Im-Politic: More Evidence That the Vaccines are No Cure-All

Tags

Biden, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, death rates, hospitalizations, Im-Politic, public health, vaccination, vaccines, Washington Post, Wuhan virus

Time for a CCP virus update with a focus on the effectivnes of vaccines. And the big takeaway? Good luck to you if you can detect any evidence for the popular view (including President Biden’s) that the United States has been seeing a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” lately – and especially during pandemic phase dominated by the highly infectious Delta variant.

Full disclosure: I’m fully vaxxed and have been since late April. I got the shots as soon as I could make an appointment (not easy back then in my state of residence, Maryland). I’ll probably get a booster – and certainly have no inherent objections to these jabs.

But I’m 67 years old and have some underlying conditions that make me more vulnerable than other young seniors (although my physicians tell me I’m still  healthy overall). So I concluded that getting vaccinated made good sense for me. For anyone else? As always, the only medical advice I’m qualified to give is “Use your judgment in consultation with your doctor(s).”

In other words, I’m no anti-vaxxer. Instead, my main concern continues to be the often confusing advice given by public health authorities on dealing with the pandemic, their regular habit of departing from “The Science” in their recommendations, and – especially important – their willingness to push aggressively for policies with major implications for both other public health issues and crucial non-health-related issues based on highly questionable data. (The latest potential problem revealed concerned the hospitalization figures, which I and many others viewed as the most reliable measure of the pandemic’s status and the severity of the virus – though far from perfect.)

Here’s what I’ve just done. I’ve looked at the statistics for the states and territories that have fully vaccinated the highest percentages of their populations and the lowest percentages of their populations, and compared the changes in newly reported deaths and numbers of CCP Virus-related hospitalization rates over the last week as of this morning. My source, as often the case, is the Washington Post‘s very well-designed and thus very convenient interactive virus database. The results are below:

Top 10 vaxxed states   Full Vax rate  new deaths last week  new hospns last week

National average:         54.2 percent        +26 percent                   -6 percent

Vermont:                       68.8 percent      +100 percent             +26.5 percent

Connecticut:                 67.5 percent      +33.3 percent               +4.4 percent

Puerto Rico:                  67.4 percent       +8.3 percent                 -15 percent

Maine:                           67.2 percent            0 percent               +3.1 percent

Massachusetts:                 67 percent     +44.4 percent             +14.5 percent

Rhode Island:                66.5 percent        +50 percent              -11.8 percent

Guam:                            65.1 percent     +200 percent               not available

New Jersey:                   63.1 percent    +12.5 percent               +2.6 percent

Maryland:                         63 percent    +23.1 percent                     0 percent

New York:                      62.1 percent    -29.4 percent               -14.6 percent

Bottom 10 states for vaccination rates

National average:           54.2 percent      +26 percent                    -6 percent

West Virginia:                   40 percent   +91.7 percent                +9.3 percent

Wyoming:                      40.4 percent    +100 percent                 -9.4 percent

Idaho:                            40.5 percent     +120 percent              +10.3 percent

Alabama:                      40.7 percent     +110 percent                -14.5 percent

Mississippi:                  41.7 percent     -15.4 percent                -15.1 percent

North Dakota:              42.9 percent            0 percent                 +7.4 percent

Virgin Islands:             43.1 percent             0 percent              +16.7 percent

Georgia:                       43.5 percent     +50.6 percent               -10.2 percent

Louisiana:                    43.8 percent     +10.4 percent               -17.8 percent

Tennessee:                   43.8 percent      +28.3 percent              -12.2 percent

Before proceeding, another data caution shouldn’t be forgotten. Because most of the states in each group have very small populations, changes in both deaths and hospitalizations are often infinitesimal in absolute terms, which means that even tiny increases or decreases in those terms can produce huge percentage change results. Indeed, in places like Vermont and Wyoming and the Virgin Islands, these changes are only in the single digits in absolute terms.

All the same, as for some of the most obvious comparisons:

The number of top ten vaxxed states whose CCP Virus-related deaths rose during the past week is eight. For the bottom ten, it’s only seven.

The number of top ten vaxxed states where such deaths fell during that week is one. None of the bottom ten saw falling deaths.

The number of top ten vaxxed states whose hospitalizations rose over the last week is five. The comparable figure for the bottom ten vaxxed states is four.

The number of top ten vaxxed states whose hospitalizations fell over the last week is two. For the bottom ten vaxxed states? Six.

If anything, the bottom ten vaxxed states recently have been doing slightly better than the top ten according to these measures.

Also peculiar – and tough to square with the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” claim: Within these two groups, there are some big death and hospitalization variations between states with identical or very similar vaccination rates. Indeed, the fully vaxxed range in the top ten group is between 68.8 percent and 62.1 percent. Yet the trends for New York and Massachusetts, for example, are going in exactly the opposite directions – and very strongly so. Moreover, the top ten state with the best record on both counts combined by far is New York, even though it’s the least fully vaxxed state in this group.

Using the national average as the bar doesn’t produce a better story for the highly vaxxed states.

In that group, the number whose deaths rose faster than the national average is five. For the lowest vaxxed states, the number is six.

As a result, five states in the top ten category saw deaths rising more slowly than the national average, versus four in the bottom ten category.

Turning to hospitalizations, six of the top ten vaxxed states experienced worse changes than the national average, and data were unavailable for Guam. The comparable number for the bottom ten states was the same.

Therefore, three states in the top ten group experienced better hospitalization change results than the national average, versus four in the bottom ten group.

One possible reason for still taking the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” claim seriously: Many of these results might be explained by the fact that in the top ten vaxxed states, absolute levels of deaths and hospitalizations are starting from very low levels. So as explained just above, their apparently worsening records in many cases can be dismissed as a statistical illusion, and the focus should remain on how good their records in absolute terms remain.

