COVID-19 Coronavirus current events

A boost for boosters.

Article:
‘Pandemic of the unboosted’: low US Covid jab uptake piles pressure on hospitals

Almost half of the US Covid-19 hospitalisations this winter could have been averted if the country had matched the vaccination coverage of leading European countries, according to a Financial Times analysis of the Omicron variant’s impact on either side of the Atlantic.



Peter Hotez, professor of virology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Biden is right when he says we’re facing a pandemic of the unvaccinated — but it’s also now becoming a pandemic of the unboosted.”

Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research and Translational Institute, agreed. “If I were to really pin down the reasons for the really deplorable US situation, which is at the early stage of turning around, I would say [the low booster rate is] very high on the list,” he said.

As Omicron proliferated in late December, the US was belatedly closing the gap on its European peers in terms of first doses, but a lackluster booster campaign presented new problems. On December 20, 30 per cent of people in the US over-65 had gone six months since receiving a second dose, compared with just two per cent in Portugal; five per cent in England; and seven per cent in Denmark.

Chart showing that many older people in the US have still only had one dose or their second has waned significantly

Chart showing that the Omicron variant is intrinsically less severe than Delta, but that reduction is much smaller than what is provided by vaccination
 
, I found the link to the document its complex and need peer review
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
Article:
The Studies in Applied Economics series fills gaps in the history, statistics, and scholarship on a variety of subjects. The authors are mainly Fellows of the Institute and students at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who conduct research under the general direction of Prof. Steve H. Hanke, Founder and Co-Director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.

Translation: here's where the papers of the people who work with Prof. Hanke go that don't get published elsewhere. Note that Hanke is both the boss of this in-house journal as well as an author on that paper. I don't expect that any external scientific peer review took place.


SmartSelect_20220204-062637_Samsung Notes.jpg
Content from External Source
This quote shows that the analysis is uninformed by actual facts of epidemiology and public health.

We all know that usually cases go up and then a lockdown is done, and then cases go down slowly. Deaths go up with delay, about 2-4 weeks in early 2020. So we would expect places with lots of cases to have stringent lockdowns and lots of deaths.

The authors turn this on its head and expect places with more lockdown to have fewer deaths, but that's not how that works.

They also threw out a bunch of studies (e.g. all studies that looked at lockdown timing) and I don't really understand the criteria.

Overall, that paper has way too many pages to waste my time digging through, after that quote above was a clear swing and miss.

who are the authors?​

Jonas Herby works at the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen.
Article:
Centre for Political Studies, also known as CEPOS, is an independent association[1] which works as a classical liberal/free-market conservative think-tank in Denmark. It is a strongly right-leaning and highly political association.

Lars Joning is 77 years old.
Steve Hanke is 79 years old.

one author hates government regulation and the other two are old.
 
Last edited:
Pandemic of the unboosted
I'm always perplexed when looking at the German data. Germany went fairly hard on NPIs in December with the intent to delay Omicron and boost everyone; the case rate started rising around New Year's and has since grown 8-fold; but the death rate kept falling and has only recently plateau'ed. My state has rising hospitalisations but falling/plateauing ICU cases. The other countries I look at don't have that.
I don't know the official explanation, but it's probably the boosters?
 
I'm always perplexed when looking at the German data. Germany went fairly hard on NPIs in December with the intent to delay Omicron and boost everyone; the case rate started rising around New Year's and has since grown 8-fold; but the death rate kept falling and has only recently plateau'ed. My state has rising hospitalisations but falling/plateauing ICU cases. The other countries I look at don't have that.
I don't know the official explanation, but it's probably the boosters?
Over here the general impression is that the boosters didn't do jack shit to prevent people getting sick. Everyone I know that got positive/sick recently, all had their booster shot. So I can imagine it is not very effective, at least not as anticipated.
 
