Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
      21
    • Partially vaccinated
      0
    • Not Vaccinated
      5
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
      20
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
      3
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
      4
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
      3
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
      4
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
      0
    • Fear of needles
      0
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
      0
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
      0
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
      2
    • Vaccine not available where I live
      0
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      3


Recommended Posts

Largest study of ivermectin for covid treatment has been retracted based on evidence that much of the data was falsified. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

"In their paper, the authors claim that four out of 100 patients died in their standard treatment group for mild and moderate Covid-19,” Lawrence said. “According to the original data, the number was 0, the same as the ivermectin treatment group. In their ivermectin treatment group for severe Covid-19, the authors claim two patients died, but the number in their raw data is four.”

... 

'The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian.

... 

"if you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Largest study of ivermectin for covid treatment has been retracted based on evidence that much of the data was falsified. 

 

I'll be curious to see how this plays out.  The Guardian story makes zero mention of all the studies and data suggesting Ivermectin is an amazing prophylactic, far more effective than vaccines in some cases, for preventing Covid-19 giving the impression the drug is worthless because of a bad study that was using the drug for treatment.  If someone conducted a flawed study using vaccines for treatment of Covid-19 patients would the media ignore their prophylactic use track record?

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot-20210717-082540.jpg

Still almost no significant uptick in deaths but I'm surprised by the number of daily new cases in the UK and hoping other countries don't see a similar trajectory. I see they are already starting new mask mandates in California. What are the odds for a new round of hysteria in the US? It seems to be mostly antivaxers driving the new round of infections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche, I think in the UK it is indeed spreading among the vaccinated too, but with few serious consequences.  However I read that 90% of those hospitalized from Covid in the UK were unvaccinated.  As for the US:

The Delta variant now accounts for more than half of the new coronavirus cases in the United States —52%. Almost all of the new cases — 99.7% —are among people who have not been vaccinated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gordo said:

Touche, I think in the UK it is indeed spreading among the vaccinated too, but with few serious consequences.

According to worldometer the UK currently has the highest Covid case rate of any country.  And that is with 88% of adults vaccinated.  The UK isn't alone as Israel with mandatory vaccination and a high compliance rate is also seeing a growing case rate and they have statistics showing essentially identical case rates per capita among the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  And yet there is still messaging to get vaccinated to reduce the spread and in some places restrictions imposed on the unvaccinated.  Pfizer recently sought approval for booster shots in the US claiming effectiveness may fall off in as little as 6 months.  Although I don't think we have good data currently as to what degree the viral variants are accelerating the loss of effectiveness and whether it is possible to outrun viral evolution with faster rates of revaccination using the same vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

[The UK] have statistics showing essentially identical case rates per capita among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. 

Evidence please?  See:

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-half-covid-19-cases-had-vaccine-study-zoe-delta-2021-7

Here is the graph. Among the fully vaccinated, positivity rate is 4x lower than among the unvaccinated: 

Screenshot_20210720-032818_Chrome.jpg

Plus, most people in the UK who have been vaccinated received the Astrazeneca vaccine, which is only 64% effective at preventing delta infections, compared with 64-88% for Pfizer. Furthermore, all the vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths from the delta variant. From this article:

The new analysis found that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine were 96 percent effective against hospitalization from the Delta variant, and two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 92 percent effective. 

--Dean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:
10 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

[The UK] have statistics showing essentially identical case rates per capita among the vaccinated and unvaccinated. 

Evidence please? 

The subject of my sentence was Israel.  I previously posted the evidence here:

 

6 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Furthermore, all the vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths from the delta variant

Which is irrelevant to the argument that getting vaccinated reduces cases of infection and thus reduces transmission, spread and viral evolution.  And it is poor justification to vaccinate those at extremely low risk of hospitalization or death especially when one takes into account the pattern of who is at risk for adverse outcomes from vaccination does not match the pattern of risk for adverse outcomes from infection.

Your graph also suggests the UK is beginning to see a plateau in cases among the unvaccinated but not in the vaccinated.  If those trends continue the UK may catch up with Israel which relied more on Pfizer and achieved high vaccination rates earlier.

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

The subject of my sentence was Israel.  I previously posted the evidence here

Can you provide a link to where that graph comes from on the Israeli covid site? I searched pretty thoroughly, including the raw CSV tables of data, and couldn't find it but I may have missed it.