And the converse for the bottom ten: Seeming improvements in their records may stem from death and vaccination rates that stood at very high absolute levels, and remained high despite impressive-looking percentage change drops.

But another possibility deserves at least as much attention: These supposed statistical illusions actually show that the virus is advancing and retreating in waves in many instances – and that to some extent, the results mean that the worst vaxxed states are seeing significant improvements in their numbers, and the best are seeing significant deterioration, for reasons having little to do with vaccinations, and much more to do with the nature of viruses and their natural life cycles.

One particularly notable example is Florida, which has received so much attention because Governor Ron DeSantis has so strongly opposed many mandatory mitigation measures. Its full vaccination rate is now a little higher (55.6 percent) than the national average of 54.2 percent, and actually has been rising somewhat faster.

Its death rate initially rose much more strongly than the U.S. rate as a whole, and has stayed considerably higher (1.69 daily new deaths measured by the seven-day average per hundred thousand residents, versus 0.59 for the nation as a whole). But over the last week, its daily deaths have risen much more slowly (seven percent versus 26 percent).

Similarly, Florida’s hospitalization rate is still higher than the national average (with 45 residents per 100,000 versus 29 per 100,000 for the entire United States). But over the last seven days, Florida daily hospitalizations are down 19 percent, versus six percent for the nation as a whole.

It’s become a commonplace to observe that viruses don’t care what your politics are, or where you live, or what your vaccine views are.  That’s all true.  But it looks like, except for considerations that have long been known, like age and race, certain they care much less about whether you’re vaxxed than where you happen to live at any given time as they appear, surge, and fade (to varying extents) as they always have.    

Im-Politic: So You Think Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Reflect “The Science”?

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, Biden, CCP Virus, CNN, coronavirus, COVID 19, Im-Politic, immunity, Mainstream Media, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, public health, RealClearPolitics.com, vaccination, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, vaccines, Wuhan virus

Can we just finally stop pretending that the Biden administration’s approach to mitigating the CCP Virus has anything to do with “The Science.” And don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, longtime director of the federal National Institute of Allergy and Chief Medical Advisor to the President.

As the President insisted emphatically, and even angrily, in his speech Thursday, “This [now] is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” and this situation is entirely the fault of Americans who aren’t “doing the right thing” to protect themselves “and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love”; and of “elected officials actively working to undermine the fight against COVID-19.”

So in order to prevent vaccine hesitancy for whatever reason “to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part and want to get back to life as normal,” he decided to impose a series of sweeping vaccine mandates for both federal government workers and large numbers of private sector employees.

As I pointed out this past Wednesday, the (big) problem with this strategy is that it completely ignores the huge numbers of Americans who don’t need vaccines because their exposure to the virus has left them immune. I should have added that, consequently, they can’t spread it to others unless they themselves get reinfected. As a result, the Biden strategy threatens to deprive tens of millions of Americans of their livelihoods, and the U.S. economy of production and demand that it still urgently needs, for no good medical reason at all.

And guess what? Fauci clearly agrees with me (and the others who have made the same point). Yesterday, during a CNN appearance, he was asked about

“a study that came out of Israel about natural immunity, and basically, the headline was that natural immunity provides a lot of protection, even better than the vaccines alone.

“What do people make of that? So as we talk about vaccine mandates, I get calls all the time, people say, I’ve already had COVID, I’m protected. And now the study says maybe even more protected than the vaccine alone. Should they also get the vaccine? How do you make the case to them?”

Fauci’s answer?

“You know, that’s a really good point….I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that. That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.

“The one thing that paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection, what’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time.

“So, I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously, because you very appropriately pointed out, it is an issue, and there could be an argument for saying what you said.”

But it seems Fauci didn’t “sit down and discuss seriously” this complication with Mr. Biden. Or maybe the President decided to ignore input from someone who’s supposed to have personified “The Science” lately, and steam ahead anyway.

Of course, this would be a great subject for the Mainstream Media (MSM) to investigate. (Forget about Congress as long as it’s controlled by the Democrats.) But that’s not where the smart money is. After all, if you Google some obvious search terms like “Fauci” and “a really firm answer” and as of this writing (a little after 3 in the afternoon today, EST), and no MSM hits come up. But searchers are told that “It looks like these results are changing quickly. If this topic is new, it can sometimes take time for results to be added by reliable sources.” Oh.

Speaking of “reliable sources, however, Fauci’s admission isn’t even featured on CNN’s own website! Here’s what its search engine tells you: “Your search for Fauci ‘a really firm answer’ did not match any documents.” I was only able to find the transcript because I’d read about Fauci’s remarks on a decidedly not mainstream news site, and as the link above shows, finally came across it on the RealClearPolitics.com news aggregator site.

Maybe Fauci himself will speak up, before the vaccine mandates actually begin, or before they beging inflicting real economic damage on unvaccinated Americans and an entire economy that relies heavily on them? After all, he felt pretty free to contradict or correct President Trump when he felt the need. (Google “Fauci contradicts Trump.”)  But I wouldn’t bet on that, either, since he was already praising Mr. Biden even before the election.

In all, this information loop seems to be closed, at least till the 2022 Congressional elections, which could create the possibility of at least one house of Congress checking and probing the Executive Branch. For now, though, what word describes the fix in which this leaves the country better than “sickening”?           

Im-Politic: The Case Against Sweeping Vaccine Mandates and Passports

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, healthcare, hospitalizations, Im-Politic, immunity, mortality, natural immunity, Nature, public health, unvaccinated, vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, vaccines, Worldometers.info

It’s approaching the status of a reliable rule of thumb: The longer the CCP Virus pandemic lasts, the weirder, and more unnecessarily harmful on balance, the actual and potential official responses get. The most important example nowadays has to do with the ever lengthening lists (a) of vaccine mandates and passports that have already been created by governments and businesses and universities around the country; and (b) increasingly irate calls for more – including demands that the unvaccinated be denied medical care or (seemingly more reasonably) affordable health insurance.

