COVID-19 Coronavirus current events

Mendel

Senior Member.
The information was out there, and the epidemiologists knew what was happening in other countries. For political reasons, it was downplayed to the rest of us. As Trump said, "It'll just magically go away".
I still haven't seen a full account of what happened at the CDC in early 2020, why they required all samples to go through them and would not condone the WHO test. It took a lab in Washington to run tests semi-illegally to find the first non-imported case in the US.

Trump knowing what was going on and downplaying it is well documented now, but happened later.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The information was out there, and the epidemiologists knew what was happening in other countries. For political reasons, it was downplayed to the rest of us
Everybody knew. It wasn't kept from the rest of us. I even posted about it on MB. Cuomo tried to say his health team didnt know the virus was coming into NY from Italy and Spain on international flights, but even i knew that was ridiculous.. it was all over the media what was happening in Spain and Italy. Cuomo is a Democrat so i don't think it was for "political" reasons per se. aside from the fact that most politicians are stupid.

1653144853827.png
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/politics/covid-disappearing-trump-comment-tracker/
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I still haven't seen a full account of what happened at the CDC in early 2020, why they required all samples to go through them and would not condone the WHO test. It took a lab in Washington to run tests semi-illegally to find the first non-imported case in the US.
Article:
On February 5th, sixteen days after a Seattle resident who had visited relatives in Wuhan, China, was diagnosed as having the first confirmed case of covid-19 in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control, in Atlanta, began sending diagnostic tests to a network of about a hundred state, city, and county public-health laboratories⁠. Up to that point, all testing for covid-19 in the U.S. had been done at the C.D.C.; of some five hundred suspected cases⁠ tested at the Centers, twelve had confirmed positive. The new test kits would allow about fifty thousand patients to be tested, and they would also make testing much faster, as patient specimens would no longer have to be sent to Atlanta to be evaluated.


Article:
On January 21st, a team in Berlin, led by Christian Drosten, one of the scientists who discovered the original sars virus, in 2003, submitted the first paper to describe a protocol for testing for sars-CoV-2. (That protocol would form the basis for a test disseminated, early on, by the World Health Organization.)⁠ That same day, Messonnier announced that the C.D.C. had finalized its own test⁠, which it used to confirm the first known case of covid-19 in the U.S.

In Seattle, a team at the University of Washington Virology Lab debated whether it was worth developing their own test. “I’ll be honest. I didn’t think that this virus was going to do everything it’s done,” Keith Jerome, the lab’s director, told me. “I didn’t think it would be a major health issue for the United States.” Still, he said, “the last thing we wanted to do was to be caught flat-footed.” The U.W. virology lab is subject to strict regulatory oversight, but, thanks to a peculiar feature of U.S. law, it did not initially require any special clearance from the federal government to produce its covid-19 test.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article: On February 5th, sixteen days after a Seattle resident who had visited relatives in Wuhan, China, was diagnosed as having the first confirmed case of covid-19 in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control, in Atlanta, began sending diagnostic tests to a network of about a hundred state, city, and county public-health laboratories⁠.
Article:
On Feb. 6, a scientist in a small infectious disease lab on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention campus in Atlanta was putting a coronavirus test kit through its final paces. The lab designed and built the diagnostic test in record time, and the little vials that contained necessary reagents to identify the virus were boxed up and ready to go. But NPR has learned the results of that final quality control test suggested something troubling — it said the kit could fail 33% of the time.

Under normal circumstances, that kind of result would stop a test in its tracks, half a dozen public and private lab officials told NPR. But an internal CDC review obtained by NPR confirms that lab officials decided to release the kit anyway. The revelation comes from a CDC internal review, known as a "root-cause analysis," which the agency conducted to understand why an early coronavirus test didn't work properly and wound up costing scientists precious weeks in the early days of a pandemic.

[...]

While the CDC and HHS were trying to determine what was wrong with the kits, public labs were still waiting for something they could use. "We waited another month before we had testing available," Rakeman told NPR.

Or, as your own source tells it,
In the meantime, she said, until new reagents could be manufactured, all covid-19 testing in the United States would continue to take place exclusively at the C.D.C⁠.

