Category: Coronapanic

“A Better Way to End the Pandemic Quickly” (MedPage Today):

The current plan is to give two doses, 21 days apart for the Pfizer product and 30 days apart for Moderna’s. Alternatively, all available doses could be given immediately, doubling the number of people who could be reached. Both Pfizer and Moderna report that the efficacy of a single dose is only about 50%. But a closer look at their incidence curves suggests that immunity appears to be maximized about 14 days after the first dose. In the Moderna trial, for example, most of the cases in the vaccine arm occurred during the first 2 weeks following the initial dose. We recognize that the vaccine was developed and tested on the assumption that two doses are necessary. Yet, the trial data suggest that a single dose provides substantial immunity. During this severe pandemic, it seems reasonable to use the available supply to reach as many people as possible in the short term. Delaying the second dose would maximize limited resources and could reduce serious illness and death. A recent projection suggests the U.S. will receive 40 million doses of the two mRNA vaccines by early 2021. A rough calculation suggests that vaccinating 40 million persons with these 40 million doses versus 20 million persons with two doses each could prevent over 100,000 severe cases and save over 10,000 lives.

Despite that fact that the Moderna vaccine was developed nearly a year ago (see “We Had the Vaccine the Whole Time”), testing has been so slow that we can suspect, but don’t know for sure, that one dose is sufficient!

If the MedPage Today authors (Michael H. Criqui, MD, MPH, and Robert M. Kaplan, PhD; maybe they are colleagues of Dr. Jill Biden, MD?) are correct, we are going to be wasting half of our vaccine supply by giving two doses when one is sufficient.

How might we waste half of the remaining half? By giving the vaccine to people who are already immune as a result of previous infection (nearly one third of the U.S. population had been infected as of November (NPR/CDC), which means it will be closer to 165 million by the time the vaccine is available to the average person).

[In the Department of Prescience: “Up to 150 million Americans are expected to contract the coronavirus, congressional doctor says” (March 11, 2020).]

From the World Health Organization, right now:

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

Same URL, but the archive.org version captured in November:

Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.

It is tough to think of a time when science has progressed so quickly!

Also, in the Department of Evolution of Science, the W.H.O.’s January-June 2020 recommendation against masks for the general public:

Related:

• NYT curve of South Dakota COVID-19 cases, going up and then down despite no mask or shutdown order being issued (herd immunity without a vaccine or something else?)

Our mole in the U.S. health care system, the author of Medical School 2020, reports that his hospital ended up being supplied with way more coronavirus vaccine than needed for patient-facing clinical workers. “It doesn’t last that long, so they needed to get rid of it.” Did they take the leftovers to the local nursing homes and try to save the elderly? “No,” he responded. “They’re just giving it to anyone with a badge, even if they’re not clinical.”

Happy Christmas Eve! Here’s hoping that Santa brings you a vaccine, even if you don’t need one!

Related:

• “Does the flu vaccine work as well in elderly people?” (health.harvard.edu): The flu vaccine can be less effective in elderly adults. That’s because the flu vaccine works by priming the body’s own immune system to mount a response to the virus if it’s encountered. Older adults may have weaker immune systems, and therefore a weaker immune response to the vaccine.
• “Fact check: Coronavirus vaccine could come this year, Trump says. Experts say he needs a ‘miracle’ to be right.” (NBC, May 15, 2020): “I think it’s possible you could see a vaccine in people’s arms next year — by the middle or end of next year [2021]. But this is unprecedented, so it’s hard to predict,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a professor at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. … “A lot of optimism is swirling around a 12- to 18-month timeframe, if everything goes perfectly. We’ve never seen everything go perfectly,” [Rick] Bright said. “I still think 12-18 months is an aggressive schedule, and I think it’s going to take longer than that to do so.” Bright, an internationally recognized vaccine expert, filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that he was fired for opposing the use of an unproven coronavirus treatment promoted publicly by the president. Trump has called Bright a “disgruntled” employee.

A friend here in Maskachusetts has been fairly careful to avoid COVID-19. He’s supposedly in a “bubble” with three kids, their mom, the outside nanny, and her boyfriend. He’s in a suburban fortress to which everything is delivered by an army of essential workers. Nonetheless, he began feeling unwell on December 7. On December 9, he had a PCR test, which came back negative. He and his wife both lost their senses of taste and smell, but otherwise the symptoms were milder than a typical cold. A December 14 sample tested positive. He is in his 40s and was fully recovered by December 17. The wife (30s) and kids (1-year-old twins; 3) recovered sooner. The children had mild symptoms for just a day or two (one of the 1-year-olds did test positive).

The source of the infection was traced to the nanny, a young migrant from Latin America. Perhaps her boyfriend was in a bubble with some gals from Tinder while the nanny was bubbling with the kids? Her immigration status is unclear, but “individuals detained by ICE were 13 times more likely to have COVID-19 than members of the U.S. general population in April-August 2020” (“Impact of COVID-19 on the Immigration System”).

Arranging testing here in Maskachusetts was burdensome and slow. After a couple of days to arrange a test, results took as long as four days to come back. As with roughly half of tests of folks who are infected, my friend’s first test was a false negative (probably due to his body not putting virus on the swab, not due to a mistake in the PCR process). He didn’t receive laboratory confirmation of his disease until after the end of the CDC-recommended quarantine period for the disease (i.e., Kary Mullis‘s invention wasn’t medically or epidemiologically useful).

Along with a higher rate of current COVID-19 infection than never-masked never-shut South Dakota (CDC), we also had more than a foot of snow fall on the ground prior to the official start of winter:

Where is global warming now that we need it?