Over here the general impression is that the boosters didn't do jack shit to prevent people getting sick. Everyone I know that got positive/sick recently, all had their booster shot. So I can imagine it is not very effective, at least not as anticipated.
You're giving us anecdotes rather than actual statistics. Although the actual numbers vary place to place and day to day, boosters are being reported as being highly effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-...-death-risk-by-95-u-k-study-shows-11643302875

https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...could-prevent-41-000-deaths-report-finds.html

https://www.klkntv.com/those-who-received-their-booster/
 
Over here the general impression is that the boosters didn't do jack shit to prevent people getting sick. Everyone I know that got positive/sick recently, all had their booster shot. So I can imagine it is not very effective, at least not as anticipated.
That's the same over here, I wrote "My state has rising hospitalisations but falling/plateauing ICU cases." Something is keeping people off ventilators and out of the morgue, and I expect it's boosters and treatment.
SmartSelect_20220204-171309_Samsung Internet.jpg
These graphs are for the same period of time. Cases (lab-confirmed PCR, above) rise 6-fold. Hospitalisations double (bottom left). ICU occupancy shrunk and plateaued (bottom right). During the Delta wave, all of the graphs went up. So people seem to have protection against hospitalisation, and additional protection against extreme illness, over what I'd expect from delays between the stages of Covid.
SmartSelect_20220204-171400_Samsung Internet.jpg
P.S. Cases is per 7 days per 100,000 population, so 1050 means 1% of the state each week. Absolutely unprecedented.

Graph source: https://www.niedersachsen.de/Corona...d-corona-aktuelle-leitindikatoren-203487.html
 
Last edited:
Ageism, like racism, is no way to determine someone's ability.
Exactly. That's why I analysed the study. I didn't comment on their ability, and I have no idea why you brought up Joe Biden just now - he doesn't write studies, much less on Covid. "Old people we know" feels like a topic for Chitchat.
 
You're giving us anecdotes rather than actual statistics. Although the actual numbers vary place to place and day to day, boosters are being reported as being highly effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-...-death-risk-by-95-u-k-study-shows-11643302875

https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...could-prevent-41-000-deaths-report-finds.html

https://www.klkntv.com/those-who-received-their-booster/
Agreed, you got me there. It is highly anecdotal, but you brought good links to counter it so thanks for that!
 
That's the same over here, I wrote "My state has rising hospitalisations but falling/plateauing ICU cases." Something is keeping people off ventilators and out of the morgue, and I expect it's boosters and treatment.

These graphs are for the same period of time. Cases (lab-confirmed PCR, above) rise 6-fold. Hospitalisations double (bottom left). ICU occupancy shrunk and plateaued (bottom right). During the Delta wave, all of the graphs went up. So people have protection against hospitalisation, and additional protection against extreme illness.

P.S. Cases is per 7 days per 100,000 population, so 1050 means 1% of the state each week. Absolutely unprecedented.
Agreed. Here the number per day is also ridiculously high, and as our test service is overloaded, many don't even test anymore.

So I guess the main effect is that the ones that still gets sick (not just pos tested) are not ending up in the hospital, but get cold/flu symptoms and that's it.
 
Over here the general impression is that the boosters didn't do jack shit to prevent people getting sick. Everyone I know that got positive/sick recently, all had their booster shot. So I can imagine it is not very effective, at least not as anticipated.
he's talking about people who end up in ICU and/or die.
@Agent K 's data (psot # 1,201) is best for this particular discussion. It does seem that those over 70, or even 60 benefit from boosters as far as hospitalizations or ICU or death. This makes total sense as those age groups have more comorbidities and also often dont mount the same antibody response to a 2 dose vax as younger healthier people.

this booster effect for Hospitalization goes down as age groups go down
Jan 28, 2022 note: this is some overlap with delta.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination
1643992960006.png
1643992679959.png
1643992744716.png
 
Exactly. That's why I analysed the study. I didn't comment on their ability, and I have no idea why you brought up Joe Biden just now - he doesn't write studies, much less on Covid. "Old people we know" feels like a topic for Chitchat.
because you highlighted their ages. YOU brought it up.
 
