Covid 10/30/21 | COVID 19 Information Page

Covid19mathblog.com

Double down on the unvaccinated particular those with previous infection– weaponize society with “facts” to force people to do a medical process without regards to their personal choice. CDC latest study notes 5X more likely to get hospitalized AFTER natural immunity! So compelling right…. Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

Nice and bold conclusion at the top which must makes it VERY definitive …..

Devil is in the details – and the original authors were kind enough to show us the details – and likely a PR person summarized them. Lets start off at the VERY bottom. First I think most people who are thoughtful vaccine skeptics believe in a good volume of people getting vaccinated – the elderly and those with multiple comorbidity as the data shows. The RISK is very great and the REWARD certainly plentiful for those. Yet this study wants to conclude that its 5X for those previously infected. Guess what that 5X is being driven up by the 65+ which should by most people at least those that look at the data should get it.

It is more like 3X for those in the skeptical data camp based on their analysis.

Will 49 people sample going to scare the skeptical healthy people to get a shot that is very leaky with significant limitations? Their own report ONCE again at the bottom list out VERY important points on the difference which was also noted for the stat they pushed previously noted for confirmation of unvaccinated vs. vaccinated https://covid19mathblog.com/2021/10/covid-10-16-21/

Human behavior is likely a big culprit for the largess difference in the stat of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Example: IF you are vaccinated you get a positive you perhaps might believe and rightly so think you can beat it – the unvaccinated likely much less and goes and gets hospitalized. All these REAL limitations noted at the bottom of the report:

“ The findings in this report are subject to at least seven limitations. First, although this analysis was designed to compare two groups with different sources of immunity, patients might have been misclassified. If SARS-CoV-2 testing occurred outside of network partners’ medical facilities or if vaccinated persons are less likely to seek testing, some positive SARS-CoV-2 test results might have been missed and thus some patients classified as vaccinated and previously uninfected might also have been infected. In addition, despite the high specificity of COVID-19 vaccination status from these data sources, misclassification is possible. Second, the aOR could not be further stratified by time since infection or vaccination because of sparse data and limited ability to control for residual confounding that could be magnified within shorter intervals. The aOR that did not adjust for time might also be subject to residual confounding, particularly related to waning of both types of immunity. Third, selection bias might be possible if vaccination status influences likelihood of testing and if previous infection influences the likelihood of vaccination. Previous work from the VISION network did not identify systematic bias in testing by vaccination status, based on data through May 2021 (1). Fourth, residual confounding might exist because the study did not measure or adjust for behavioral differences between the comparison groups that could modify the risk of the outcome. Fifth, these results might not be generalizable to nonhospitalized patients who have different access to medical care or different health care–seeking behaviors, particularly outside of the nine states covered. Sixth, the statistical model incorporated the use of a weighted propensity score method which is subject to biases in estimates or standard errors if the propensity score model is misspecified. Numerous techniques were used to reduce potential suboptimal specification of the model, including but not limited to including a large set of covariates for machine learning estimation of propensity scores, including covariates in both regression and propensity models, ensuring large sample sizes and checking stability of weights, and conducting secondary analyses to assess robustness of results. Finally, the study assessed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines only; findings should not be generalized to the Janssen vaccine.”

These limitations are not insignificant? Is it worth it to publish vs. work on fixing this and then publishing? Potential loss of credibility vs. an incremental more vaccination or more likely just more hatred developed for those unvaccinated for personal reason. Seriously hospitalization of an individual reasons are from numerous behavior choices more than a vaccination. Going out to party – drinking – smoking – mask? – eating poorly – where does vaccination rank in control behavior? Do we want to be like the Chinese? Being unvaccinated DOES NOT beyond a reasonable metric increase risk for others based on the current data. Overtime this maybe proven wrong but the data is certainly more compelling than pundits who have been wrong consistently and lab metrics that don’t play out in reality.

It is a fact the US system of testing is limited and focused on symptomatic patients and volunteered testing. In the UK they test beyond symptomatic. They released this study which was yearlong of tracking – Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study – The Lancet Infectious Diseases

“Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory.”

“Although vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures. Our findings highlight the importance of community studies to characterise the epidemiological phenotype of new SARS-CoV-2 variants in increasingly highly vaccinated populations. Continued public health and social measures to curb transmission of the delta variant remain important, even in vaccinated individuals.”

The more we can move on from vaccines being the ONLY answer we can solve this issue from therapeutics to mechanical solutions (HVAC modifications). AND MOST IMPORTANTLY a message to society to get healthy – a message to policy makers to fix our food system to reduce promotion of poor food choices. The data is clear being healthy pays!

Health for sure is clear in the disparity in covid deaths comparing countries. Yes African countries are not as old but they are healthy. Japan and S Korea are healthier too.

Latest in the news is Fluvoxamine – which has been noted here before but now is finally catching some headlines – if we reduce our vaccine rhetoric perhaps some of these can come to fruition – Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial – The Lancet Global Health

“ Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital.”

It is cheap and available. It would seem like it could do better than the vaccines? The mechanics I have read is that drugs that facilitate serotonin transmission can

attenuate the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 (fluoxetine, citalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine,etc…) they noted two mechanisms including the above.

“The underlying mechanism of fluvoxamine for COVID-19 disease remains uncertain. Although hypotheses include several potential mechanisms,4 the main reason for the initial study of fluvoxamine as a treatment of COVID-19 was its anti-inflammatory action through activation of the S1R.14 S1R is an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) chaperone membrane protein involved in many cellular functions,15 including regulation of ER stress response–unfolded protein response and regulation of cytokine production in response to inflammatory triggers.16 In the presence of fluvoxamine, S1R might prevent the ER stress sensor inositol-requiring enzyme 1α from splicing and activating the mRNA of X-box protein 1, a key regulator of cytokine production including interleukins IL-6, IL-8, IL-1β, and IL-12. In a 2019 study by Rosen and colleagues, fluvoxamine showed benefit in preclinical models of inflammation and sepsis through this mechanism.16

A second mechanism might be fluvoxamine’s antiplatelet activity.17 SSRIs can prevent loading of serotonin into platelets and inhibit platelet activation, which might reduce the risk of thrombosis, and these antiplatelet effects can be cardioprotective. Finally, another potential mechanism of action might be related to the effect of fluvoxamine in increasing plasma levels of melatonin.16 In vitro and animal studies are needed to help clarify the most probable mechanism(s). Biomarker studies included as part of future randomised controlled trials might also help to clarify mechanisms.”

Temperature – which then influences behaviors matter – winter is coming….covid numbers will rise again….The northern regions are not very populated so the overall numbers wont be large now.

There is no magic Temp as every state citizen has relative temperature that changes their behavior. The consistent temp is when the virus outershell hardens and that is around 60F. Whether than you bunker down in your house but still have parties or go shopping that’s an unknown which causes noise.