[...]

The void created by the C.D.C.’s faulty tests made it impossible for public-health authorities to get an accurate picture of how far and how fast the disease was spreading.
Content from External Source
The U.W. virology lab is subject to strict regulatory oversight, but, thanks to a peculiar feature of U.S. law, it did not initially require any special clearance from the federal government to produce its covid-19 test. Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-went-wrong-with-coronavirus-testing-in-the-us
Your own source continues:
But, as soon as Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, declared a public-health emergency, on February 4th, a new regulatory regime took effect. From that point on, any lab that wanted to conduct its own tests for the new coronavirus would first need to secure something called an Emergency Use Authorization from the F.D.A.

[...] Jerome said that Greninger had to call and e-mail the F.D.A. multiple times to figure out what they needed to secure an E.U.A. “At one point, he was very frustrated because he’d e-mailed them what we were doing so they could review it,” Jerome said. “But legally you also had to mail a physical copy. Here we are in this sars-CoV-2 crisis, and you have to send them something through the United States Postal Service. It’s just shocking.”

[...]

The E.U.A. regulations, however, prohibited the lab from reporting the results to the doctors who had ordered the tests for their patients.

[...]

The F.D.A.’s exclusive authorization to the C.D.C. to conduct covid-19 tests ended up creating “what you’d think of as an agriculture monoculture. If something went wrong, it was going to shut everything down, and that’s what happened.”
Content from External Source
Facts at the time:
Article:
28 FEB 2020

The World Health Organization (WHO) has shipped testing kits to 57 countries. China had five commercial tests on the market 1 month ago and can now do up to 1.6 million tests a week; South Korea has tested 65,000 people so far. The U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in contrast, has done only 459 tests since the epidemic began.


Buzzfeed reports on the HHS investigation of the testing failure (heavily excerpted, I recommend reading this in full):
Article:
Overconfidence. The CDC did not initially rely on tests already in use in other countries, because officials thought they could build a better one. Agency leaders did not coordinate with outside manufacturers for support, and they never performed any validations of previously developed tests that could have been used as backup.

The test catastrophe documented by the HHS investigation has led to unprecedented demands from former federal science officials to overhaul the CDC in order to avert another such disaster.

On Jan. 16, the World Health Organization published instructions from the German Center for Infection Research for its successful COVID test. Dozens of countries worldwide began to widely manufacture and distribute it.

Why didn’t the CDC team follow suit? Lu, according to the interview notes, said that the health agency scientists thought they could make a better one. The CDC’s test mimicked the one it had made for MERS in 2012. “Our MERS assay performed better than WHO’s,” Lu recounted. And, she added, “We were racing against the clock.”

A CDC employee familiar with the development of the test told BuzzFeed News that the health agency had also felt it would be better to have both US and German types of tests available worldwide — and that copying the WHO test would not have been politically possible under Donald Trump. “Imagine the backlash we would have had if CDC had said, ‘Hey, yeah, let’s use a German test,’” the CDC employee said.

The CDC test was intended only as a tool for the public health agency to detect outbreaks, not to diagnose every sick person walking into an emergency room. Instead, in the early days of the pandemic, it became the only legal US test for every patient.

That’s in part because no one else stepped up: Large test makers, burned before by past demands for unused and unsold Ebola and Zika virus tests, had no incentive to start making tests. And smaller academic and medical center labs were daunted by the paperwork requirements to validate tests: 240 pages’ worth of patient testing data.

Facing what was now looking like an inescapable pandemic, the CDC’s unreliable three-part test was scrapped. On Feb. 26, the agency gave public health labs permission to nix the contaminated N3 component from tests they had already received, and it began sending out kits with only N1 and N2. The N1 reagents were no longer throwing off false positives by this point.

On Feb. 29, the FDA finally gave them permission to use their own tests. “We should have been permitted to do testing in January,” said Geoffrey Baird, a laboratory medicine expert at the University of Washington who reviewed the investigation notes for BuzzFeed News. “We weren’t. We were waiting and had this laboratory-developed test ready, like everyone else who knew anything about this, the week after the Chinese published the sequence.”

