Altruistic World Online Library

by **admin** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 12:00 am

I'm finally taking the time to do a full write up on COVID-19 because the ignorance and lack of critical thinking by the majority of people on this site is really pissing me off. And because this sub is one of the few left that is not manipulated by corrupt mods.
byu/MaximilianKohler
Reddit.com
8/16/20

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

I'm finally taking the time to do a full write up on COVID-19 because the ignorance and lack of critical thinking by the majority of people on this site is really pissing me off. And because this sub is one of the few left that is not manipulated by corrupt mods.

Preface:

I shouldn't have to preface with this, but I probably do: I agree "Trump bad". He's a senile, low functioning, sociopathic narcissist. He handled this crisis as ineptly as he's handled virtually everything else. That is not reason to politicize a crisis to this extent, while rejecting all critical thinking and remaining wilfully ignorant.

The way this crisis has been politicized and polarized has been massively detrimental to both the welfare of the population, and to the already abysmal level of critical thinking, objectivism, rationality, nuance, etc..

I am actually going to move most of the preface from the beginning to the end. Because of how polarized, political, and faction-based the discussion has become, I think that a majority of people who read the preface would simply downvote and remain wilfully ignorant about the rest. So I'm going to start with the facts and evidence, and hope there are enough redditors left who care about those.

Here are some of the things you're not seeing due to the manipulation of content (in large part by moderators, but also by votes) all over reddit:

Who is at risk from this virus?

Primarily people who are both old and unhealthy. And to a much lesser degree, people who are unhealthy but not elderly.

Yet again, I should not have to preface with this, but I am in the high-risk category. I have been chronically ill for many years (despite full-time, years of tremendous efforts). I am not making this argument from a privileged position.

More young people have it, but only the elderly get symptoms. Screenshot from covid.is. Dutch citation.

Mostly effects the elderly and people with underlying health conditions: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6924e2.htm - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e1.htm

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days https://old.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutr ... _patients/

In Italy only 0.2% of all deaths were people under age 40, 59.9% had 3 or more serious comorbidities, only 3% of all deaths had no comorbidities and median death age is 81 (May 2020) https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronav ... y_2020.pdf

CDC Director: Threat Of Suicide, Drugs, Flu To Youth ‘Far Greater’ Than Covid (Jul 2020) https://archive.vn/wip/bXM7U

Doctors from Stanford and UCLA: It’s time to end the state of emergency over COVID-19 (Jun 2020) https://archive.vn/4x2pQ “These infection fatality rates are remarkably low and are similar to the fatality rate for the seasonal flu.” “The virus is 10 times less fatal than we first thought.”

42% of all COVID-19 deaths are taking place in facilities that house 0.62% of the U.S. population (nursing homes and assisted living facilities) https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothec ... f3213674cd

Official death rates per the CDC vary from month to month. Estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus – with and without symptoms – would be 0.26% (Jun 2020) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 269331002/

Various websites quote wildly varying death rates, to as much as 5.2% of infected people. There is clearly bias all over the place. But only 1% of the US population has been infected.

Dutch CDC: 98% of infections go without barely any symptoms https://viruswaarheid.nl/medisch/van-di ... de-mensen/

WHO Says Studies Put Coronavirus Mortality Rate at 0.6% https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2 ... -0-6-video

The COVID Panic Is a Lesson in Using Statistics to Get Your Way in Politics (Jul 2020) https://mises.org/wire/covid-panic-less ... y-politics

COVID-19: There have been approximately 760,213 deaths reported worldwide. Flu: The World Health Organization estimates that 290,000 to 650,000 people die of flu-related causes every year worldwide. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... vs-the-flu

People citing the number of people who have died are frequently being misleading. The human population has almost quadrupled over the past 100 years: http://thedatadreamer.com/wp-content/up ... -Chart.png. So of course vastly more people are going to be impacted by anything. Even rates are going to go up due to increased population density. But rates are still the most accurate statistic.

Consequences of acting vs not acting, and economics:
It is idiotic and unethical to not fully inform ourselves and then weigh the consequences of our actions. The fact that there are so many adults who do not understand this is extremely alarming.

Millions of people die every year around the globe. We cannot currently prevent all deaths, and we don't even attempt to, in large part due to the costs/consequences of the interventions being too large.