Here is a graph of more recent data (July 14) (from here) showing on the average day the number of new infections in Isreal is pretty evenly divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated people:

20210720_141231.jpg

For example, on July 13th the split between new infections in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was 53% vs. 42%. Given that 80-85% of the Israeli population is vaccinated, the population of vaccinated individuals is 4-5x larger than the population of unvaccinated individuals. So a nearly even split (53/42) in new infections decidedly does not show "essentially identical case rates per capita among the vaccinated and unvaccinated" as you suggest. On top of that the at-risk individuals for exposure to or infection by covid (e.g. doctors, nurses, immunocompromised, elderly in nursing homes) are more likely to be the ones who have been vaccinated and therefore more likely to get a breakthrough infection. This would bias the apparent efficacy of the vaccine to be lower than it actually would be if comparing identical populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

This WP article has a nice summary of the picture from Israel:

All told, Israeli government data show the Pfizer vaccine is indeed significantly less effective at preventing coronavirus cases of the delta variant (64 percent) than it was for previous variants (95 percent). It’s also significantly less effective at preventing symptomatic cases (64 percent vs. 97 percent). But it performs much more similarly when it comes to preventing serious cases and hospitalization (93 percent vs. 97.5 percent).

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Evidence please?  See:

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-half-covid-19-cases-had-vaccine-study-zoe-delta-2021-7

Here is the graph. Among the fully vaccinated, positivity rate is 4x lower than among the unvaccinated: 

Screenshot_20210720-032818_Chrome.jpg

Plus, most people in the UK who have been vaccinated received the Astrazeneca vaccine, which is only 64% effective at preventing delta infections, compared with 64-88% for Pfizer. Furthermore, all the vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths from the delta variant. From this article:

The new analysis found that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine were 96 percent effective against hospitalization from the Delta variant, and two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were 92 percent effective. 

--Dean 

Thanks Dean.

It's unfortunate that there's so much misinformation.

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Can you provide a link to where that graph comes from on the Israeli covid site?

Sorry, but I got it from a tweet by Dr. Robert Malone who strikes me as sufficiently credible that I didn't chase the reference.

 

2 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

For example, on July 13th the split between new infections in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was 53% vs. 42%.

And here is text from just below the graph in your linked article:

Quote

That difference becomes more pronounced once the 182 under-12s (who are all unvaccinated) are removed. Among the vaccine-eligible population, 70% of new cases yesterday were in vaccinated people. 

 

2 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

On top of that the at-risk individuals for exposure to or infection by covid (e.g. doctors, nurses, immunocompromised, elderly in nursing homes) are more likely to be the ones who have been vaccinated and therefore more likely to get a breakthrough infection.

Those would also be people more likely to have been exposed to infection in the first wave and from your linked article...

Quote

Who isn’t getting Delta?

Well, it’s hard to say for sure because of confounders in the data, but it looks like recovered people — people who had tested positive for the coronavirus in a past PCR test — are massively under-represented. Recovered people are around 9% of Israel’s population, but they’re less than 1% of current cases.

Also from your article:

Quote

Who’s being hospitalised?

You might have heard from other countries that “the vast majority of people hospitalised with Covid are unvaccinated”.

Well, that’s not true for Israel.

The graph below shows new severe cases of Covid-19 in Israel. In the last seven days, 73 vaccinated people and 9 unvaccinated people reached ‘severe’ hospitalised status.

73 of 82 is 89% of those hospitalized last week were vaccinated.  If one considers there is likely bias in the case rates among asymptomatic people as the unvaccinated are more likely to get tested it isn't entirely surprising to see unvaccinated hospitalization rates exceeding unvaccinated case rates.

Edited by Todd Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Todd Allen said:

And here is text from just below the graph in your linked article:

Quote

That difference becomes more pronounced once the 182 under-12s (who are all unvaccinated) are removed. Among the vaccine-eligible population, 70% of new cases yesterday were in vaccinated people. 

There isn't a reasonable justification as far as I can see for excluding the under-12s who are ineligible for the vaccine. In fact, people who are ineligible for the vaccine (as opposed to those to chose not to get it voluntarily) are better representatives for calculating vaccine effectiveness. Consider the following hypothetical. Imagine Israel only had enough vaccine to cover 45% of their population and decide to offer it (optionally) it to only those people whose birth date is even, figuring 10% of the 50% who are eligible will decline the vaccine, leaving 45% of the entire population who are both eligible and chose to get the vaccine.

Would it be reasonable to ignore the odd-birthday 50% of the population who are ineligible for the vaccine when calculating efficacy rate simply because they are ineligible? Of course not. They are a much more representative sample of the population than the 5% of people who voluntarily chose to skip the vaccine, perhaps because they are recluses with low risk of exposure, or perhaps because they've already had the virus and therefore at low risk of reinfection.

