1/ For people who don't understand why this cause of death ranking issue matters, let me summarize... It is an absolute scandal that the CDC can use a flawed pre-print without even basic vetting and in an especially misleading way - in vaccine approval meetings no less!
2/ Then the bad data is shared widely on social media and in mainstream media, and because it's been "blessed" by the CDC, nobody questions it. And I suspect the CDC will never admit to sharing what was obvious misinformation and nobody will be held accountable.
3/ How did we get to this point, where medical decisions that affect the entire country are being based on lies FROM THE CDC and everyone is just okay with it?!?
4/ In case you're wondering, I am not dropping this. I want this to get enough attention that the CDC is forced to answer why they used a rotten pre-print in an even more rotten way. There's no excuse.
5/ Three different CDC employees used this pre-print in their presentations to VRBPAC and ACIP, so don't try to tell me the exact ranking isn't that important. They knew "top 5" would be compelling. Was it coordinated?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Do you have aging relatives who struggle to use their cell phone? Turns out iPhones have a special mode just for this, and it's amazing! It's called Assistive Access, as part of the Accessibility settings. It could also be useful for children or even as a focus mode. A thread...
First off, I'm not a big fan of iPhones, but I must admit Apple did a great job with this. It is extremely flexible, and allows you to lock the phone down as little or as much as you want for ease of use, to block unknown callers, and to restrict access to unneeded apps/options.
It uses a greatly simplified home screen in rows or a grid, with large text and images. And you choose which apps are available. The apps below are specially designed for use with Assistive Access mode, so you can also configure various settings and limit functionality.
This study was finally published yesterday, and one of the first data points seems implausible, in a way that suggests there may be faulty data involved. The study claims 46% (159/343) of the cohort hospitalized with Covid and acute kidney injury (AKI) in 2020 was fully vaccinated?!?
BUT the Covid vaccine rollout in the US began on Dec. 14, with second doses beginning Dec. 28, so virtually all of the 2020 hospitalizations should have been unvaccinated or partially vaccinated at best (and they say the 94 partially vaxxed patients were excluded from the study).
How does this make sense at all? Did nobody notice this during peer review?!?
(More details and a link to the study in the thread below.)
According to the study, "the median time between vaccination and COVID-19 diagnosis was 206 days (IQR 50 - 314 days)."
That would mean just 25% of people were vaccinated less than 50 days before infection, which again, doesn't match with their data, which shows 34% of the vaxxed cohort were hospitalized in 2020 (159/467).
And fwiw, the paper also includes a sentence fragment that I guess nobody caught.
Fauci today: "The first iteration of vaccines did have an effect, not 100%, not a high effect, they did prevent infection, and subsequently, obviously, transmission. However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by, is that the durability of protection against infection, and hence, transmission was relatively limited."
Oh really? Let's check what scientists actually knew about the first iteration of vaccines...🧵
In Dec. 2020, the FDA said there wasn't evidence it prevents transmission and no data about how long protection would last.
In Feb. 2020, the CDC said "protection may wear off after 3 months."
In March/April 2021:
- The CDC said vaccinated people were "potentially less likely to transmit."
- Fauci said whether or not vaccinated people could transmit was "a question of extreme importance."
- A CDC spokesperson said "The evidence [on transmission] isn't clear..."
Back in January, I complimented the CDC on some reassuring messaging about Covid, that it turns out was the work of @dr_kkjetelina and a team she's working with at CDC. I took the opportunity to reach out to Dr. Jetelina to see if she'd be open to talking with me. 🧵
I'd admittedly been critical of Dr. Jetelina during Covid, but I appreciated that she was trying to improve communication and rebuild trust, and I wanted to share my perspective as someone who had lost trust in public health. We ended up having a very interesting Zoom call!
Dr. Jetelina suggested we write a brief article together about some of what we talked about in our call, and I eagerly took her up on the opportunity. This just touches on some of the topics we covered in our call. checkyourwork.kelleykga.com/cp/142609262
Apoorva is out with a terrible take in the NYT on the new proposed CDC isolation guidance. It's a very one-sided piece that doesn't include a single expert who supports dropping isolation. She can't stand the idea that we haven't reorganized society around Covid precautions. 1/4
And I'm disappointed to see @JenniferNuzzo acting like Covid is still very different from other respiratory infections. She suggested the CDC could "at least" recommend N95s in lieu of isolation. (People aren't going to do that, and there's no good evidence it would help.) 2/4
And I've got news for Apoorva and Jay Varma... Most people eschew masks simply because they are unpleasant to wear. It really is that simple. 3/4