Democracy Now covers economic, social, and health consequences of using quarantines/stay-at-home orders to combat COVID-19:

The content goes far beyond the quoted headlines.

U.N. Warns of Lockdown's “Potentially Catastrophic” Economic Toll on Children - reduced household income, school meal programs, maternal and newborn care: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/4/17/headlines

Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. Children Going Hungry as Unemployment Surges to Great Depression Levels. EU Warns Pandemic Economic Recession Will Be Worst in History https://www.democracynow.org/2020/5/7/headlines

“Diarrhea, Dehydration, Hunger, Exhaustion”: India’s Rural Poor Suffer Most Under Lockdown https://www.democracynow.org/2020/5/22/ ... neoliberal

Bolivian Protesters Demand End to Coronavirus Lockdown as Hunger Mounts https://www.democracynow.org/2020/5/20/headlines

Oxfam Warns COVID-19 Pandemic Could Push 122 Million to Brink of Starvation https://www.democracynow.org/2020/7/9/headlines

Study Warns 1.1 Million Children Could Die From Secondary Impacts as Pandemic Interrupts Access to Food & Medical Care (May 2020) https://www.democracynow.org/2020/5/21/ ... lity_rates

PBS covers food chain and economic problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjfLXrke66I

Beyond the public health crisis, there's a massive economic and humanitarian crisis that is emerging because of this lockdown. People who are not monthly wage workers don't have any savings, so, they're practically facing severe starvation. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dense ... -challenge

Watch through to Sen Pat Toomey's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoPelzsFjYk&t=365

State reopening plans force trade-offs between health and economy https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/state ... nd-economy

Dr. Anthony Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause 'irreparable damage' (May 2020) https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/22/dr- ... amage.html

Doctors on front line of worst-hit city in world say it’s time to end shutdown (May 2020) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... -shutdown/

CDC director: Keeping schools closed poses greater health threat to children than reopening (Jul 2020) https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5 ... o-children

The risks of keeping schools closed far outweigh the benefits (Jul 2020) https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/ ... e-benefits

The Results Are In for Remote Learning: It Didn’t Work. The pandemic forced schools into a crash course in online education. Problems piled up quickly. (WSJ, Jun 2020) https://archive.fo/cm9I5

‘The Biggest Monster’ Is Spreading. And It’s Not the Coronavirus. - Tuberculosis kills 1.5 million people each year. Lockdowns and supply-chain disruptions threaten progress against the disease as well as H.I.V. and malaria. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/heal ... laria.html

COVID-related hunger could kill more people than the virus https://unglobalcompact.org/take-action ... -the-virus

UNICEF analysis predicts 6000 child deaths PER DAY due to COVID response https://www.unicef.ie/stories/impact-covid-19-children/

Lockdown 'killed two people for every three who died of coronavirus' at peak of outbreak. Estimates show 16,000 people died through missed medical care by May 1, while virus killed 25,000 in same period (Aug 2020) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ronavirus/

One example of many: 31yo mother dies from cancer after treatment is delayed due to coronavirus. https://archive.vn/wip/WAPyL

CDC: 11% of US adults seriously considered suicide in June https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cdc- ... une-2020-8

CDC: One quarter of young adults contemplated suicide during pandemic (Aug 2020) https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/1 ... mic-394832

Coronavirus pandemic may lead to 75,000 "deaths of despair" from suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, study says (May 2020) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronaviru ... mic-75000/

It is ‘inhumane and heartless’ not to recognise the human costs of lockdowns (Jul 2020) https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6176537337001

Ever since the UK entered “lockdown”, those pushing for it to end have been labelled “callous” or “selfish” or accused of putting profits before people. Meanwhile millions are unemployed and a global famine is on the horizon. The lockdown will kill more people than the virus, and needs to be ended. (May 2020) https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/12/opp ... ore-people

More Than Half of U.S. Business Closures Permanent (Jul 2020) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -yelp-says

Study between Finland and Sweden indicates school closings had no measurable impact on number of cases in children. https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/con ... ildren.pdf

Reopening schools in Denmark did not worsen outbreak https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2341N7

New US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on education and child care come down hard in favor of opening schools, saying children don't suffer much from coronavirus, are less likely than adults to spread it and suffer from being out of school. (Jul 2020) https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/health/c ... index.html