@Agent K 's data (psot # 1,201) is best for this particular discussion. It does seem that those over 70, or even 60 benefit from boosters as far as hospitalizations or ICU or death. This makes total sense as those age groups have more comorbidities and also often dont mount the same antibody response to a 2 dose vax as younger healthier people.

this booster effect for Hospitalization goes down as age groups go down
Jan 28, 2022 note: this is some overlap with delta.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination
You seem to be implying that younger people do not profit from boosters, and I don't think that is covered by your sources, and I don't think it's true.
 
that younger people do not profit from boosters
the younger you are, and the healthier you are the less you personally profit from boosters.
i'd be happy to look over your evidence to the contrary though.

add:
and I don't think that is covered by your sources
you have to note the left hand scale is different for the age groups.
 
Last edited:
the younger you are, and the healthier you are the less you personally profit from boosters.
i'd be happy to look over your evidence to the contrary though.
Yep. If I hand seniors $100 bills and younger people $50 bills, it still pays for them to get in line.
you have to note the left hand scale is different for the age groups.
I noted that. I also noted that the "boosted" rate is near zero for both, and that it's lower than the "vaxxed but not boosted" line for both, so it looks like there is another significant factor of protection to be had from the booster at any age
 
This new study is getting used as head line fodder for the denial mob, I found the link to the document its complex and need peer review
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/f...ffects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
I ran across another short analysis that I agree with. The analysis repeats my points about the authors being anti-regulation economists and the paper not being peer-reviewed, and it goes more in-depth about a problem I only hinted at, which is data selection.
Article:
In the paper itself, they use definitions in unhelpful and misleading ways. For example, they define “lockdown” as “the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention.” So while you might think of Lockdown as governors ordering non-essential businesses closed for awhile starting in March 2020, this definition also includes public transit closures or even mask mandates (though not recommendations). Also, there’s no nuance for how “compulsory” an intervention actually is: just because masks are required doesn’t mean everyone’s actually going to wear them, and just because businesses are supposed to close doesn’t mean the police will force them to. But no, if there is a public authority declaring something compulsory, it counts as a lockdown. (In fairness, they don’t always abuse this definition as much as they can in this study, but it does lead to other problems).

Next, the data. This study is a meta-analysis, meaning they combined the data from other studies, and excluded ones they deemed unsuitable. There’s a lot of room for mischief here. A major point is that they ignored studies which relied on simulations to make claims of death averted by lockdowns. So even though COVID was following epidemiological predictions pre-Lockdown, and we all saw the death rate drop right after Lockdowns were put in place, they ignore that data because, well, there was no guarantee it would continue increasing exponentially without a lockdown. They justify this by saying that other factors may have led to the sudden decrease, like changes in the weather prompting changes in behavior. You can’t really use this as an argument against Lockdowns though, because the point of the Lockdown is to affect behavior, and you can’t count on the weather to change our behavior whenever there’s a COVID spike.

So what studies do they include? Of the 34 studies, 12 of them were, themselves, Working Papers (i.e. not peer-reviewed). 14 studies were in Economics, while only 1 was in Epidemiology. Of the papers, half are from 2020, and none are more recent than June 2021 (so nothing on Omicron, and little on Delta). Within the 34 studies, they give more weight to studies looking at lockdowns after May 2020 over studies looking at lockdowns before June 2020 (basically ignoring the timeframe of the major Lockdown). They also distinguish between studies which look at mortality within 14 days of lockdown and those that look at later mortality, arguing that it should take longer than that for people to go from infection to death unless something else was already wrong with them.

Finally, there’s this galling statement: “While it is true that epidemiologists and researchers in natural sciences should, in principle, know much more about COVID-19 and how it spreads than social scientists, social scientists are, in principle, experts in evaluating the effect of various policy interventions. Thus, we distinguish between studies published by scholars in social sciences and by scholars from other fields of research. We perceive the former as being better suited for examining the effects of lockdowns on mortality.” Wow.
 
so it looks like there is another significant factor of protection to be had from the booster at any age
really? at any age? why are you lecturing me? did i bring up that my CDC page does not show data for ages below age 50? Did i wonder aloud why the CDC would not provide this data?
Did i bring up your link https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination ?
Did i point out that you are old and have no expertise in this field, while Paul Offit is a FDA advisor and Director of the Vaccine Centr at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, but disagrees with you on the benefits in children?