Given the large numbers of Americans remaining unvaccinated, and apparently likely to stay unvaccinated, the risks of mandates and passports per se should be obvious. Despite the U.S. economy’s strong recovery so far from the initial virus- and lockdowns-induce recession, new laws denying, say, employment to this population and barring them from patronizing businesses could deeply depress demand and output, and put the economy uncomfortably close to Spring, 2020 square one.

More troubling, even though these restrictions are still far from common, virus uncertainties generated by the highly contagious Delta variant seem to have already undercut hiring dramatically, and are widely forecast to weaken growth going forward. (See, e.g., here.)

But even if the virus was remotely as lethal or otherwise dangerous healthwise as Ebola or the Black Death (which it’s not), today’s insistence on universal vaccination and penalties for holdouts badly flunks the common sense test. The main reason: It completely ignores the existence of both natural and acquired immunity.

In fact, not only has the phenomenon of immunity not exactly been a secret to “The Science” – at least ever since disease began to be systematically studied. It’s likely reached gargantuan scale in the United States today. For example, a study just published in the respected science journal Nature and funded in part by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences contended that as of the end of last year, 103 million Americans had been infected with the virus. That’s about a third of the total population, and about five times the numbers of recorded cases at that point. Also during 2020, according to the reliable Worldometers.info website, just shy of 366,000 had succumbed to the disease.

Therefore, as of the end of 2020, more than 102 million Americans acquired immunity by recovering from infections that were either asymptomatic or too mild to report. And an unknown (but surely large) number of Americans were never infected to begin with because they were naturally immune.

All of these figures, of course, cover the period months before Delta arrived. Since it’s so infectious, the numbers of those with natural or acquired immunity nowadays must still be at least as big and possibly much bigger. The full vaccination of nearly 177 million Americans as of this latest CDC update of course complicates the estimation process, because so many with natural immunity undoubtedly have gotten such protection.

Another big complication: Vaccines have only been available since the very end of last year, and the numbers of fully vaccinated Americans took a while to become significant both because of roll-out delays and vaccine hesitancy. As a result, there’s not much data yet on whether either form of immunity is more protective than that offered by the jabs – which of course bears vitally on the core assumption behind the calls for vaccine mandates and the like.

After all, if either natural or acquired immunity is comparably effective to vaccination in warding off the virus (the study described here indicates they’re at worst not far off), or if both are, the case that the jabs are medically necessary for all the unvaccinated – either to safeguard the health of the unjabbed themselves, or to prevent them from spreading the malady – simply falls apart.

In addition, the paucity of great data is a problem in and of itself. Unquestionably, there could still major risks, especially long-term, to leaving the unvaccinated unvaxxed. But as noted, the risks of indiscriminate mandates and penalties are impressive as well. Consequently, what should be foremost on Americans’ minds when it comes to mandates-like questions is that in these circumstances, barreling ahead with sweeping measures and sanctions – many of whose effects, particuarly like joblessness and lost income, won’t take long to appear – would be the height of recklessness. As for those who would deny medical care to all of the unvaccinated on this fatally flawed basis (except those who can cite medical exemptions?), that seems the height of arrogance and self-righteousness – not to mention morally disgusting.

And in case you think that the common observation that the unvaccinated comprise nearly all recent CCP Virus-related deaths and hospitalizations clinches the case for mandates, these immunity points shred that idea, too. The problem is not with the claim of high correlation between unvaxxed status and mortality and  hospitalization. The problem is with assuming that a noteworthy share of these virus victims – or even the vast majority – had any form of immunity. In principle, large numbers of the unvaccinated immune could be coming down with dangerous virus infections anyway, or are likely to – and consequently should be coerced into getting jabbed and punished for refusing. But I haven’t seen that argument made; have you? And it’s surely missing in action because immunity is undeniably a thing.

So absent evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable conclusions are that getting the non-immune unvaxxed vaccinated should be a top priority, and that vaccination campaigns should be focused tightly on them. The immune unvaxxed, however, should be allowed to continue their lives as normal.

More than enough American live have been lost or ruined during the pandemic. Unless and until it’s discovered that all of the unvaccinated pose dangers to themselves and/or to others – whether because natural or acquired immunity is completely mythical, or is much weaker than the vaccines-produced variety – indiscriminate vaccine mandates, passports, and penalties will only needlessly lengthen the list of casualties.

Those Stubborn Facts: More Public Health Costs of Covid Tunnel Vision

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, mental health, public health, Those Stubborn Facts, Wuhan virus

Number of Americans who recently received mental health

counseling or therapy, late July, 2021: 22.3 million

Increase from late August, last year: 22.42 percent

Number of Americans saying they need mental health assistance but

aren’t getting it, July, 2021: 23.6 million

Increase from last summer: c. 33 percent

Number of Americans now taking prescription drugs to help with

emotional or mental health: 46.4 million

Increase from last summer: 24.06 percent

 

(Source: “U.S. Mental Health Under Growing Strain in Covid’s Second Summer,” by Alexandre Tanzi, Bloomberg.com, August 12, 2021, U.S. Mental Health Under Growing Strain in Covid’s Second Summer – Bloomberg)

Im-Politic: Why Delta Looks Like a Wave (in the Best Sense)

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, health, Im-Politic, lockdowns, pandemic, public health, The New York Times, vaccination, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, vaccines, Washington Post, Wuhan virus

I hate to break up the CCP Virus panic party that’s been held lately due to the surge of the Delta variant in recent weeks.

Actually, as known by RealityChek readers, I don’t hate to break it up, since I’ve been writing that it doesn’t portend the end of days, or anything close – much less a development serious enough to justify a return to economic and behavioral curbs in the United States. But even I was surprised to see how strongly the U.S. data support my confidence that Delta’s a wave in the most encouraging sense: It’s something that’s going to come down about as fast as it went up, both nation-wide and state-wide. Moreover, contrary to the almost universal claims, differences in vaccination rates don’t seem to have much to do with these trends.