Three large Southern states that moved aggressively to reopen amid the coronavirus crisis have seen new cases and deaths largely hold steady since then https://nypost.com/2020/05/22/no-corona ... s-re-open/

As Wisconsin completely reopened last month, they have not seen the dire consequences that were predicted for them. https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Wisco ... 08001.html

The first-to-reopen state maintains a Covid-19 death rate well below those of northeastern states—though you’d never know it from the media coverage. https://www.city-journal.org/covid-19-georgia-reopening

The number of cases in Arizona is quickly decreasing, despite open restaurants, barber shops and churches https://archive.vn/V5vZ1

There is already a major problem with overexpenditures on end of life care https://archive.vn/UbC0K#selection-223.18-223.19 - this is not "saving lives", this is slightly postponing deaths.

When I first heard India was shutting down I was shocked and horrified. One has to be tremendously out of touch to not know that huge swaths of developing country's populations live day to day and will literally starve to death if you prevent them from going to work. And developing countries do not have the same economic means to provide monetary and food welfare to their populations. After seeing the coverage of it on Democracy Now it seemed clear to me that it was a privileged minority shutting down the whole country to protect themselves with complete disregard for the millions of poor people who would suffer severely.

And even beyond developing countries' inability to provide welfare to their citizens, there are global consequences to even just developed countries shutting down. It puts millions of people in developing countries out of work, causing them severe hardship.

This is made worse by the fact that:

"57% of Mumbai slumdwellers have Covid antibodies. Experts believe herd immunity can be achieved when around 60% of the population has been exposed to the virus. Estimated fatality rate of 0.05-0.10%" [1]. And other Indian cities have similarly low infection fatality rates (IFR) of 0.02% and 0.08%. And an IFR of 0.1% for India.

There's a popular and prevalent notion on reddit that the economy is some abstract thing that doesn't matter. As you can see above, it's not "lives vs economics", it's "lives vs other lives that will be harmed by shutting down the economy".

It's been appalling to see virtually 100% of the left-wing in the US supporting the shutdowns with the myopic mindset of "we're doing a good thing by protecting the vulnerable". And seemingly entirely ignorant and unable to think for themselves about the consequences. It's been very interesting to see this issue split down political lines in the US, with the right-wing advocating against the shutdowns and the left-wing supporting them. This mantra that I've seen before seems applicable here – "the right is evil, the left is incompetent". I'm sure other variations of that mantra may be more appropriate.

Incompetence and misinformation:
Both of these things are widespread. Including among "professionals". Assuming that every degree holder is well informed, competent, intelligent, and in agreement, is naive. Given that the reddit demographic is young, it's not surprising how common this notion is on reddit. There are major problems among professionals of all kinds: https://archive.fo/ofBvs#selection-809.0-809.1

Yes, I realize how problematic and dystopian this is. If you can't trust professionals/degree holders, it's total chaos. However, it's the reality. That reality is incredibly disturbing to me. Which is why I've spent years writing about it and trying to get people to do something to fix it. Ignoring that reality is not a fix.

Analysis: England's COVID-19 death toll is wrong. "You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then be hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a Covid death.” https://archive.vn/wip/6SXR4

Article title: "Perfectly Healthy 16-Year-Old Died Suddenly from COVID-19". Article Content: Kid was diabetic and obese. https://archive.vn/wip/i6aV2

Twitter: @Sciencing_Bi - fake professor account, claims to have died of COVID-19, blaming the university where @Sciencing_Bi supposedly worked for making people teach on campus during the pandemic https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/sciencin ... ghlin-asu/ - https://gizmodo.com/science-twitter-got ... 1844591277

(@NateSilver538): I've seen a few too many mainstream media stories of "unusual" COVID cases where the most likely explanation is a false positive or a false negative test and the article doesn't really even explore the possibility at all. https://archive.vn/jJ4hA

New York Times retracts cover story on a 26 year old ER doctor in NY said to have died of COVID-19: https://web.archive.org/web/20200528053 ... 5335043072 - https://archive.vn/NpreZ#selection-3251.0-3255.12

Highly upvoted r/science thread with a misleading title claiming that children are spreaders of the virus. Commenters point out the misleading title and link to other studies that show children do not spread the virus, and asymptomatic spread is rare: https://archive.vn/wip/HsBIm