No. I did not.
I only posted
1644071956774.png
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination

Agent K's data is on 60 and 70 year olds.


significant factor of protection to be had from the booster at any age
and again, i invite you to provide this data.
 
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/y...sterious-websites-and-faulty-data-11644240013

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an Australian epidemiologist who has become an expert on ivermectin during the pandemic, says it’s not unreasonable for the average person to think ivermectin is a solid COVID-19 treatment. After all, the public is watching trusted people recommend or take the drug. But he thinks they are being misled.

“A lot of the debate and discussion is driven by people who, for whatever reason, think ivermectin is a miracle cure, even despite the evidence that it probably isn’t,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. “It’s become incredibly politicized at this point.”
 
Whilst Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz may be Australian his comments are loosely framed as an international generalisation. There is no obvious politicising of Ivermectin use in Australia. In fact the whole COVID issue seems to have been far less polarised in AU than in a couple of other countries.

The situation may change. We have Federal Elections coming in May. COVID response is bound to be an issue. However, the first rounds in the upcoming debate have been fired. Old stories of bullying and sexual harassment within the ranks of Government is the opening topic. And the current "big issue" is a "Religious Discrimination Bill" which is attempting to "better protect LGBTQ+ people in religious schools," The polarisation that topic will raise should be obvious...

I can see COVID discussion becoming "politicised" in AU. But I doubt that Ivermectin will feature.
 
Last edited:
There is no obvious politicising of Ivermectin use in Australia.
based on my youtube feed, Australia doesn't sound much different than America. of course the only Australian channel youtube feeds me is called Sky News. it seems pretty conservative to me.

Article:
Sky News Australia has denied broadcasting Covid misinformation, telling a parliamentary hearing that YouTube’s removal of 23 videos of the broadcaster was “totalitarian” and lacking in transparency.

Chief executive officer Paul Whittaker told the media diversity inquiry it “now appears commonplace to discredit any debate on contentious issues as ‘misinformation’” and vigorously defended Sky’s right to present a range of views on treatments such as ivermectin.
 
based on my youtube feed, Australia doesn't sound much different than America. of course the only Australian channel youtube feeds me is called Sky News. it seems pretty conservative to me.

Article:
Sky News Australia has denied broadcasting Covid misinformation, telling a parliamentary hearing that YouTube’s removal of 23 videos of the broadcaster was “totalitarian” and lacking in transparency.

Chief executive officer Paul Whittaker told the media diversity inquiry it “now appears commonplace to discredit any debate on contentious issues as ‘misinformation’” and vigorously defended Sky’s right to present a range of views on treatments such as ivermectin.
By Aussie norms Sky News is the "alternate media". Probably as close as we get to "rabid right". Given my own centralist politics, I rarely watch Sky. Remember the Aussie political spectrum is more centralist than USA. Our two main parties in government are:
(a) slightly right of centre and
(b) slightly left of centre.
And the more "right" party is actually a long-standing coalition of two parties the so-called (mislabeled) "Liberal" party and the "National" party formerly the "Country" Party which had its origins in rural Australia. Remember also the distribution of AU population - 85 % in coastal larger towns and state capital cities. The remainder sparsely spread in rural farmland country and a few scattered across arid desert land. The more "left" party is the Labor party. Traditional support from the trade union movement tho militant unionism has declined over recent decades.

So, if you are only watching "Sky" you are getting a minority view. I have no way of assessing how significant that minority is in terms of percentage numbers.
 
Last edited:
I have no way of assessing how significant that minority is in terms of percentage numbers.
and you also only have like 25 million people .