These conclusions are based on data showing recent changes in hospitalization rates in states that have seem to have been hardest hit by the overall national increase in recorded virus cases since late June. As I’ve pointed out, case numbers are a deeply flawed measure of the virus’ impact on the nation, largely because so many infections are asymptomatic or very mild. Therefore, such victims typically don’t bother to report them. By the same token, however, their prevalence indicates that the pandemic’s dangers to Americans generally speaking are limited.

Hospitalization rates suffer major flaws, too – mainly because of sloppy definitional practices – but they’re better than case numbers. And what the numbers make clear is that in handful of states widely described as the Delta and overall new wave epicenters (see, e.g., here and here), the hospitalization curve is bending down big time. That is, the weekly numbers of new hospitalizations have slowed dramatically.

Here are the actual figures, with the percentage changes new hospitalizations over the last two weeks shown on the left side (and based on The New York Times‘ interactive CCP Virus tracker) and the percentage changes over the last week shown on the right side (and based on the Washington Post‘s tracker). I needed to use two sources here because I couldn’t find a single source that presented all this information in one place.

U.S.:                      +90 percent            +34 percent

Florida:                +111 percent            +17 percent

Texas:                  +102 percent            +19 percent

Lousiana:             +136 percent            +32 percent

Arkansas:               +45 percent              +4 percent

Missouri:                +27 percent              +5 percent

Mississippi:          +166 percent            +26 percent

In addition, as well known by now, the full vaccination rates in all of these states have lagged the national average of about 50 percent as of today.

Florida:      49.6 percent

Texas:        44.5 percent

Lousiana:   37.6 percent

Arkansas:   37.6 percent

Missouri:    42.1 percent

More evidence of the relatively modest role played by the vaccines in slowing hospitalization rates can be seen in the below table presenting, as above, the changes in weekly hospitalizations over the last two weeks and over the last week for the ten states with the highest full vaccination rates (shown in parentheses).

                                   over the last two weeks            over last week

US (50.1 percent):              +90 percent                       +34 percent

Vermont (67.9 percent):    +577 percent                     +260 percent

Mass. (64.4 percent):          +78 percent                       +25 percent

Maine (64.2 percent):         +29 percent                          -8 percent

Connect. (63.9 percent):     +90 percent                       +14 percent

R.I. (62.1 percent):               -29 percent                      +89 percent

Maryland (59.5 percent):     +77 percent                      +23 percent

N.J. (59.0 percent):              +60 percent                      +14 percent

N.H. (58.6 percent):             +45 percent                     +13 percent

Wash. (58.6 percent):           +60 percent                     +21 percent

N.M. (57.8 percent):            +89 percent                     +23 percent

The first observation to be made is that nation-wide, the increase in hospitalizations has slowed significantly – for which everyone should be thankful. The second point worth noting is that the two week changes for the high- and low-vax states don’t differ to any great extent, though both display significant variation. And the third point I’d emphasize is that the slowdowns mostly have been much faster in the low-vax states. So since we’re examining all these states during the same timeframes, it’s difficult to understand the insistence that vaccination is so vital to stopping the spread. (Incidentally, I’d ignore the Vermont data, since the absolute numbers are so small.)

The only other explanation I can think of is that the high-vax states tend to be states that are densely populated, whereas the low-vax states are much less so. But logically, that would seem to argue most strongly for more energetic vaccine efforts to be made where people are most crowded together, not for villifying the vaccination laggard states (especially when, as in the cases of Florida and Texas, they’re not trailing by that much).

And nothing apparent about the Delta variant so far changes what’s been the most sensible formula for contending with the CCP Virus since the pandemic’s first (understandably) panicky months of 2020:  Don’t treat it like the nation’s only health problem, much less its only problem; don’t ignore its wave-like dynamics or its highly differentiated health effects; therefore keep social and economic life as normal as possible, and focus protective efforts (including vaccines) on the highly vulnerable.      

Im-Politic: The CDC’s Delta Misinformation Spread

Tags

CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, Im-Politic, lockdowns, public health, Rochelle Walensky, vaccinations, vaccine passports, vaccines, Wuhan virus

Remember all the way back to…August 3, when I wrote that the available data made clear that the U.S. government’s leading medical authorities, its President, and many of its politicians and Mainstream Media journalists were engaged in fear-mongering over the new-ish Delta variant of the CCP Virus? I documented that although the new strain has indeed spread rapidly, even the (overwhelmingly circumstantial) evidence cited said absolutely nothing about the most critical issue: the new variant’s ability to cause serious illness and death.

Indeed, I noted, the ability of all versions of the virus (1) to spread asymptomatically, or (2) with symptoms too mild to be reported, and the consequent inability to measure its presence in the population accurately, combined (3) with death rates that have remained at rock bottom, strongly indicated that its lethality rate was low. Flawed definitions of virus-caused hospitalizations further complicated even efforts to gauge Delta’s severity.

Today, however, I’m reporting that the misinformation propagated about the Delta threat is even worse than I originally thought. The problem? The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whose statistics, conclusions, and guidance form the basis of so much of the virus-related information received by the public, and of so much of the mitigation policy adopted by government at all levels along with private business (e.g., most recently, vaccine passports), has been using figures that are hopelessly out of date. 

The misinformation episode came this past Thursday, when CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky answered a reporter’s question about the data backing up the Biden administration contention that Delta’s proliferation, plus the rise in virus-related hospitalizations, had produced a pandemic almost exclusively “among the unvaccinated” that’s creating a new public health emergency serious enough to justify sweeping vaccine mandates and other new public health as well as economic curbs.