How the media has us thinking all wrong about the coronavirus, by Emily Oster, professor of economics https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ronavirus/

Censorship:

There are degree holders who moderate many major reddit subs, and have been corruptly, unethically, and unscientifically manipulating content. Here's one example: https://archive.vn/iQtIq

Here are other examples of moderators manipulating content on reddit in regards to COVID-19:

r/economics censored discussions https://archive.vn/UbC0K#selection-223.18-223.19 - https://archive.vn/wip/DDwDh

Banned from r/covid19 for pasting a link to a news article about increase in poverty due to lockdowns: https://archive.vn/Oo2yr#selection-823.0-823.1

r/california_politics censored discussion: https://archive.vn/Dc5VT#selection-1709.9-1709.10

Then muted for 28 days after mod demonstrates complete apathy for facts, evidence, and science: https://www.scribd.com/document/4721652 ... nd-science

That is exactly what is occurring all over reddit, and has been for years.

Coronavirus Censorship Crisis, by Matt Taibbi https://taibbi.substack.com/p/temporary ... censorship - covers experts getting things wrong, expert & media bias and conflicting messaging, attacking questions instead of behaving scientifically, and censorship on social media.

The result of all that misinformation, censorship, and thus ignorance:

Poll:

Jul 2020 https://www.kekstcnc.com/media/2793/kek ... wave-4.pdf

- Poll Question: How many people in your country have had COVID-19?

- Americans Answered: 20% (66M)

- Reality: 1% (3.3M)

- Poll Question: How many people in your country have died from COVID-19?

- Americans Answered: 9% (29.5M)

- Reality: 0.04% (131K)

Americans overstated the death number by 225 times.

Another poll showing similar trends.

Despite the extremely low risks (as detailed above) for children from this virus, people are frequently using deceptive, appeal-to-emotion fallacies along the lines of "think of the children". It seems that people are doing this due to one or more of:

Ignorance

Self-preservation/selfishness

Political motivations

r/LockdownSkepticism seems to be one of the few bastions of rational, objective, independent thought and information. According to the widespread propaganda on reddit you would expect that sub to only be MAGA extremists. Yet it is not. There is a myriad of information there from highly reputable sources (including many left-leaning ones) that are nowhere to be found on other reddit subs, simply because they are contradictory to the pro-shutdown propaganda that inundates virtually everywhere else on reddit.

Top links: https://old.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/top/ - https://archive.vn/uy2KZ

EDIT: A week after I created this post, CGP Grey, someone very popular on reddit, created a rational video on COVID-19 lockdowns. Typically his videos would get to the front page of reddit within a couple hours. This video though? After 1 hour my upvote was the only one. https://archive.vn/2YWmh#selection-3197.13-3201.1. This really typifies the behavior of redditors and coverage of COVID-19 here.

Sweden:

Sweden's reaction was by far the most sensible, yet they're forced to apologize because all anyone weighs are the COVID-19 deaths, and if you dare consider any other side effects from the shutdowns you get labeled a monster. https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/03/to ... us-better/

Ignore the headline, see the comments: https://archive.vn/wip/JcFSb

Sweden, Which Never Had Lockdown, Sees COVID-19 Cases Plummet as Rest of Europe Suffers Spike (Jul 2020) https://archive.vn/wip/eCNOU

COVID appears done in Sweden. (Jul 2020) https://archive.vn/wip/ceKJa

Epidemiologist: Sweden’s COVID Response Isn’t Unorthodox. The Rest of the World’s Is (May 2020) https://fee.org/articles/epidemiologist ... orld-s-is/

Study between Finland and Sweden indicates school closings had no measurable impact on number of cases in children. https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/con ... ildren.pdf

The scientist behind lockdown in the UK has admitted that Sweden has achieved roughly the same suppression of coronavirus without draconian restrictions (Jun 2020) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... ce-uk-has/

Why Sweden’s COVID-19 Strategy Is Quietly Becoming the World’s Strategy (May 2020) https://fee.org/articles/why-sweden-s-c ... -strategy/

Norway PM regrets taking tough coronavirus lockdown measures (Jun 2020) https://au.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-n ... 07536.html

Symptoms vs cause:

What we did and have been doing for decades is ignoring the problem (public health and chronic disease), and then only reacting to and addressing the symptoms.

