3/ This applies to hospitalizations, too. And one must also remember than in May, the CDC told hospitals to stop testing fully-vaxed people, unless there explicitly FOR COVID.
4/ This is even more true for cases. In Mass ~40% of cases are now in fully-vaxed.
But remember:
1) This DOESn'T include ANYONE <14 days post 2nd dose 2) Routine testing exempts fully-vaxed 3) Fully-vaxed ⬇️likely to be symptomatic so ⬇️ likely to test
1/ The overall effects of this study are miniscule—0.07% absolute reduction in seroprevalence. But the topline finding is “We decreased seroprevalence by 10%!”
Technically true...
But even this finding is questionable. Let's explore.
2/2/
What the study ACTUALLY measures is the impact of mask promotion on symptom reporting. Only if a person reports symptoms, are they asked to participate in a serology study—and only 40% of those with symptoms chose to have their blood taken.
3/ Is it possible that that highly moralistic framing and monetary incentives given to village elders for compliance might dissuade a person from reporting symptoms representing individual and collective moral failure—one that could cost the village money? Maybe?
1/ Trying to mask the abject failure of blue state COVID responses, a new success metric has been rolled out: Vax levels. But whole pop. vax levels, mask much lower variance in at-risk groups. What's more, deaths in 65+ from Jan-Jun are NOT linked to vax levels.
2/
Some will say that the vaccination level of the population is important b/c those other vaccinations are shielding the at-risk further. But excess deaths since January are NOT tied to higher levels of whole population vaccination.
4/ The push to vax well beyond the at-risk represents another installment of “following the science” where sadly, fealty to “the science” does not produce any measurable result. This new metric—whole pop. Vax—is designed to wash away all the other failures docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
1/ The proof (long-suspected) that the mRNA (like AZ DNA) vaxes do not offer sterilizing immunity is now being used to push wider vaccination among kids to acquire “herd immunity.” This makes no sense—it should be the opposite. wsj.com/articles/vacci…
2/ AZ is the only manufacturer that did weekly testing of trial participants to evaluate the efficacy of vaccines in stopping infection—not just disease. These results showed that the AZ standard dose had no impact on reducing asymptomatic infection.
3/ Neither Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s trials did this. Pfizer’s recorded 170 infections (162 control v. 8 vax) However, data in the FDA’s review showed an additional 3410 suspected cases—1816 control/1594 vax. This would reduce efficacy from 95% to 19%. blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04…
1/ FL parents send 6 masks to a lab...
- 100% of masks contaminated.
- 50% w/pathogens, including multiple strains of pneumonia- and meningitis-causing bacteria.
- 1/3 with antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
- 2 masks w/more than 70 strains of bacteria.
2/ "Masks work" has become such a powerful mantra for public health, it has stifled not only research showing it doesn't, but also the ability to even question if it might cause harm.
3/ This is a testament to the power of children's immune systems. Every one of these pathogens is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children than SARS-CoV2. Yet they have been exposed over, and over, and over again.
(note, no SARS-CoV2 was found on the mask, because... )
1/ More than a year into the pandemic, we can start to evaluate the overall efficacy of our COVID responses. The U.S. provides a unique opportunity to evaluate different policy responses.
2/
The graphic below ranks states by their overall COVID policy score: This score takes into account COVID deaths/million, access to education, and increased unemployment ABOVE Feb 2020. All numbers are over the course of the entire year.
3/
In order not to overly penalize or reward “outliers,” the score is based on rank relative to other states. Raw data is linked below, to create your own scorecard.
No matter how you slice it, doesn't look good for heavy-handed approaches
2/
Comparing the jets of cigarette smoke, in truth, the exhalation would be rocketing past the apparatus. This is reflected in the incredibly low particle numbers—10/sec @ max. The actual # is 1000 - 10K particles/sec--which excludes <0.5 micron. pnas.org/content/117/22…
3/
The study notes that it does not include particles under 0.5 microns—the vast majority of aerosols, as seen below. Though it is clear from the measured particles/second, that the apparatus is missing 99.9% to 99.99% of the particles emitted.