Here’s what Walensky said: “So those data were data that were from analyses in several states from January through June and didn’t reflect the data that we have now from the Delta variant. We are actively working to update those in the context of the Delta variant.”

She did add that “I do want to reiterate, though, that based on the data we’re seeing — and we don’t have fully updated numbers — universally, as we look at our hospitalizations and as we look at our deaths, they are overwhelmingly unvaccinated people.”

But her initial response revealed that the information the agency has been principally relying on have nothing to even with vaccinations, much less Delta. And that’s not because the CDC has been slipshod in this respect. It’s because it wasn’t until May that even half the total U.S. population was partially –not fully – vaccinated. In fact, as of early April, the share was only about 25 percent. (See here for the figures.)

So since the vast majority of Americans hadn’t been fully vaccinated for most of the six-month period from which the CDC come – as the agency obviously knew – of course the vast majority of hospitalizations would be of the unvaccinated. And please keep in mind those aforementioned flaws in the definition of CCP Virus-related hospitalization and the lack of data on what age groups dominated the hospitalized population whether properly counted or not – since the pathogen’s severity and lethality are so highly concentrated among the relatively old, and  with underlying health problems.

The focus on January-June also weakens the linkage between virus hospitalization rates – even given all the definitional flaws – and the Delta variant. For the new mutation was at least as scarce during that period as vaccination. The first U.S Delta case wasn’t even recorded until March. In early April, it had produced just 0.1 percent of all American cases, according to the CDC. As recently as early June, the figure was just 9.5 percent. (See here for these numbers). By June 19, the figure was still just 30.4 percent, and it was only in the last 10 days of June into the first three days of July that Delta was responsible for half of infections. (See here for these numbers.)

Throughout the pandemic, their obsessive focus on the CCP Virus – as well as apparent obliviousness to its highly differentiated effects – has blinded the  CDC and other public health authorities to the grievous harm done by its mitigation advice to workers, small business owners, students, opioid addicts, not to mention to those suffering from a myriad of other health problems forced to stand at the back of various medical service lines. 

Walensky’s latest comments show that intellectual dishonesty now belong on the list of their blunders – and on the list of reasons for thoroughly overhauling their leadership and institutional cultures, and role in health policymaking as soon as possible. 

Im-Politic: Delta Fear is Leading The Science, Not Following It

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, Biden, CCP Virus, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, hospitalizations, Im-Politic, infections, lockdowns, masks, public health, vaccine passports, Wuhan virus

Sorry, but I’m not that comforted by the fact that Anthony S. Fauci is now saying  that “I don’t think we’re going to see lockdowns” because of the rapid spread of the Delta variant of the CCP Virus.

That’s because (1) President Biden’s top medical advisor has been such a single-minded backer of broad curbs on economic activity despite their devastating costs to both workers and businesses, not to mention the educational and non-virus public health crises they’ve worsened (like deaths from opioid overdoses); and (2) because he and the rest of the lockdown crowd keep harping on fatally flawed measures of virus dangers that have triggered previous lockdowns, and that are especially prominent and misleading because of Delta’s unusual transmissability. The two most important are case numbers and hospitalization increases.

Normally, the number of victims of a given disease and how that number’s been changing would be crucial gauges of the threat it poses to a population at large and of the effectiveness of mitigation steps already taken.

As has been known since the early phases of the pandemic, however, the CCP Virus can be present asymptomatically. That is, many individuals might not know they’re hosting it, either because they’re still feeling perfectly healthy, or because the effects are so mild that they’re judged not worth dealing with – or reporting to the health providers on which governments at all levels in the United States rely heavily for the virus data, and that form the basis for their policy responses.

As a result, literally no one knows how many Americans have been affected by the CCP Virus and, even more important, how that number has been changing. The same goes for the Delta variant. And therefore, literally no one knows the actual national health consequences of its virulence, and especially what percentage of those who have caught Delta are now or will become seriously ill, or have died or will succumb. Those are the Delta statistic — not simple numbers recorded instances of serious illness or mortality, however distressing they are on humanitarian grounds — that matter in assessing the peril posed by this strain, and in formulating responses whose net effects economically, socially, and health-wise aren’t worse than the disease/

To understand this distinction further, think about what’s known about Delta-related hospitalizations. The most accurate answer is “Very little so far in the way of hard data.” Indeed, as pointed out last week by the American Society for Microbiology, “Research is ongoing to determine if Delta infection is associated with increased hospitalization and death.” But that hasn’t prevented a pandemic of claims that it’s been a  primary driver of admissions lately. (See, e.g., here and here — among a gazillion other articles.)

Let’s assume, however, that the narrative is true. If so, since June 27 through the end of last week, when according to the Washington Post‘s very convenient virus tracker, the number of virus-hospitalized Americans hit its lowest level since the spring of 2020, the number of such patients has increased from 16,403 to 49,498 (through July 31), or 33,095. That sounds like a lot of hospitalizations, and the percentage gain (the numbers have nearly tripled), seems even worse. So Delta looks pretty dangerous, right? But again, what’s the context – that is, what’s the share of Americans infected with Delta who get seriously ill enough to get hospitalized?

As of two weeks ago, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the new strain was responsible for just over 83 percent of all new American CCP Virus cases. That was up from just over 30 percent on June 19 – just about the time virus-related hospitalizations hit their latest bottom. From that time through the end of July, just under 1.352 million total new virus cases have been recorded. So assuming that over the entirety of this period, Delta variant cases made up about 75 percent of these, their total at comes to 1.014 million.

Let’s further assume, in sync with the evidence-free narrative, that all of the new hospitalizations can be blamed on Delta. This would mean that 3.26 percent of the total new Delta cases (that 33,095 figure) were serious enough to require hospital care. Does that number justify even thinking about new lockdowns, much less calling them (only sort of) unlikely?