Trump visited the CDC on March 6. Just a few hours before he’d arrived, the HHS investigators ended their three days of interviews with lab personnel. But with the cameras rolling at CDC, Trump falsely promised that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.”

In reality, only about 2,000 tests were performed on that date. Meanwhile, the country fell into uncontrolled spread of the virus.

The fact that the CDC was the only group in the US responsible for making tests made the failure even more consequential, Baird said. But he argued that the wider lack of tests wasn’t the CDC’s fault. Instead, he blamed the FDA, which held on to a bureaucratic EUA process that stymied fast action in the face of a public health emergency. “There was a feeling this wasn’t going to be a major outbreak early on,” a CDC lab official told BuzzFeed News, saying that senior leaders didn’t do enough to encourage industrial test manufacturers to mobilize.

Other countries with different health systems had started efforts back in January (the validated WHO test protocol was released Jan 16) to enable as many commercial labs as possible to run Covid tests on their machines, increasing capacity to a point where everyone who was at risk could be tested if they showed symptoms. The USA were clearly capable of the same from a scientific standpoint, but it looks like the public health bureaucracy (CDC, FDA) wasn't up to the task of making it happen.
 

econ41

Senior Member
you folks were lucky to be able to isolate and contain things before the worst variants got ahold in your countries. by the time the USoA knew what was going on it was already way too late.
We had a lot going for us - large island country - easy to lock the doors. Smallish population. Only 8 states and 4 of them are geographically isolated. But the big advantage was no playing politics. There was essentially unity of purpose despite Some of the State Premiers being from the "other side" of politics to the Federal leader and the leader of my State of NSW. That said yesterday's Federal election has seen the "slightly more right" party that led through the pandemic lose to the "slightly more left" party. That swing is probably a reaction against the firm management of the pandemic with a touch of typically Australian "let's change - tho I don't know why" We've seen that happen on a previous occasion when the election campaign ran on a theme "It's time for a change".
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.

Excess deaths associated with covid-19 pandemic in 2020: age and sex disaggregated time series analysis in 29 high income countries​


Excess deaths associated with covid-19 pandemic in 2020: age and sex disaggregated time series analysis in 29 high income countries



Objective To estimate the direct and indirect effects of the covid-19 pandemic on mortality in 2020 in 29 high income countries with reliable and complete age and sex disaggregated mortality data. Design Time series study of high income countries. Setting Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

University of Oxford, set out to estimate the direct and indirect effects of the covid-19 pandemic on mortality in 2020 in 29 high income countries.
The five countries with the highest absolute number of excess deaths were the US (458,000), the UK (94,400), Italy (89,100), Spain (84,100), and Poland (60,100). New Zealand had lower overall deaths than expected (−2,500). All countries experienced excess deaths in 2020, except New Zealand, Norway, and Denmark.
Content from External Source

esxsse.png
Canada and Australia have not yet reported complete data in 2020).
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Not sure how to tease out the difference between declining rates of new cases and declining REPORTING of new cases. I suppose tracking hospitalization and deaths help with that. I'm at least willing to be hopeful at this point. It is never going to be "over" in the sense that it is gone, but it being over in terms of not being a crisis and just becoming one of the many things that kill off some of us every year into the foreseeable future is better than an eternal plague, yeah?
 

Ann K

Active Member
I think statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt when there are so many confounding factors. i can only speak to the American results, but the differences between locations can be enormous. Some places implemented strict mask requirements, some did not; those rules came and went in different states at different times, making a national statistic highly suspect. Some state populations have a strong aversion to vaccines, some do not. Single events have occasionally been labeled "Super-spreaders": a huge mask-free motorcycle rally caused a statistical bump in cases that spread throughout the country as attendees traveled home to different states, although the actual number of cases can only be estimated.

This article addresses only those in the host state:
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...kota-is-the-sturgis-motorcycle-rally-to-blame

This one references studies indicating that nearly a quarter of a million cases nation wide were eventually linked to the same event.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checki...e-rallys-impact-on-the-coronavirus-explained/
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Is it over?