That is an absolutely moronic thing to do. It makes me furious. It's a massively inefficient and wasteful allocation of resources. And making others suffer because of one group of people's poor decisions is extremely problematic. Removing the consequences of people's own poor decisions will only lead to continued poor decisions, and likely even worse ones.

Only 3% of the population even bothers to live a healthy lifestyle https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... yle/475065. And now that consequences of that show up they want everyone to suffer to protect them from the consequences of their decisions.

This applies to universal healthcare as well. Spending on healthcare would be a tiny fraction of what it currently is if the majority of the population actually bothered to try and be healthy. I'm fully in favor of universal healthcare, but actions must be taken to reduce chronic disease and general poor health. Otherwise, irresponsible people are just sucking vast amounts of resources from responsible ones.

America’s obesity epidemic threatens effectiveness of any COVID vaccine https://ctmirror.org/2020/08/09/america ... d-vaccine/

Misallocation of resources:

Far more damaging things, that impact far more people, we've been ignoring: https://old.reddit.com/r/HumanMicrobiom ... ?context=3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

Where is all the outcry (plus trillions of dollars spent, and massive economic action) about those deaths plus the massive drops in quality of life? Quality of life can be argued to be even more important than death.

“Epidemiologists have tried to quantify this sort of loss with something they call the disability-adjusted life year. Simply put, this unit measures the estimated value of the years of healthy life lost to a disease.”

If you have a million dollars, do you spend it all to save one life, or do you spend it where it will statistically have the most impact and help the most people? Do you spend it all on a life that is ending soon or a life that has a long way to go? The former is what we've been doing with COVID.

The reaction to COVID-19 is furthering an already problematic history of overspending on end of life care: https://archive.vn/UbC0K#selection-293.18-293.19

Why people who care about the environment (especially young people) should protest COVID-19 shutdowns: https://archive.vn/S1IIC

CDC Director: Threat Of Suicide, Drugs, Flu To Youth ‘Far Greater’ Than Covid (Jul 2020) https://archive.vn/wip/bXM7U

Misc:

Besides ignorance and moderator manipulation, the following might explain some of the voting patterns on reddit.

https://archive.vn/Lj518#selection-1991.10-1991.11

/u/Sphinx91:

Reddit doesn't care. Reddit would rather have everything completely shut down to avoid even one single death , and then pat themselves on their back a job well done without looking at every single unintended consequences. The clusterfuck that is waiting for us at the end of all these "lockdowns" is gonna be way more damaging than the virus itself and I'm just waiting for this ride to end.

/u/PhineasC:

The vast majority of Redditors are 15-30 year old males with no kids. They literally have zero invested in this, and in some cases actually are students themselves who want to stay home and play video games all day. This is literally the last place to get the general public viewpoint on this issue.

An entire New Zealand city shuts down due to 4 cases (not deaths) of COVID-19: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-12/ ... n/12549920 and they're having trouble figuring out the source: https://www.todayonline.com/world/new-z ... d-auckland

How Fear, Groupthink Drove Unnecessary Global Lockdowns https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 43253.html

#stayathome is so popular because it can instantly transform you into a hero by literally doing nothing https://archive.vn/d3z49

As COVID-19 Cases Surge, Daily Deaths and the Case Fatality Rate Continue To Fall (Jul 2020) https://reason.com/2020/07/06/as-covid- ... e-to-fall/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/heal ... sting.html

Many COVID-19 deaths were likely people who would have died from flu: https://archive.vn/wip/BHOvP

List of questions that pro-shutdown people need to answer: https://archive.vn/M2WHH

Preface at the end!

Rightly so, redditors frequently criticize FOX News viewers, and even Republicans in general, for being anti-science, willfully ignorant, mindless sheep. Yet the behavior on reddit around COVID-19 has shown me that redditors themselves can be guilty of all the same behavior. Hysterical, ignorant, easily manipulated, emotional, reactionary, tribe mentality.

If one needed more evidence of the consequences of the majority of the population being poorly functioning, this has surely provided it.

You can see above how much information and complexity there is. Which is why it is so appalling and alarming that the majority of reddit seems to have reduced the complexity down to "virus bad, dying bad, stay home till virus goes away".