But don’t forget the asymptomatic cases! According to a new CDC estimate, as of mid-2020, 83 percent of total virus cases in America were asymptomatic – i.e., not recorded. Since so much has changed then – mainly, mass vaccination – that 83 percent figure probably doesn’t hold any more. A reasonable guess might be that 33 percent is now more like it (since about half of the total population is now fully vaccinated and many more Americans have either natural or acquired immunity).

If that’s right, the number of new Delta strain infections is more like 1.5 million, not one million. And the hospitalization rate is more like 2.21 percent. So the notion that “the war [against the virus] has changed” because of this recent mutation, as contended by an internal federal health document obtained by the Washington Post, looks recklessly alarmist.

Further, such views look even wilder and crazier given the likelihood that Washington’s methods for defining cases and virus-related hospitalizations have produced seriously exaggerated counts.

After all, detecting the virus’ presence in an individual is only one of several sets of criteria that the CDC uses to conclude there’s a CCP Virus case to be counted. For example, for individuals that have been in contact with even a probable case of the virus, or who are members of designated vulnerable groups, a positive virus diagnosis can be justified if they display a headache and a sore throat at the same time. Or a sore throat and a runny nose. Or fatigue and a fever. Or if he or she is simply has a cough.

Even the CDC lab test standards for declaring a virus case via testing are dodgy, primarily because the main determinant seems to be the simple presence of the SARS-COV-2 pathogen that causes the disease. Unfortunately, these standards don’t seem to take into account how microorganisms like viruses can enter hosts and form “colonies” that result in no tissue infection and indeed don’t interact with the host at all. And as no less than the World Health Organization has pointed out, “Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person.” Indeed, for all intents and purposes, it means that someone can be hosting the virus but shouldn’t be considered a case at all. One recent study suggests that this pattern is found in more than a tenth of positive cases.

Finally, the hospitalization numbers may be the least reliable of all. In the first place, the reporting system used by the CDC covers only about ten percent of the American population. Moreover, all you need to qualify for the CDC’s definition of a CCP Virus-related hospitalization is to be admitted into such a facility for any reason within 14 days of a positive test. As a result, if you need to be hospitalized for, say, cancer, and you’ve tested positive for the virus during the previous two weeks, you’re considered hospitalized for the CCP Virus.

It’s the same issue that the country has been dealing concerning whether various deaths are “from” or “with” Covid. And genuinely complicated judgment calls are involved. But for that very reason, public health officials should be awfully careful when they talk about devastating consequences of infections in and of themselves.

So the bottom lines are that the sharp recent increase in CCP Virus cases – including of course Delta variant cases – look overwhelmingly to be asymptomatic or mild; that even these numbers define positivity way too broadly, thus representing a major exaggeration and therefore affecting the nation’s health only marginally at best; and that, similarly, there’s probably even less even to true hospitalization rates that are already meager enough than meets the eye.

If Fauci, or anyone else in the Biden administration or in the ranks of restrictions fans had been pointing out any of these absolutely vital nuances since the virus’ Delta phase began, I’d have more faith in assurances about avoiding new lockdowns or any significant new business or behavior curbs. That they haven’t tells me that if such deeply mistaken and needlessly damaging (as known since the virus’ early period) measures aren’t yet on the lockdowners’ table, they’re not too far off — and so far, that would represent leading the science, not following it.  

Glad I Didn’t Say That! A Weird NY Times Definition of “Polarizing”

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, experts, Florida, lockdowns, Mainstream Media, MSM, politics, polls, public health, reopening, Ron DeSantis, The New York Times, Wuhan virus

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis “has become a

polarizing leader in the resistance to lengthy pandemic lockdowns,

ignoring the advice of some public health experts in ways that have

left his state’s residents bitterly divided over the costs and benefits of

his actions.”

– The New York Times, April 10, 2021

Latest two DeSantis Florida approval ratings: 53 % & 60 %

– Sarasota (Fla.) Herald-Tribune, March 2, 2021 and The Florida Times-Union, March 4, 2021

 

(Sources: “Could Ron DeSantis Be Trump’s G.O.P. Heir?  He’s Certainly Trying,” by Patricia Mazzei, The New York Times, April 10, 2021, Could Ron DeSantis Be Trump’s G.O.P. Heir? He’s Certainly Trying. – The New York Times (nytimes.com); “New poll shows 53% of Florida voters approve of DeSantis, a big increase from July,” by Zac Anderson, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, March 2, 2021, https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/03/02/florida-governor-ron-desantis-approval-rating-sees-big-increase-covid-pandemic-anniversary/6877677002/; and “UNF poll: Gov. DeSantis approval at 60 percent,” The Florida Times-Union, March 4, 2021, UNF poll: Gov. DeSantis approval at 60 percent – News – The Florida Times-Union – Jacksonville, FL )

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Latest on the Virus, Lockdowns, and Jobs

Tags

California, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Jobs, Labor Department, lockdowns, New York, public health, states, stay-at-home, Wallethub.com, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

With the release last week of the Labor Department’s U.S. state-level employment data for December, we have a great new handle on the relationship between the various lockdown and stay-at-home policies mandated throughout the country, and the still horrific toll on job losses during the CCP Virus era.

And as with recent statistics on state-level economic growth (and contraction) rates (see here and here), the numbers seem to point to the economic curbs themselves as the biggest influence on employment levels and changes, as opposed to other factors, like individuals’ virus-induced fear of using various types of in-person services (like travel) and the resulting knock-on effects throughout the entire economy.

One major indication of the mandates’ impact comes, as with the growth figures, from the outsized job losses experienced in New York and California, two states with some of the most severe lockdown regimes imposed over the past year.

In December, 2019, just before the virus began spreading to the United States, New York and California accounted for 18.37 percent of all the nation’s non-farm jobs (the Labor Department’s U.S. jobs universe.) But one year later, their employment losses came to 27.91 percent of the U.S. total.