Our two main parties in government are:
(a) slightly right of centre and
(b) slightly left of centre.
technically our 2 main parties are the same.

but the squeaky wheels in both parties (further right and further left) is the clickbait stuff the media loves. There are actually quite a few issues (bills etc) the bulk of both parties agree upon but we dont normally hear about that boring stuff anymore.

if you think about it, there are really only like 10-20 lefties tops and 10-20 righties tops you ever hear about in the news saying "wild" things on twitter or in interviews. but we have over 500 congressmen.

and in our politics everyone porks out every bill, so even if the other side agrees with 95% of what's in the bill, there's always that 5% that is unacceptable*. and what we hear from those 20-40 media star congressmen is them ranting about the 5% stuff.

* usually its more like 30% unacceptable these days. Both sides try to hold every Bill hostage by adding stuff the other side doesn't want at all, but if they dont concede to the bad stuff then the good stuff doesnt pass. which is why nothing gets done in America. :)
 
technically our 2 main parties are the same.

Not by the European definition of "left" and "right" (which is where the terms originated).
Both major US parties are staunchly corporatist, which puts them well over to the right.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020 puts Biden at >70% right.
Democratic party members that are not considered right would include Sanders, Gabbard, and Warren, which are placed within 20% of the centre line, definitely not left.
For example, Bernie Sanders is popularly perceived in his own country as an off-the-wall left figure; in other western democracies he would sit squarely within the mainstream social democratic parties that regularly form governments or comprise the largest opposition.
Content from External Source
 
and you also only have like 25 million people .
An aspect that I am well aware of. I've often mused that the small population could be one factor in why we do not seem to have the numbers to give critical mass to Conspiracy THeory topics that do have critical mass in the USA.
technically our 2 main parties are the same.
I don't believe that they are. From my perspective, the whole US "left<>right" spectrum is further "right" than AU politics. By Australian standards the Democrats are centralist. And we do not have a strongly "right" party. Neither "left" nor "socialxxx" are used as derogatory swear words in AU political debate. And the handful of "ultra rights" in AU politics are not members of the major parties.
 
Not a big deal...but in the early days of the pandemic I (kind of the opposite of a hypochondriac) made an unusual, for me, effort to be super informed of the COVID-19 symptoms. Fever was always emphasized,
and like a lot of other Americans, I had to have my forehead scanned
every day before entering my place of work. I probably own 6 or 7 quality "non-contact" thermometers now (at work, my office, the truck, bedroom, home office, etc.)...and I quickly check my temp frequently.

More and more, though, I'm seeing lists of "Omicron symptoms" which
don't even mention fever. Like this list, below, from NBC News. Admittedly, it's only 5 items long...but still, I'm a bit puzzled that a high temperature no longer makes the list. Did something change?
Is the Omicron variant less likely to give you a fever than the earlier incarnations?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/omicron-symptoms-covid-what-to-know-rcna9469

Dr. Katherine Poehling, an infectious disease specialist and vaccinologist at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist in North Carolina, said that these appear to be the prominent symptoms from omicron:
  • Cough
  • Fatigue or tiredness
  • Congestion and runny nose
  • Sore throat
  • Headache
 
Did something change?
Is the Omicron variant less likely to give you a fever than the earlier incarnations?
Good question!
Article:
The latest results could mean that “the virus establishes a very local infection in the upper airways and has less chance to go and wreak havoc in the lungs”, Ott says.

It's more like the common cold and less like an inflammation, especially early on, which means less chance of fever. Obviously it can still cause inflammations, but apparently it happens less often.
 
Good question!
Article:
The latest results could mean that “the virus establishes a very local infection in the upper airways and has less chance to go and wreak havoc in the lungs”, Ott says.

