Despite talk of "self-sufficiency" and "loopholes"... (cont)
...let's call these policy changes what they really are - structural violence against poor Americans.
While food insecurity predicts poor health outcomes in virtually every context in which it has been studied, our research focuses on infectious diseases... (cont.) 2/
With transmission of #COVID19 expanding by the day... (cont.) 3/
...the underlying vulnerability of hungry households becomes even more important to consider, and these SNAP changes make even less sense, as I argue here.
Finally, I've been thinking a lot about an older man I met recently in clinic... (cont.) 4/
...with HIV and diabetes, both suddenly out of control. He confessed (as if to a crime) that he no longer had enough food to eat, and cried in my arms. His viral load and A1C were markers of a deeper problem.
Halting this rule change to SNAP is critically important at a time when removing 700,000 people could have devastating consequences. Why does it take a lawsuit? Where is the leadership? @drlouiseivers
We used >80 national surveys in 37 low- and middle-income countries to create longitudinal survival datasets for 4 million adults & 3 million children 2000-2019
About 1/2 the countries started cash transfer programs, & 1/2 the programs were unconditional (no strings attached) /2
We used difference-in-difference models to show these programs led to a 20% reduction in mortality for women, and an 8% reduction in risk of death for children under 5
/3
First, to review, vaccines can provide:
-direct protection (reduction in infx/disease among vaccinated ppl)
-indirect protection (reduction in infection among all community members through ⬇️ transmission)
/2 nature.com/articles/s4157…
Indirect protection can be generated by 1) ⬇️ risk of infection (if person not infected, cannot transmit) 2) ⬇️ infectiousness of vaccinated person w infection
As @mugecevik points out, despite the recent proliferation of vaccine studies using routinely collected testing data, the majority of these cannot be reliably be used to estimate VE vs all infections because they do not use systematic testing and/or control for confounding.
Vaccine protection against all infections is one important way (of several) that vaccines reduce transmission (discussed👇). Here is an updated table of high-quality studies assessing VE against infection, including just 3 from the delta era at the bottom academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
When using regular (or cross-sectional) systematic testing to estimate VE, you are really measuring VE against a composite of infection and duration of PCR-positivity, as highlighted recently by @dylanhmorris.
Fascinating discussion of these methods here sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This 👇claim arises principally from Israeli data (which is unpublished in any form so will withhold judgment) and from the UK REACT 1 study, rounds 12 & 13. But... is the REACT 1 data likely to be solely explained by delta? 🧵
(study link spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1…)
This is the table in question. You can see VE of a combination of AZ/MRNA vs symptomatic infection was 83% (19-97%) in round 12, but only 59% (23-78%) in round 13. The concern of course is that this drop in VE is due to delta, which had completely taken over by round 13 /2
However, while 100% of the isolates identified in round 13 were delta, 80% in round 12 were also delta (20% were alpha). Any effect of delta on VE should have been partially seen in round 12. /3
The question at hand: what is the relative transmission potential of a vaccinated person who becomes infected with delta? This 👇new report from Singapore is much more informative on this question than the CT data released so far from Ptown and Wisconsin. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
First, importantly, reducing transmission potential of a person who becomes infected is only one component on the transmission reduction effect of the vaccines. The other: reducing the likelihood of becoming infected in the first place. We discuss here👇 academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-a…
We still await definitive evidence from systematic sampling on the ? of overall infection risk reduction with vaccination, but w strong protection vs symptomatic disease, expect that there will still be substantial protection (50+%) vs overall infection nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Interesting poll. Selection/response bias aside, majority picked a low probability, but 40% still thought there was 10+% prob that vaccines will not substantially prevent transmission. This is why I have become convinced this concern is highly unlikely (borderline implausible) 🧵
1. Data from screening PCR at the time of the 2nd moderna mrna vaccine, showing reductions in asymptomatic PCR positivity. This is before the 2nd dose and if anything will underestimate effect. Will have additional confirmation from unblinding pcr and ab