EDIT: And from the comments and voting in this thread it seems that a majority of redditors are displaying all this same behavior I just wrote about! It seems many of them did not even bother to read this post and review the evidence prior to commenting, which is quite a common behavior on reddit. Depressingly, that's exactly what the data shows as well: Facts are increasingly useless.

I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing this occur in many other instances, including parenting and healthcare, where people are only able to process "oh my god people are dying", and entirely unable to do any sort of objective, higher level, logical cost-benefit analysis that is based on facts and statistics. Instead, they simply react emotionally and drastically. The results of which are often vastly worse than had they not reacted at all. I was almost killed multiple times due to a person I know behaving in this way, and I've written about millions of other people being harmed due to this phenomenon [1].

I wanted to make this my title, but knew it would cause immediate downvotes before people even bothered to read the content:

The overreaction to COVID-19 is the most egregious misallocation of resources I've ever heard of in the entirety of human history. Objective arguments from a left-wing perspective.

I am constantly being accused of lack of empathy & compassion, and hatefulness. I have demonstrated that these accusations are not only false, but ironically, the stances and behaviors of the people leveling those accusations are what are harmful and uncompassionate.

by **admin** » Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:32 am

Trump explains why he downplayed coronavirus risks to the American public
by Dylan Stableford and David Knowles
Yahoo News
September 9, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

President Trump on Wednesday acknowledged that he misled the American public about the threat of COVID-19 earlier this year in order to “reduce panic” about a virus that has so far killed nearly 200,000 people in the U.S.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump was asked whether he misled the country by publicly downplaying the threat of the virus.

“Well, I think if you said ‘in order to reduce panic,’ perhaps that’s so,” Trump said. “The fact is I’m a cheerleader for this country. I love our country, and I don’t want people to be frightened. I don’t want to create panic, and certainly I’m not going to drive this country or the world into a frenzy. We want to show confidence. We want to show strength.”

According to audio excerpts from interviews that Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward conducted for his forthcoming book, “Rage,” Trump said in February that he knew COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu but wanted to “play it down” because “I don’t want to create a panic.”

With Trump’s own answers to Woodward’s questions captured on tape, the president did not attempt to deny that he downplayed the risks to the American people from the virus.

“We don’t want to jump up and down and start shouting that we have a problem that is a tremendous problem, scare everybody,” Trump added.

Asked how he can reassure Americans that they can trust what he is saying, Trump replied, “Well, I think that’s really a big part of trust. We have to have leadership. We have to show leadership, and the last thing you want to do is create a panic in the country. This was a horrible thing. It was sent to us by China.”

According to Johns Hopkins University, there have been more than 6.3 million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States, more by far than in any other country. Approximately 189,000 Americans have died from the virus, which originated in Wuhan, China.

Trump dismissed the suggestion that he could have saved American lives if he had been more forthright about the risks posed by the virus.

“I think if we didn’t do what we did, we would have had millions of people die,” the president said. “We closed up our country. We closed it up very, very quickly, very effectively. We, uh, did a job, we learned about this horrible disease along with the rest of the world, which had to learn about it, and then we opened it up and now we know the vulnerable, we know who it attacks, who it’s so vicious against, and I think we’ve done from every standpoint a[n] incredible job.”

Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, quickly responded to Trump's remarks.

“I promise you that if I’m elected, I’ll always tell you the truth,” Biden tweeted. “I’ll listen to the experts and do everything I can to contain this virus. And I’ll always put your health and safety first — no matter the political cost.”

by **admin** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:28 am

'Herd mentality': Trump says US 'rounding the corner' on coronavirus, doctors and scientists disagree
by Savannah Behrmann
USA TODAY
September 15, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday during a televised town hall that "herd mentality" could make the coronavirus "disappear" with or without a vaccine.

During a 90-minute town hall hosted by ABC News in the must win battleground of Pennsylvania, Trump defended his repeated assertion that the virus will eventually disappear even without a vaccine, citing what he called "herd mentality," an apparent reference to "herd immunity."

ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether the coronavirus "would go away without the vaccine?"

"Sure, over a period of time. Sure, with time it goes away --" Trump responded.

Stephanopoulos interjected: "-- And many deaths."

"And you'll develop, you'll develop herd -- like a herd mentality. It's going to be -- it's going to be herd developed -- and that's going to happen. That will all happen," Trump said.