Now obviously under-12s who are actually ineligible in the Israel case as not very representative on the general population, especially when it comes to risk of being diagnosed with covid. But their unrepresentativeness will actually tend to underestimate vaccine efficacy. Why? Because kids are both less likely than adults to be infected with covid without a vaccine (as data from school infections has shown) and because if they do get infected, they are more likely than adults to go undetected because their infection is asymptomatic.  So if those unvaccinated Israeli kids were replaced with unvaccinated adults to make an apples-to-apples comparison, you'd expect more than the observed 182 infections, pushing the ratio of vaccinated/unvaccinated infections in Israel close to 50/50 rather than 52/43.

But suppose we do exclude, the kids just to be conservative. The fact that only 70% of new adult cases being among the vaccinated actually shows the vaccine is giving pretty good protection, given that 85% of the Israeli adults have been vaccinated. 85% vaccine coverage means that the vaccinated adult population is 5.6x larger than the unvaccinated adult population. So if the vaccine was doing nothing against the delta variant as you seem to be suggesting by saying "essentiallly identical case rates per capita among the vaccinated and unvaccinated", then we would expect to see 5.6x as many infections in the vaccinated population as in the unvaccinated population. But instead Israel is only seeing 70%/30% = 2.33x more infections in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated.

So the vaccine is cutting the average risk of infection by more than half, which is where Israel's (conservative) estimate of 64% vaccine efficacy against the delta variant comes from. Put another way, 64% efficacy means you are nearly 2/3rds less likely to get infected if you've had the vaccine than if you haven't. So if you had a 10% chance in any given period of being infected without the vaccine, your risk would drop to 3.3% once you've had the jab. A big improvement and quite contrary to your claim about case rates per capita being "essentially identical" between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

So I'm still waiting for evidence besides your mystery table to support your claim.

Regarding hospitalizations being overrepresented by vaccinated people, as the article I pointed to says:

This shouldn’t be surprising.

Even before Delta, the vaccines weren’t 100% effective against severe disease; they were around 95% effective. A vaccinated 80-year-old would still be at greater risk of severe Covid-19 than a healthy 30-year-old... the vaccines are absolutely keeping people out of hospital.

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

There isn't a reasonable justification as far as I can see for excluding the under-12s who are ineligible for the vaccine.

If you are using a statistic for percentage of those eligible for vaccination who are vaccinated then you must compare against the percentage of cases who are vaccinated in the same pool of people.  If you want to use cases across the entire population then you must look at the percentage of the entire population which is vaccinated which is only 60.61% fully vaccinated and an additional 5.79% partially vaccinated according to https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=~ISR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

If you are using a statistic for percentage of those eligible for vaccination who are vaccinated then you must compare against the percentage of cases who are vaccinated in the same pool of people.  If you want to use cases across the entire population then you must look at the percentage of the entire population which is vaccinated which is only 60.61% fully vaccinated and an additional 5.79% partially vaccinated according to https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=~ISR

Then use the 70% analysis I did above which shows the risk of infection is reduced by ~2/3rd when an Israeli adult is vaccinated. 

--Dean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Then use the 70% analysis I did above which shows the risk of infection is reduced by ~2/3rd when an Israeli adult is vaccinated. 

Walking away from your long winded argument to include the kids is an excellent call because calculating relative risk using total population figures doesn't look as impressive.  For example by your post 42% of recent infections were among the unvaccinated in a population that is 34% unvaccinated which would be roughly a 1.24x risk of infection among the unvaccinated.  If I can source the data I posted and we used that instead the relative risk would shrink a lot and adding in analysis of uncertainty in the data would highlight how sensitive relative risk calculations can be to small swings in the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPs and data indicate continued rise in double-vaccinated Covid cases

Quote

A weekly update from the ZOE study at King’s College London, said there were currently 15,537 new daily symptomatic cases in partly or fully vaccinated people, an increase of 40% from 11,084 new cases last week.

By contrast in unvaccinated people in the UK there are currently an average of 17,581 new daily PCR-confirmed symptomatic cases of Covid, according to the ZOE figures, a drop of 22% from the week before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From:

https://theconversation.com/us-is-split-between-the-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-and-deaths-and-hospitalizations-reflect-this-divide-164460

On July 16, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky revealed that 99.5% of recent U.S. deaths from COVID-19 were of unvaccinated people. “Those deaths were preventable with a simple, safe shot,” she said. In Early July, Fauci said that 99.2% of people who died recently were unvaccinated. In the state of Maryland, every patient who died from COVID-19 in June was unvaccinated.