Endemics are never over, and progression into an endemic has been the predicted outcome from every reputable pundit I've heard since the pandemic began. I've not seen any credible argument to counter that expectation. All the countries I'm aware of (central and north Europe) are treating it like it's endemic now. So I think it's fair to say that a large number of public heath experts think it is actually endemic now. So, no, it's not over.
 

CaptainCourgette

Active Member
Yes its hard to get an accurate picture as some deaths may not be counted as covid deaths.
Excess mortality is prolly a better indication, Heres the EU only. Of note, Sweden who charted a different path than most other countries seems to have fared the best in the last few months.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Yes its hard to get an accurate picture as some deaths may not be counted as covid deaths.
Excess mortality is prolly a better indication, Heres the EU only. Of note, Sweden who charted a different path than most other countries seems to have fared the best in the last few months.

Estonia's approach was pretty similar to Sweden's. No "lockdowns", just cancellation of mass gatherings, and brief closures to bars/restaurants. However, we have a sizeable subpopulation that skewed our stats the wrong way. (One demographic's ~80% vax-rates to the other's ~40%, for example.) I'd say that since our annoyingly-delayed final move to get life back to normal, in about feb/march, covid has pretty much not even been a thing here at all (hence my annoyance (disclosure: I have skin in the game as a co-owner of a brewpub that runs a beer festival, so all of the big things affected our bottom line hard)).
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Sweden who charted a different path than most other countries seems to have fared the best in the last few months.
random fluctuations? bonus because some of the older vulnerable people who died earlier in the pandemic aren't dying now? "the best" isn't that much better than everyone else, at any rate.

EuroMoMo mortality graphs for Scandinavia:
Article:
SmartSelect_20220615-235257_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I updated the graph in my previous post to show all of 2020, which is what I had originally intended.

Edit: I made 3 screenshots of this graph, and somehow something was always cut off: the legend at the top, the first weeks of 2020, the latest weeks of 2022... hopefully this has everything.
SmartSelect_20220616-114006_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
The rise and fall in number of cases probably has as much to do with the particular new-version-of-the-moment as it does with mitigation procedures. New Omicron varieties are now prevalent in the USA:

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/omicron-variants-gaining-ground

Technically MB has a link policy because it is annoying when people just post links.
Posting source links to back up statements is a must on Metabunk. Statements made without a linked source, and especial statements that paraphrase a source, can be very misleading and will likely be deleted.

But while links are very important, they must be treated as additional references and not stand-alone content, so any content in the link that you refer to must also be in your post, quoted using "ex" tags.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mendel

Senior Member.
The rise and fall in number of cases probably has as much to do with the particular new-version-of-the-moment as it does with mitigation procedures. New Omicron varieties are now prevalent in the USA:

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/omicron-variants-gaining-ground
New Omicron strains capable of evading immune protections and causing breakthrough infections now account for more than 21% of total COVID cases in the U.S., according to updated CDC figures.

Why it matters: The virus continues to evolve, with the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages accounting for a bigger proportion of the approximately 105,000 new daily cases.

The BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 lines that dominated the disease map this spring now account for about 78% of cases.The new lineages aren't associated with more severe disease.But they're thought to be able to evade antibodies from earlier Omicron infections.
Content from External Source
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.

COVID vaccines saved 20 million lives in first year, but we could have done better, scientists say​


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06...0-million-lives-in-first-year-study/101179916

Key points:​

  • The researchers used data from 185 countries collected between December 8, 2020 and December 8, 2021
  • The vaccines prevented 4.2 million deaths in India, 1.9 million in America, 1 million in Brazil, 631,000 in France and 507,000 in the UK
  • The findings "quantify just how much worse the pandemic could have been if we did not have these vaccines"


682584-31322af1523b6d99c24d71cab6ee7ace.jpg


Data sharing links​

All data, codes, and supplementary tables used and generated by this study are available in a GitHub repository (version 1.0.1) or the Zenodo open repository. All estimates of deaths averted from vaccination are available in the appendix (p 13).

here a interactive map based on that data

https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid-vaccine-impact-orderly/web-map.html
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House COVID-19 coordinator under President Donald Trump, told House lawmakers she was asked to withhold or change information on weekly pandemic data reports sent to state and local health officials, including guidance on masks.

