Still catching up and when this is published I will momentarily be there on research summaries. Momentarily.
Miracle of miracles, a Democratic Governor, in Colorado, says
something completely rational and sensible about masks. Governor Polis
said he saw no reason to implement a mask mandate, because New Mexico
has one and their case rates look like Colorado’s. Way too much common
sense. (Colo. Story)
A study on breakthrough infections in a county in Florida. There
were a relatively small number of breakthrough events, which occurred on
average 100 days after full vaccination. 75% were Delta. Some
transmission by breakthrough infections were identified. The viral load
was about 38% lower in breakthrough cases. (Medrxiv Paper)
An enduring mystery is why some people don’t get infected after
exposure. The virus undoubtedly enters their upper respiratory tract
but never gets going. A new study which followed health care workers
with frequent exposure found that among those who never showed signs of
active infection, there was a much stronger pre-existing T-cell
response, which had as a dominant target the replication transcription
complex of the virus. As it sounds like, this part of the virus is
responsible for creating new virus particles. This part of the virus is
highly conserved, that is, very similar, across coronaviruses, so it is
likely that prior seasonal coronavirus infection led to these T-cell
responses. This could also provide guidance for development of better
vaccines. (Nature Study)
Another enduring mystery is why we keep using PCR tests that we know
are far too sensitive, don’t distinguish between infectious and
non-infectious persons and lead to unnecessary anxiety and quarantines.
This paper describes a new approach to PCR testing that focuses on
segments that are associated with viable virus. It appears to do a far
better job of distinguishing between actual cases and random positives.
Hospitals won’t like this, because it will cut down on their payments. (Medrxiv Paper)
Myocarditis appears to be the most common potentially serious adverse
effect of vaccination. This study examined data on a large number of
vaccinated persons. It comes from Moderna, so buyer beware. It
confirms, however, that young males are likely experiencing myocarditis
after vaccination at higher rates than the background prevalence.
Otherwise the rates appear at or lower than background and lower than
in actual CV-19 infection. (Medrxiv Paper)
This study from Norway is one more looking at vaccine effectiveness,
with a focus on age. Effectiveness against infection was 72%, against
hospitalization, 93% and against death, 88%. Somewhat lengthy follow-up
period for some subjects. Lessening of protection against infection in
the elderly, and a smaller lessening of protection against
hospitalization in those groups. Somewhat significant protection was
shown even with one dose. It is interesting to think about the effect
of partly vaccinated persons on breakthrough analyses. They likely
understate breakthrough proportions, but they also could result in lower
apparent rates if they are lumped in with the completely unvaxed. (Medrxiv Paper)
And this study from the Netherlands examined vaccine effectiveness
against hospitalization. Effectiveness was very high, with no fully
vaccinated persons being admitted to ICU or dying. But there were some
breakthrough hospitalizations, and this study was conducted in the late
spring, with relatively short follow-up after full vaccination. (Medrxiv Paper)
Not sure why I even report these studies, which are basically made up
modeling, based on bad analytic methods. But this study does a
meta-review of all these bad modeling studies and claims that the
euphemistic non-pharmaceutical interventions, i.e. lockdowns, had a
great effect on limiting transmission. Let’s see, if you run your study
period through a whole wave and your NPI is in place for the whole
wave, you could claim your NPI was responsible for the decline in cases,
or you could do the right thing and assume that you have a confounding
variable. (Medrxiv Paper)
The Post-Partisan Emporium's
Purpose and Standards
This site does not have a particular political position. We welcome articles from various points of view, and civil debate when differences arise.
Contributions of articles from posters are always welcome. Unless a contribution is really beyond the pale, we do not edit what goes up as topics for discussion. If you would like to contribute an article, let one of the moderators know. Likewise if you would like to become an official contributor so you can put up articles yourself, but for that we need to exchange email addresses and we need a Google email address from you.
Contributions can be anything, including fiction, poems, cartoons, or songs. They can be your own writing or someone else’s writing which has yet to be published.
We understand that tempers flare during heated conversations, and we're willing to overlook the occasional name-calling in that situation, although we do not encourage it. We also understand that some people enjoy pushing buttons and that cussing them out may be an understandable response, although we do not encourage that either. What we will not tolerate is a pattern of harassment and/or lies about other posters.
Comments
Post a Comment