Herd immunity is the theory that the virus is eradicated only after a high percentage of the population is infected, limiting its ability to spread.

Herd mentality, also known as mob mentality, rather means people can be influenced by the “herd” to act in ways that are emotional, rather than rational.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, who is the nation's leading infectious disease expert, has said the “death toll would be enormous” if the country attempted herd immunity.

For COVID-19, doctors believe 60% to 80% of the population needs natural antibodies, or to be vaccinated, to achieve herd immunity.

The U.S. has reported more than 6.5 million confirmed cases. The number needed to achieve herd immunity is far more, as the U.S. population is 328.2 million.

The Washington Post calculated that nearly three million Americans would have to die for the U.S. to reach herd immunity without a vaccine.

As of Tuesday night, more than 195,000 deaths Americans have died, according to data from John Hopkins University.

The White House earlier in September denied the Trump administration has ever considered a policy of "herd immunity."

"The herd immunity so-called theory was something made up in the fanciful minds of the media. That was never something that was ever considered here at the White House," press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during a White House Press briefing.

Trump also claimed Tuesday he believes "we're rounding the corner" on the coronavirus.

However, many scientists and doctors, including Fauci, have strongly disagreed with that assertion, expressing concerns of the coronavirus mixing with flu season.

“If you're talking about getting back to a degree of normality which resembles where we were prior to COVID, it's going to be well into 2021, maybe even towards the end of 2021," Fauci said recently.

Trump defended this thinking by naming former Stanford Neuroradiology Chief Dr. Scott Atlas.

Atlas has become a White House adviser on the coronavirus, and has publicly downplayed the virus. There were reports from The Washington Post that Atlas has been pushing herd immunity inside the White House, and Trump has been listening.

Andrew Bates, Director of Rapid Response for Democrat nominee Joe Biden's campaign, tweeted: "This is the *current* PRESIDENT of the United States, whose charged with keeping the American people safe. This would literally mean millions of deaths."

During the town hall, the president also repeatedly rejected the idea that he had downplayed the severity of the virus, despite recordings from Bob Woodward's interviews in which he told the journalist he thought downplaying it would help avoid a panic.

Contributing: John Fritze, David Jackson USA TODAY

by **admin** » Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:00 am

‘We messed up, we let our guard down’: Former Alabama senator issues warning with last words before dying of Covid-19. Larry Dixon’s last wishes were to prevent others suffering same fate as him
by Oliver O'Connell
Independent.co.uk
12/7/20

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Former Republican Alabama state senator Larry Dixon has died of Covid-19 at the age of 78 - reportedly warning people of the dangers of the disease in some of his very final words.

Mr Dixon also served on the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners.

A close friend told NBC News that his last words to his wife were also a warning to the people of Alabama.

Dr David Thrasher said Mr Dixon told his wife Gaynell: “We messed up, we let our guard down.”

“Please tell everybody to be careful. This is real, and if you get diagnosed, get help immediately.”

According to Dr Thrasher, Mr Dixon believes he was exposed to the virus at an outdoor event two weeks ago. Two other attendees have since tested positive.

Early symptoms set in a few days after the event, and when they worsened Mr Dixon was placed on a ventilator. He passed away on 4 December.

Early symptoms set in a few days after the event, and when they worsened Mr Dixon was placed on a ventilator. He passed away on 4 December.

Mr Thrasher said that Mr Dixon was the “finest human being”, demonstrated by his last wish being to prevent more people from suffering from the same fate.

“He wanted to encourage people to be careful, wear a mask, don’t socially gather,” Mr Thrasher said. “He said, ‘Let’s save some lives.’”

By Monday, Alabama had recorded more than 270,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19, and the official death toll stood at 3,889, according to figures compiled by The New York Times.