Birx, appearing Thursday before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis to discuss the Trump administration’s pandemic response for the first time since she left in January 2021, [...]

Birx also discussed theories promoted by Dr. Scott Atlas, a COVID adviser to Trump who supported herd immunity as a strategy to fight the pandemic. [..]

“When you no longer agree on what is actually happening in the country and what needs to be done, and there’s not consensus on that, then you lose the ability to execute in the maximum efficient and effective way,” Birx continued.

Asked if more lives would have been saved if the president had followed her recommendations instead of those coming from Atlas, Birx replied “absolutely.”
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The BBC today reports that an estimated 2.3 million people in the UK currently have Covid:

Covid infections are rising again across the UK, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show. An estimated 2.3 million people or one in 30 has the virus - a rise of 32% on the week before.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-62009230
Content from External Source
Looking at the figures from Johns Hopkins however, with a 7-day rolling average of less than 20,000, would seem to give a very different total:

1656691242851.png

What's the explanation?
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
What's the explanation?
Isn't this just the difference between the ONS estimate, based on a random sample of the population, and the data from government health departments, based on all people testing positive? They both show an increase of about one-third over the previous week, but the actual totals are different due to the different sources. The health department figures depend not only on the rate of infection in the population but on the numbers of people being tested. Except for people tested in hospitals and other institutional settings, these are presumably mainly people who feel sick enough to want to get tested and go through the hassle involved. (Some people may also need to get tested for work reasons.) I don't know the exact rules, but it is more difficult now (than last year) to get free lateral flow test packs. I got a free pack of 7 test kits just before Christmas, I used one (negative) some time in January when I had heavyish cold symptoms, and another three, at weekly intervals, in May (positive, positive, negative) when I had some flu-like symptoms which did indeed prove to be Covid. But even at worst it was not terrible, and I'm sure I wouldn't have bothered getting tested if I didn't already have some test kits left. The difference between 2.3 million and only about 200,000 (assuming 20,000 new cases per day, lasting on average 10 days) is indeed large, but the ONS estimates have always been higher than reported case numbers. I don't know if the difference has widened, but if it has, this could be due to the combination of (a) the disease is actually inherently milder than it originally was, (b) more people have high immunity due to vaccination and/or prior infection, and (c) lower numbers being tested, due to milder symptoms and greater hassle and cost of testing.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Article:
Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House COVID-19 coordinator under President Donald Trump, told House lawmakers she was asked to withhold or change information on weekly pandemic data reports sent to state and local health officials, including guidance on masks.

Birx, appearing Thursday before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis to discuss the Trump administration’s pandemic response for the first time since she left in January 2021, [...]

Birx also discussed theories promoted by Dr. Scott Atlas, a COVID adviser to Trump who supported herd immunity as a strategy to fight the pandemic. [..]

“When you no longer agree on what is actually happening in the country and what needs to be done, and there’s not consensus on that, then you lose the ability to execute in the maximum efficient and effective way,” Birx continued.

Asked if more lives would have been saved if the president had followed her recommendations instead of those coming from Atlas, Birx replied “absolutely.”

it's interesting she said nothing derogatory about the covid response under Biden ;)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
it's interesting she said nothing derogatory about the covid response under Biden ;)
That's false.

First of all, Birx left the White House in January 2021. She wouldn't know any interna from the Biden Covid team.

Secondly, you can download her witness statement (a good 20 pages) via https://coronavirus.house.gov/subco...e-coronavirus-response-coordinator-dr-deborah , and it adresses the situation today, aiming at the CDC and at policy makers. Example:
SmartSelect_20220701-233429_Samsung Notes.jpg
Content from External Source
Thirdly, this is a committee which I assume has Republican members who might have asked her about the Biden administration. Unfortunately, I haven't found a usable transcript, the CSPAN transcript keeps wanting to scroll away.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
how do you know
because i watched it. (edit: well technically i listened to it as i was working on a project)

and what did Birx say?
if i wanted to bash on the biden administration (vs say germany or switzerland or the netherlands or greece etc) i would have done so for the last year and a half. if you want to know what she said then watch the testimony.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.