Related:

• Friend in Texas runs, but cannot hide, from coronavirus

A reader sent me “THE “EXPERT CONSENSUS” ALSO FAVORED ALCOHOL PROHIBITION” (ZeroHedge):

Most people today regard America’s experiment with alcohol prohibition as a national embarrassment, rightly repealed in 1933. So it will be with the closures and lockdowns of 2020, someday.

In 1920, however, to be for the repeal of the prohibition that was passed took courage. You were arguing against prevailing opinion backed by celebratory scientists and exalted social thinkers. What you were saying flew in the face of “expert consensus.”

To sum up the “science” behind Prohibition, society had tremendous numbers of pathologies on the loose and they all traced to one dominant variable: liquor. There was poverty, crime, fatherless households, illiteracy, political alienation, social immobility, city squalor, and so on. You can look carefully at the data to find that in all these cases, there is a common element of alcohol. It only stands to reason that eliminating this factor would be the single greatest contribution to eliminating the pathologies. The evidence was incontrovertible. Do this, then that, and you are done.

Of course, my neo-Prohibitionist heart was warmed by this. Everything that we say about coronaplague goes double or 10X for alcohol! The loss of life-years from alcohol is far larger than an unmitigated coronaplague could have ever caused (since, in addition to the virus targeting the elderly/sick, eventually humans do develop immunity). Alcohol also creates a lot of misery among those whom it doesn’t kill.

• Use testing and tracing infrastructure to enforce alcohol Prohibition?
• Reintroduce Prohibition for the U.S.?

So… once the COVID-19 dragon is slayed, let’s raise a glass to a renewed expert consensus around purging the U.S. of alcohol!

Since April, my Facebook feed has been alive with posts of the form “I did X while social distancing.” These are from people who live in places where social distancing is required by law. Some examples:

• Got to have an (outdoor, socially distanced) visit with my grandma today! (from someone who considers herself an independent thinker)
• Today I attended a socially distanced picnic with the faculty at CAP DU…
• Lovely day for socially-distanced apple-picking (above pictures of masked apple pickers)
• Made it out for a socially distanced, masked, and peaceful demonstration re: the future livelihood of the Pt Reyes Tule Elk….
• Socially distanced at the beach. (above pictures of children at a beach)
• … was able to have a socially distanced dinner with him outside at a restaurant last night. (above pictures of mother and adult son, right next to each other with no masks)
• It was a great weekend of socially distanced outdoor time…

We don’t see this in other domains where a person’s failure to comply with the law could have a statistical chance of killing others. Prior to coronapanic, people didn’t post the following, for example:

• how do you like my new haircut? obeyed speed limit to/from the barber shop
• cooked lasagna for friends; washed hands prior to cooking to prevent transmission of norovirus and other potentially lethal pathogens
• wonderful meal with my cousins (served tofu and broccoli because I don’t want them to die from complications of type 2 diabetes)
• enjoyed walk around neighborhood; held kids’ hands when crossing street so they didn’t get run over
• nice flight to Martha’s Vineyard; made sure to fuel airplane prior to departure and ran checklists

I don’t think we can say that these folks are posting their mask and social distance virtue in order to influence others. They’ve already defriended anyone who dares to say that the W.H.O.’s advice through early June 2020 (masks for the general public won’t help) was correct. So the only people who are likely to be reading these posts are (a) living in states where masks and social distancing are required by law and disobedience is punishable via arrests, imprisonment, and fines, and (b) already in agreement with the idea of salvation through social distancing and masks.

Nearly 3 million Americans die in a typical year from various causes. Why is it only COVID-19 that motivates people to declare their virtuous attempts to reduce deaths via some sort of action?

California can legitimately claim to be the Land of Karen. No group of Americans has ever been more active in proclaiming their own superiority on a wide range of political issues. When coronaplague hit, therefore, it was only natural that California Karens dominated Facebook with tales of their superior shutdown and greater vigilance regarding masks. Their heroic and intelligent human action kept the virus from doing what it had done in other states.

When Californians weren’t celebrating their own achievements in prevailing in their self-declared war on coronavirus, they would spend a lot of time gleefully highlighting the high rate of plague in South Dakota, whose governor dared to deny their most cherished belief, i.e., that humans are in charge of the virus and can decide how prevalent infection will be. While the plague raged in South Dakota, the Media of the Church of Shutdown was packed with articles about the stupidity of South Dakotans, Republicans in general, and Kristi Noem in particular.

Today’s plague map from the CDC (cases within the preceding week/100,000 population):

The righteous of California were the 4th most plagued Americans, with 101 daily cases per 100,000 (averaged over the preceding 7 days). Wicked mask-denying never-shut South Dakotans? 66/100k. Righteous masked-and-shut folks in Maskachusetts? 68/100,000. Trump voters in Florida? 50 cases per 100,000.

Californians, in other words, are proving the Swedish MD/PhDS right, i.e., continental non-Asian countries can shut down if they want, but they probably won’t be special when the final stats are tabulated.

Who wants to bet on the number of U.S. media articles that will point out that the California current case rate, despite more than half a year of masks, exceeds that of no-mask-order South Dakota or that of no-masks-at-all Sweden?

Related:

• states ranked by COVID-19 death rate (cumulative), showing that California still has a long way to go to catch up to champions New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts
• Silicon Valley Shutdown Karens move into bigger houses
• speaking of Sweden, they’re still on track to have a similar death rate for 2020 compared to 2010 (slightly more deaths; somewhat larger population in the denominator), thus proving the Swedish MD/PhDs correct when they said most deaths tagged to COVID-19 were among those already likely to die in 2020