In her July 16 statement, Walensky also said that 97% of current COVID-19 hospitalizations are of unvaccinated people. An earlier analysis done by The Associated Press found that 98.9% of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients in May were unvaccinated. The director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services recently stated that all new hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Los Angeles were unvaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to start differentiating between quoting news/data from countries like the UK that primarily vaccinated with a less effective vaccine against the delta variant, vs the US or Israel that mostly used a more effective Pfizer or Moderna vaccine particularly among the more susceptible older folks. It's really an apples vs oranges comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting podcast, Katherine Eban, an investigative journalist, explains the hidden facts about the lab leak hypothesis. I listened with interest to the details of last year's Lancet article, by which I too have been fooled. Not a peer-reviewed article, where the authors lied about the declared lack of any conflict of interest. 

Bottom line: the lab leak hypothesis is very plausible, but not proven. The zoonotic hypothesis has not been proven yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This new study [1] (full text preprint, popular press article) found evidence of a persistent drop in cognitive abilities in UK people who have recovered from covid - both in people who were hospitalized and those who weren't. Check out the highlights in the abstract. Here is a description of the study and the finding:

For their study, Hampshire and his team analyzed data from 81,337 participants who completed the intelligence test between January and December 2020. Of the entire sample, 12,689 individuals reported that they had experienced COVID-19, with varying degrees of respiratory severity.

After controlling for factors such as age, sex, handedness, first language, education level, and other variables, the researchers found that those who had contracted COVID-19 tended to underperform on the intelligence test compared to those who had not contracted the virus. The greatest deficits were observed on tasks requiring reasoning, planning and problem solving, which is in line “with reports of long-COVID, where ‘brain fog,’ trouble concentrating and difficulty finding the correct words are common,” the researchers said.

Here is the graphic from the full text showing the magnitude of the cognitive deficits for various severities of illness:

Screenshot_20210724-161738_Chrome.jpg

--Dean

---------------

[1] EClinicalMedicine (2021),

Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from COVID-19

Adam Hampshire
William Trender
Samuel R Chamberlain
Amy E. Jolly
Jon E. Grant
Fiona Patrick
et al.
Open AccessPublished:July 22, 2021DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101044A