Additional reasons for blaming the mandates for the employment damage come from comparing the performances the best and worst jobs performers, and the least and most restrictive states. As with the previous post on growth levels, the ranking of mandate strictness comes from the Wallethub.com website. (And sharp-eyed readers will note that the rankings have changed over the last few months, which makes perfect sense since the lockdown regimes’ extent has fluctuated, too.)

First let’s see the Wallethub ranks of the states with the best employment records between December, 2019 and December, 2020. (The lower the rank, the more “open” the state.)

Top 10 job performers (by % change)       Wallethub.com rank

1. Idaho: +0.6                                                          14

1. Utah: +0.6                                                             6

2. Mississippi: -1.4                                                  21

3. Alabama: -1.7                                                      12

3. Georgia: -1.7                                                       18

4. Nebraska: -2.3                                                     17

5. South Carolina: -2.4                                            10

6. Arizona: -2.8                                                       30

6. Arkansas: -2.8                                                       4

6. Indiana: -2.8                                                       20

7. Montana: -2.9                                                     13

7. South Dakota: -2.9                                               2

8. Missouri: -3.1                                                       7

9. Tennessee: -3.2                                                  19

10. Texas: -3.3                                                        28

Right off the bat you’ll see that because of ties, the Top 10 is really a Top 15 – which actually serves our purposes even better. And the big takeaway here is that with one exception (Arizona) and one near-exception (Texas), all of these states rank in the top half on the open/closed scale (26 and lower for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia).

And of these 15 states, four were among the ten most open, and twelve were among the twenty most open.

Does the reverse proposition hold? Have the most closed states generally compiled the worst employment records? Here’s what the numbers say:

Bottom 10 job performers (by % change)     Wallethub.com rank

1. Hawaii: -13.8                                                          43

2. Michigan: -10.9                                                      29

3. New York: -10.4                                                     39

4. Massachusetts: -9.1                                                49

5. Vermont: 9.0                                                           45

6. New Hampshire: -8.8                                             23

7. Rhode Island: -8.7                                                  36

8. Minnesota: -8.3                                                      32

9. California: -8.0                                                       51

9. New Jersey: -8.0                                                     34

10. Delaware: -7.8                                                      33

10. Pennsylvania: -7.8                                                35

10. Oregon: -7.8                                                         37

Because of the “tie effect,” this Bottom 10 set is really a Bottom 13. Four of them fall in the category of ten most restrictive states (ranked between 51 and 41 on the Wallethub scale), and seven more are among the next ten most restrictive states. Moreover, only one state (New Hampshire) has been in the top half of most open states. So the relationship between lockdowns and employment performance looks strong from this perspective as well.

The issue can be examined the other way around, too – by examining the employment performance of the most open and least open states. Here are the results for the ten most open states. (As with the list of ten most closed states below, the Top Ten here really is a Top Ten.) They’re presented in descending order of openness.) 

Ten least restrictive on lockdowns         Job creation rank (out of 37)

Oklahoma:                                                                15

South Dakota:                                                            6

Iowa:                                                                         11

Arkansas:                                                                   5                  

Florida:                                                                    14

Utah:                                                                          1

Missouri:                                                                   7

Wisconsin:                                                               25

Alaska:                                                                    24

South Carolina:                                                         4

Revealingly, fully half of these states were among the ten states with the best employment records, three more were in the next ten. Consequently, eight of the ten ranked in the top half on the openness scale. (Because of the “tie effect,” the top half here starts at number 19 – of 37 differing state rankings).

And although Oklahoma looks like something of an exception here (the most consistently open state being only the 15^th best jobs performer), there’s a pretty simple explanation: Oklahoma’s economy is energy-heavy, and that sector has been absolutely slammed the deep recession experienced during the CCP Virus period.

Florida, which relies so heavily on tourism, has an “excuse” as well. (By the same token, though, it’s no coincidence that the worst employment performer, Hawaii, is tourism-dependent as well, along with fellow job laggards California and, to a lesser extent, New York.)

Finally, the table below shows how the most closed states fared in terms of job loss.  These are presented in descending order of “closed-ness.”

Ten most restrictive on lockdowns          Job creation rank (out of 37)

California:                                                                  31

Virginia:                                                                     12

Masschusetts:                                                             34

District of Columbia:                                                 21

New Mexico:                                                             26

Washington:                                                               18

Vermont:                                                                    33

North Carolina:                                                          10

Hawaii:                                                                      37

Illinois:                                                                      24

Fully four of these ten have been among the five worst employment states during the virus period (including tourism-reliant Hawaii and California). Three more (Illinois, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia) joined them in the bottom half. Of the two exceptions, Virginia’s solid employment record surely stems from its status not only as a state with a strongly growing information technology sector and an army of federal workers (many of whose jobs in turn owe to federal contracting).

One last point should be remembered as well: As extensively documented, the lockdowns and stay-at-home orders have generated their own serious healthcare damage . So the states with the relatively limited mandates surely have curbed both these CCP Virus costs as well as economic damage. Meaning that the already compelling case for anti-virus measures targeting the most vulnerable rather than indiscriminately putting the clamps on businesses and other forms of activity has just grown that much stronger.

Im-Politic: Did “The Science” Give Us the Virus?

Tags

Anthony S. Fauci, bio-weapons, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Im-Politics, Joe Biden, lockdowns, National Institutes of Health, New York, Nicholson Baker, pandemics, public health, SARS, stay-at-home, terrorism, Trump, virology, Wuhan virus

That’s a pretty stunning header, I know. But it’s anything but crazy, or even click-baity – at least if you take seriously a long, very serious, and very carefully reported article published January 4 about the CCP Virus’ origins in New York magazine, which hasn’t exactly been an enthusiast for President Trump or science- or China-bashing.

