·7% [70·9–82·9]).

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00575-4/fulltext

[TBoneTX 45,071]

8 hours ago, Dashinka said:

In Michigan they are not counting those that recovered from the virus as part of their "herd immunity" count.

Knowing Comrade Half-Whitmer, they're probably counting recoveries as deaths, thus justifying further lockdown tyranny.

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

The best study I could find looking at re-infections.  For those younger than 65 the protection is on par with that of a single jab of Pfizer/Moderna/J&J.  They still do not cover the outcomes of those re-infected though.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/world/asia/india-covid19-variant.html \

 

Not the US, but relevant to the discussion I believe.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

On 5/9/2021 at 9:35 AM, Neonred said:

Certainly the down side of people not getting vaccinated and then getting sick is that it allows for more mutations and more virus variants that may cause another round of illness that we are not immune to.

It’s a possibility.  
 

God help us all if the Qnuts, Gravy Seals, National Lardsmen, and Hoagie Heroes get a variant like SARS to spread for ‘Merican freedom

[Nitas_man 3,100]

3 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Knowing Comrade Half-Whitmer, they're probably counting recoveries as deaths, thus justifying further lockdown tyranny.

Nah one of my daughter’s 5th grade teachers (Galveston County) is out for her second week on her second case.  She’s in her 30’s.  Knocked her over.
 

We (parents and kiddos) got a long whining email from her.  Being honest I laughed.  

[Dashinka 24,419]

Gain of Function experiments seem to have little benefit.

 

Origin of Covid — Following the Clues

 

In Conclusion

If the case that SARS2 originated in a lab is so substantial, why isn’t this more widely known? As may now be obvious, there are many people who have reason not to talk about it. The list is led, of course, by the Chinese authorities. But virologists in the United States and Europe have no great interest in igniting a public debate about the gain-of-function experiments that their community has been pursuing for years.

Nor have other scientists stepped forward to raise the issue. Government research funds are distributed on the advice of committees of scientific experts drawn from universities. Anyone who rocks the boat by raising awkward political issues runs the risk that their grant will not be renewed and their research career will be ended. Maybe good behavior is rewarded with the many perks that slosh around the distribution system. And if you thought that Dr. Andersen and Dr. Daszak might have blotted their reputation for scientific objectivity after their partisan attacks on the lab escape scenario, look at the 2nd and 3rd names on this list of recipients of an $82 million grant announced by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in August 2020.

The US government shares a strange common interest with the Chinese authorities: neither is keen on drawing attention to the fact that Dr. Shi’s coronavirus work was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. One can imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation in which the Chinese government says “If this research was so dangerous, why did you fund it, and on our territory too?” To which the US side might reply, “Looks like it was you who let it escape. But do we really need to have this discussion in public?”

 

https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

CDC risk of coronavirus transmission outdoors greatly exaggerated, bombshell report finds

https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-risk-coronavirus-transmission-outdoors-greatly-exaggerated-report

[laylalex 7,284]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

CDC risk of coronavirus transmission outdoors greatly exaggerated, bombshell report finds

https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-risk-coronavirus-transmission-outdoors-greatly-exaggerated-report

Yes, I was reading about this this morning in the NY Times. I understand why it's good to err on the side of caution when it comes to public health, but the science is pointing towards more openness outdoors. The CDC should revise its guidelines. It also explains why after a year of outdoor demonstrations, there were not accompanying spikes in infection rates. Indoor gatherings where large groups of people aren't wearing masks and aren't social distancing and there is poor ventilation are simply more likely to be places where the virus can spread.

 

So we follow the science we now have. We didn't have this science before, didn't have the hypotheses confirmed before, but now we do. I still trust the CDC in general, but I have always been open to hearing validated, conflicting opinions. As soon as I'm 2 weeks past full vaccination, I will feel very confident not wearing a mask outside. I'm not mad at the CDC for being too conservative on this one, but I do think they need to revise ASAP.

[Boiler 45,362]

Are things obvious also Science?

[laylalex 7,284]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Are things obvious also Science?

Sometimes. Gravity comes to mind.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

36 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Sometimes. Gravity comes to mind.

Wait a few years sweet pea. Gravity will be hugely

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Boiler 45,362]

There was gravity before Science.

[laylalex 7,284]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Wait a few years sweet pea. Gravity will be hugely

Not planning on having kids. That will help.  

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

CDC risk of coronavirus transmission outdoors greatly exaggerated, bombshell report finds

https://www.foxnews.com/health/cdc-risk-coronavirus-transmission-outdoors-greatly-exaggerated-report

I am not sure what the news flash is, we are just waiting for the policy to catch up to the science.   I heard Fauci say that there was an "almost nil" chance of transmission outdoors a few weeks ago.