bstract

Background
There is growing concern about possible cognitive consequences of COVID-19, with reports of ‘Long COVID’ symptoms persisting into the chronic phase and case studies revealing neurological problems in severely affected patients. However, there is little information regarding the nature and broader prevalence of cognitive problems post-infection or across the full spread of disease severity.
Methods
We sought to confirm whether there was an association between cross-sectional cognitive performance data from 81,337 participants who between January and December 2020 undertook a clinically validated web-optimized assessment as part of the Great British Intelligence Test, and questionnaire items capturing self-report of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 infection and respiratory symptoms.
Findings
People who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety. The deficits were of substantial effect size for people who had been hospitalised (N = 192), but also for non-hospitalised cases who had biological confirmation of COVID-19 infection (N = 326). Analysing markers of premorbid intelligence did not support these differences being present prior to infection. Finer grained analysis of performance across sub-tests supported the hypothesis that COVID-19 has a multi-domain impact on human cognition.
Interpretation
Interpretation. These results accord with reports of ‘Long Covid’ cognitive symptoms that persist into the early-chronic phase. They should act as a clarion call for further research with longitudinal and neuroimaging cohorts to plot recovery trajectories and identify the biological basis of cognitive deficits in SARS-COV-2 survivors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortality From Drug Overdoses, Homicides, Unintentional Injuries, Motor Vehicle Crashes, and Suicides During the Pandemic, March-August 2020.
Faust JS, Du C, Mayes KD, Li SX, Lin Z, Barnett ML, Krumholz HM.
JAMA. 2021 Jul 6;326(1):84-86. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.8012.
PMID: 34019096
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2780436
Abstract
This study uses national death certificate data to characterize trends in death and excess mortality from drug overdoses, homicides, unintentional injuries, motor vehicle crashes, and suicide during the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US.
[The initial COVID-19 outbreak in the US caused disruptions in usual behavioral patterns.1-3 To assess associated changes in external causes of death, we analyzed monthly trends from 2015 to 2020 in deaths resulting from drug overdoses, homicide, unintentional injuries, motor vehicle crashes, and suicide in the first 6 months of the pandemic.
Methods
We measured monthly excess mortality (the gap between observed and expected deaths) from 5 external causes using provisional national-level underlying cause death certificate data published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through August 2020 (released March 2021). Data from March to August 2020 were aggregated by the NCHS into 5 groups: drug overdose (all intents), assault (homicide), unintentional injuries, motor vehicle crashes, and intentional self-harm (suicide) (see the Supplement for ICD-10 codes).4,5
To forecast all-cause and cause-specific expected monthly deaths from March to August 2020, we used seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (sARIMA) models developed with cause-specific monthly mortality counts and US population data from January 2015 to February 2020. We plotted observed and expected deaths monthly with 95% CIs estimated from sARIMA models.
We estimated the contribution of individual cause-specific mortality to all-cause non–COVID-19 excess mortality by dividing cause-specific mortality by total non–COVID-19 excess mortality from March to August 2020 (see the Supplement). Confidence intervals for the percent contribution to non–COVID-19 excess mortality were determined by subtracting the observed number of deaths from the upper and lower 95% thresholds for the expected number of deaths. For excess mortality counts, any figure not crossing 0 was considered statistically significant. For observed-to-expected ratios (OERs) of cause-specific mortality, statistical significance was defined as a 95% CI that excluded the null value of 1.00.
Analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.2. This study used publicly available data and was not subject to institutional review approval per HHS regulation 45 CFR 46.101(c).
Results
From March to August 2020, there were 256 635 (95% CI, 161 450-351 823) all-cause excess deaths (1 661 271 observed; 1 404 634 expected) and 174 334 COVID-19 deaths (underlying cause). For the study period, OERs for 3 external causes of death were significantly higher than expected (drug overdoses, homicides, unintentional injuries), 1 unchanged (motor vehicle crashes), and 1 lower (suicides) (Table).
There were 10 443 excess drug overdoses (95% CI, 6115 to 14 771; Figure, A), accounting for 12.7% of non–COVID-19 excess mortality (95% CI, 7.4% to 17.9%); 2014 excess homicide deaths (95% CI, 1086 to 2942) (Figure, B), accounting for 2.4% of non–COVID-19 excess mortality (95% CI, 1.3% to 3.6%); and 7497 excess deaths due to unintentional injuries (95% CI, 694 to 14 300) (Figure, C), accounting for 9.1% of non–COVID-19 excess mortality (95% CI, 0.8% to 17.4%). There was no significant change in motor vehicle crash deaths overall (725; 95% CI, −1090 to 2540) but fewer than expected motor vehicle crash deaths occurred in April (−523; 95% CI, −815 to −231), and significant increases were recorded monthly from June to August (1550; 95% CI, 611 to 2489) (Figure, D). Suicide deaths were statistically significantly lower than projected by 2432 deaths (95% CI, 1071 to 3792 fewer deaths) (Figure, E).
Discussion
Provisional mortality data showed that deaths from some but not all external causes increased during the pandemic, representing thousands of lives lost and exceeding prepandemic trends.
Explanations for these changes are unknown. Drug overdoses and homicides may have been related to economic stress. Pandemic-associated changes in access to substance use disorder treatments may have exacerbated mortality from overdoses.6 Decreases in motor vehicle crash deaths in April coincided with less traffic, despite increases in drivers testing positive for drugs and alcohol and lower seatbelt use.3 Increases in motor vehicle crash deaths in June to August occurred as traffic increased (though still below 2019 levels), likely reflecting higher-risk behaviors.3 Lower than projected suicide deaths are paradoxical with reported increases in depressive and other mental health symptoms during the pandemic. Additional data are needed to understand the mechanism behind this finding.
This study has limitations, including death certificate accuracy and that 2020 data published by NCHS are considered preliminary. However, substantial changes to March to August 2020 data are unlikely. Also, the true number of non–COVID-19 medical deaths may have been lower than projected during the pandemic period, as evidenced by the observation that in May, the total excess deaths due to drug overdoses, assaults, and unintentional injuries exceeded the apparent number of all non–COVID-19 excess deaths.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2021 at 7:29 PM, Todd Allen said:

Here is a blogger's review of the interview which I found significantly more interesting than the interview itself:

https://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2021/07/katherine-eban-on-covid-19-origin.html

Yea good read, I was trying to learn more about the Fauci vs. Rand Paul tiff without spending hours on it.  At the moment it sure seems like Fauci is in the very least being either disingenuous or naive in his statements that they weren't doing gain of function work at the Wuhan lab, clearly they were, and they also had highly questionable safety procedures there.  It would also seem like an extremely big stretch to say something like 'OK they were doing gain of function work there but the NIH didn't fund that part of the research' - doesn't look that way.  If there was a natural origin it seems like an awfully big coincidence that the epicenter just HAPPENED to be in the very location of this lab, haha.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×