For author Nicholson Baker makes clear not only that for years before the Trump era, America’s top public health officials (who epitomize “The Science” that all the adults in the nation’s room from President-elect Joe Biden on down have anointed as the only valid sources of U.S. and global virus policy advice) pushed measures certain to boost the odds that something like Covid 19 would be created, and somehow escape from, a laboratory someplace in the world – including China.

And notably, one of the main pushers was one Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

It’s important to make clear here what Baker isn’t saying. He isn’t saying that the Chinese manufactured the virus as a bio-weapon. He isn’t saying that Beijing loosed this pandemic on the world on purpose. And he certainly isn’t accusing Fauci and the rest of the public health establishment of acting maliciously.

But what he is saying is awfully damning, and urgently needs to be examined by the incoming Biden administration, the entire U.S. political and policy communities, and of course the public.  For Baker marshalls and summarizes voluminous evidence for the proposition that the most reasonable theory of the virus’ origin is not that in its highly infectious form it developed naturally in some mammal species (like a bat) and then jumped to humans (e.g., at a wet market) – the explanation offered at various times by the Chinese government and by many infectious disease specialists. Instead, the author supports the idea that it was produced by scientists from a naturally occuring mammalian virus, specifically by scientists at one of the three advanced virology facilities in and around the city of Wuhan.

And then, Baker – who is extremely careful to distinguish between facts and suppositions – speculates that “it eventually got out” by hazard. Release via “a lab accident — a dropped flask, a needle prick, a mouse bite, an illegibly labeled bottle,” he emphasizes, “isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s just a theory.” But he rightly argues that “It merits attention…alongside other reasoned attempts to explain the source of our current catastrophe.”

But where do the roles of the U.S. and global public health establishments come in? During recent decades, as Baker reports, scientists have been conducting “’gain of function’ experiments — aimed to create new, more virulent, or more infectious strains of diseases in an effort to predict and therefore defend against threats that might conceivably arise in nature.” And many of these experiments were funded by the Fauci’s Institute at the NIH. (Similar work was being funded by the Defense Department, whose interest in bio-weapons and fighting them was reawakened by the increase in global terrorism in the 1990s and the prospect that germs like anthrax would be used to advance extremist goals. This threat, of course, materialized right after September 11 with letters containing the germs sent through the mail – in an immense irony – by a U.S. government bio-weapons researcher.)

As implied immediately above, Fauci and his colleagues had the best of intentions. But as Baker documents exhaustively, they ignored numerous warnings from fellow professionals that, in no less than two related ways, they might be creating a problem far worse than that they were trying to solve. First,in their determination to design in the lab super-dangerous bio threats that terrorists hypothetically might some day create and use, they lost sight of how their own experiments could unleash such actual threats in the here-and-now due to the real possibility of leaks (hardly unknown in the world of biological research).

In Baker’s words, “Why, out of a desire to prove that something extremely infectious could happen, would you make it happen? And why would the U.S. government feel compelled to pay for it to happen?” Echoing these worries were numerous scientists, such as Johns Hopkins biomedical engineer Steven Salzberg, who noted several years ago, “We have enough problems simply keeping up with the current flu outbreaks — and now with Ebola — without scientists creating incredibly deadly new viruses that might accidentally escape their labs.”

Second, no evidence has been found yet that any of the coronaviruses that are naturally occuring and that have infected humans (like the SARS “bird flu” – which actually came from mammals – of 2002-03) are remotely as contagious as their lab versions, or are found in animals that often come into contact with humans outside China and its wet markets. In fact, Baker quotes Rutgers University microbiologist Richard Ebright has describing Chinese virologists’ efforts to scour remote locations for animal sources of natural coronaviruses that can be supercharged in a lab as “looking for a gas leak with a lighted match.”

In addition, Fauci arguably magnified these dangers by channeling some of the U.S. government funding for “gain of function” research to the Wuhan virology labs. On the one hand, this decision made sense (as long as gain-of-function was being sought in the first place) because China has been the origin point of so many mammalian coronaviruses, and therefore the home of so many leading virus specialists. On the other hand, safety first hasn’t exactly been a national Chinese watchword.

So the implications for simply “following The Science” seem clear. And they go beyond what should be (but isn’t) the screamingly obvious point that, especially in a field as new and rapidly changing as this branch of virology, there is no “The Science.” Expert opinion almost inevitably will be mixed, and politicians and their journalist mouthpieces flocking to one side while completely ignoring the other is bound to end badly. Matters are bound to end even worse, of course, when the favored faction aggressively tries to stamp out and discredit as “conspiracy thinking” the other’s theories – as Baker shows indisputably was the case with public health authorities and experts (including Fauci) who continue to try absolving the Wuhan labs from any responsibility.

More important, this tale bears out what I and many others have written for months (e.g., here): The pandemic is a crisis with many dimensions – economic and social as well as medical. The public health establishment’s contributions are indispensible. But not only is its expertise limited. Like any other human grouping defined by common characteristics and experiences like fundamental interests and educational backgrounds and occupational environments, this establishment is influenced by its own distinctive unconscious biases and predispositions.

In this case, in Baker’s words, some of the most important are “scientific ambition, and the urge to take exciting risks and make new things.” All of which are perfectly fine and even praiseworthy – in their place.

Further, the medical dimension of the crisis is complex, too, as shown both by all the evidence of major public health costs generated by the lockdown and stay-at-home orders championed so singlemindedly by Fauci and his acolytes, and by the strong disagreements among the virologists and similar researchers laid out in such detail by Baker. So it’s the job of political leaders to take all these considerations into account, not to act as if only one cohort of advisers has a monopoly on wisdom in all relevant areas.

And let’s end on an O’Henry type note. I can’t resist pointing out that President Trump, too, has been one of those U.S. leaders whose administration has robustly funded this gain-of-function research – one of the few instances in which he’s, apparently with no objections, followed The Science.