It's more like the common cold and less like an inflammation, especially early on, which means less chance of fever. Obviously it can still cause inflammations, but apparently it happens less often.
Interesting. Maybe I'll taper down from 400 forehead measurements a day...
 
it changed before omicron
Article:
Updated Aug 13, 2020, 04:45pm EDT
TOPLINE Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Thursday that temperature checks are unreliable for detecting coronavirus symptoms in people entering businesses and other establishments as infrared thermometers have been embraced as part of safety protocol for reopenings.
 
it changed before omicron
no
it's never been 100%, more like 30-50% cases that had fever
but fever has been a top symptom even then
I think only "loss of smell" and coughing were more common
so fever has always beem unreliable, but now it's not even top 5

quotes from april 2020:
Symptom statistics in Germany (when physians report a case, they include the symptoms):
cough 51 %
fever 42 %
runny nose 22 %
pneumonia 2 %
Also: throat ache, loss of breath, headache, limb ache, loss of appetite, loss of wreight, nausea, stomach ache, vomiting, diarrhea, conjunctivitis, rash, lymph node swelling, apathy, sleepiness
70% of patients sick enough to be hospitalized did not have fever.
 
it changed before omicron
Article:
Updated Aug 13, 2020, 04:45pm EDT
TOPLINE Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Thursday that temperature checks are unreliable for detecting coronavirus symptoms in people entering businesses and other establishments as infrared thermometers have been embraced as part of safety protocol for reopenings.
:0 I definitely never saw that...
 
GAVI funds vaccinations on a global scale, they're an alliance of the biggest players in the field.
Article:

RUNNY NOSE

According to Prof Tim Spector, the researcher behind the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, which collects daily data on people’s symptoms, infection and vaccination status, this is one of the most common symptoms being seen now.

I haven't seem a recent ZOE press release yet, but this was the current ranking in June 2021:

Content from External Source
Source: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/new-top-5-covid-symptoms , reformatted by me

Note that fever was already off the top 5 for vaccinated people back then.
 
This is more current, but doesn't distinguish by vaccination status:
Article:
Omicron symptoms

In order to take a first look at the potential symptom profile of Omicron, this week ZOE conducted an initial analysis of symptom data from positive cases in London. London was selected due to the higher prevalence of Omicron compared to other regions.

To compare Delta and Omicron, London data was selected from a week where Delta was dominant (03-10.10.2021) and compared to the most recent data (03-10.12.2021). This initial analysis found no clear differences in the early symptoms (3 days after test) between Delta and Omicron.

The top five symptoms reported in the ZOE app were:

  1. Runny nose
  2. Headache
  3. Fatigue (either mild or severe)
  4. Sneezing
  5. Sore throat

ZOE will be conducting further research into the symptom profile of Omicron in the coming weeks.
 
GAVI funds vaccinations on a global scale, they're an alliance of the biggest players in the field.
Article:

RUNNY NOSE

According to Prof Tim Spector, the researcher behind the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, which collects daily data on people’s symptoms, infection and vaccination status, this is one of the most common symptoms being seen now.

I haven't seem a recent ZOE press release yet, but this was the current ranking in June 2021:

Content from External Source
Source: https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/new-top-5-covid-symptoms , reformatted by me

Note that fever was already off the top 5 for vaccinated people back then.
Fudge!!

I like the layout...there really should be an updated one...I've been "boosted" since early Oct. A bit of a sore throat, but between having to speak in public (projecting through a KN95 mask) a lot, and Yellowstone snow camping, a slightly sore throat doesn't worry me. No headaches, no runny nose, no sneezing...no cough worth mentioning. But I was taking a fair amount of (misguided, evidently) comfort in the lack of fever, all this time...

ETA: More fatigued than usual...but not dramatically so. I think I'm just bummed that I'm not still in Yellowstone...
 
No headaches, no runny nose, no sneezing...no cough worth mentioning.
those are just general. not everyone has the most common symptoms. i hera some have GI issues as early signs.

like i , most of my life, have fairly chronic sinus issues and major allergy to dust, but i never get a runny nose or sneeze. my mucus just sticks in my head and gives me a headache :)
but it is winter so you could have any variety of regular cold bugs. and a slight drip down your throat and dry air conditions can add to a sore throat. as long as you can breathe ok, i wouldnt fret too much that you have omicron.

i watch for fever and muscle aches, myself. just because congestion issues are so common for me.
 
Back
Top