New York City COVID-19 cases surge as unvaccinated take the brunt​



https://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-city-covid-19-cases-surge-unvaccinated-brunt/story?id=87119870

data source https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days


DOHMH data shows that the average weekly rate of cases among the unvaccinated sits at 764.29 per 100,000.


This is nearly three times higher than the rate among those vaccinated and boosted at 278.93 per 100,000 and 3.5 times higher than the rate among those vaccinated and not boosted at 216.89 per 100,000.

COVID-19-related-hospitalizations are more than five times higher at 36.84 per 100,000 compared to 6.93 per 100,000 and 6.82 per 100,000 for the vaccinated without a booster and the vaccinated with a booster groups, respectively.

Deaths are also more than six times higher for the unvaccinated at 5.27 per 100,000 compared to 0.96 per 100,000 for the vaccinated but not boosted group and 0.77 per 100,000 for those vaccinated and boosted.

Dr. Roy Gulick, chief of the division of infectious diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine, told ABC News that even though the case rate is lower among those vaccinated without a booster compared to those vaccinated with a booster, the real measure of protection is the rate of hospitalizations and deaths, which is lower among the boosted group.
Content from External Source


NYC_cases_in_vaxxed_vs._unvaxxed_v03_dap_1658332611125_hpEmbed_1x1_992.jpg
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Dr. Roy Gulick, chief of the division of infectious diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine, told ABC News that even though the case rate is lower among those vaccinated without a booster compared to those vaccinated with a booster, the real measure of protection is the rate of hospitalizations and deaths, which is lower among the boosted group.
Presumably, the case rate paradoxon is because people more likely to be exposed are quicker to get boosted.
People more at risk being more likely to get boosted is called self-selection bias, and it needs to be addressed in well-designed studies.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Presumably, the case rate paradoxon is because people more likely to be exposed are quicker to get boosted.
People more at risk being more likely to get boosted is called self-selection bias, and it needs to be addressed in well-designed studies.

could a study additional issue be that the traditional anti vax types wont go to Dr/ER/hospital and hesitant not provide full disclosure of vax history and illness impact so makes harder to gather the info & data akin to dealing with drug addicts or alcoholics.
 

econ41

Senior Member
could a study additional issue be that the traditional anti vax types wont go to Dr/ER/hospital and hesitant not provide full disclosure of vax history and illness impact so makes harder to gather the info & data akin to dealing with drug addicts or alcoholics.
As a very subjective reading of the culture of the general Populus around my part of Regional NSW. Many are still content to wear masks tho I doubt if there is any realistic assessment of benefit either way - simply "Best to be careful" OR "let's do the right thing". BUT I suspect that many are going traditional Aussie "OK, we are stuck with it, shit happens, let's get on with life". And that would lead to a pragmatic "let's not report it or make a big fuss unless we have to. I'll look surprised and innocent if I end up before a medico and a confirming diagnosis".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
could a study additional issue
of course it could, but I see no indication that it is

if an alcoholic is hospitalized, they can always simply claim they're not
but for an anti-vaxxer to claim they're boosted, they'd need to show (fake) documentation
 

econ41

Senior Member
of course it could, but I see no indication that it is

if an alcoholic is hospitalized, they can always simply claim they're not
but for an anti-vaxxer to claim they're boosted, they'd need to show (fake) documentation
Only if they are honest anti-vaxers* - not pretenders.
.
.
* Is that an oxymoron?? ;)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Presumably, the case rate paradoxon is because people more likely to be exposed are quicker to get boosted.
or because those that felt they don't need a booster (as they are younger and healthier), don't go for official tests when they get omnicron as their symptoms aren't severe enough to warrant it.

They dont count case rates for people who dont get official tests or dont go to the doctor. (although even going to the doctor might not count, as i dont know if doctors report such things.)

Granted my parents recently tested positive. vaxxed and boosted, but they used at home tests. so they weren't counted either. Still, i think it likely that younger unboosted people just aren't going for official testing.
 

Latest posts

Top