Nationally, the number of cases stands at 14.8 million with more than 282,000 deaths.

by **admin** » Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:27 am

Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now
by:
Nisreen A Alwan
Rochelle Ann Burgess
Simon Ashworth
Rupert Beale
Nahid Bhadelia
Debby Bogaert
Jennifer Dowd
Isabella Eckerle
Lynn R Goldman
Trisha Greenhalgh
Deepti Gurdasani
Adam Hamdy
William P Hanage
Emma B Hodcroft
Zoë Hyde
Paul Kellam
Michelle Kelly-Irving
Florian Krammer
Marc Lipsitch
Alan McNally
Martin McKee
Ali Nouri
Dominic Pimenta
Viola Priesemann
Harry Rutter
Joshua Silver
Devi Sridhar
Charles Swanton
Rochelle P Walensky
Gavin Yamey
Hisham Ziauddeen
The Lancet
Published: October 15, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32153-X

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 35 million people globally, with more than 1 million deaths recorded by WHO as of Oct 12, 2020. As a second wave of COVID-19 affects Europe, and with winter approaching, we need clear communication about the risks posed by COVID-19 and effective strategies to combat them. Here, we share our view of the current evidence-based consensus on COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 spreads through contact (via larger droplets and aerosols), and longer-range transmission via aerosols, especially in conditions where ventilation is poor. Its high infectivity,1 combined with the susceptibility of unexposed populations to a new virus, creates conditions for rapid community spread. The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is several-fold higher than that of seasonal influenza,2 and infection can lead to persisting illness, including in young, previously healthy people (ie, long COVID).3 It is unclear how long protective immunity lasts,4 and, like other seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 is capable of re-infecting people who have already had the disease, but the frequency of re-infection is unknown.5 Transmission of the virus can be mitigated through physical distancing, use of face coverings, hand and respiratory hygiene, and by avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. Rapid testing, contact tracing, and isolation are also critical to controlling transmission. WHO has been advocating for these measures since early in the pandemic.

In the initial phase of the pandemic, many countries instituted lockdowns (general population restrictions, including orders to stay at home and work from home) to slow the rapid spread of the virus. This was essential to reduce mortality,6, 7 prevent health-care services from being overwhelmed, and buy time to set up pandemic response systems to suppress transmission following lockdown. Although lockdowns have been disruptive, substantially affecting mental and physical health, and harming the economy, these effects have often been worse in countries that were not able to use the time during and after lockdown to establish effective pandemic control systems. In the absence of adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts, these countries have faced continuing restrictions.

This has understandably led to widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust. The arrival of a second wave and the realisation of the challenges ahead has led to renewed interest in a so-called herd immunity approach, which suggests allowing a large uncontrolled outbreak in the low-risk population while protecting the vulnerable. Proponents suggest this would lead to the development of infection-acquired population immunity in the low-risk population, which will eventually protect the vulnerable.

This is a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence.

Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity3 and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of health-care systems to provide acute and routine care. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,4 and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and health-care workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID.3 Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30% of the population in some regions.8 Prolonged isolation of large swathes of the population is practically impossible and highly unethical. Empirical evidence from many countries shows that it is not feasible to restrict uncontrolled outbreaks to particular sections of society. Such an approach also risks further exacerbating the socioeconomic inequities and structural discriminations already laid bare by the pandemic. Special efforts to protect the most vulnerable are essential but must go hand-in-hand with multi-pronged population-level strategies.

Once again, we face rapidly accelerating increase in COVID-19 cases across much of Europe, the USA, and many other countries across the world. It is critical to act decisively and urgently. Effective measures that suppress and control transmission need to be implemented widely, and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic. Continuing restrictions will probably be required in the short term, to reduce transmission and fix ineffective pandemic response systems, in order to prevent future lockdowns. The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions. Protecting our economies is inextricably tied to controlling COVID-19. We must protect our workforce and avoid long-term uncertainty.

Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand, to name a few countries, have shown that robust public health responses can control transmission, allowing life to return to near-normal, and there are many such success stories. The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months. We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.

To support this call for action, sign the John Snow Memorandum.

This work was not in any way directly or indirectly supported, funded, or sponsored by any organisation or entity. NA has experienced prolonged COVID-19 symptoms. AH advises Ligandal (unpaid advisory role), outside the submitted work. FK is collaborating with Pfizer on animal models of SARS-CoV-2, and with the University of Pennsylvania on mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. FK has also filed IP regarding serological assays and for SARS-CoV-2, which name him as inventor (pending). PK reports personal fees from Kymab, outside the submitted work; PK also has a patent ‘Monoclonal antibodies to treat and prevent infection by SARS-CoV-2 (Kymab)’ pending and is a scientific advisor to the Serology Working Group (Public Heath England), Testing Advisory Group (Department of Health and Social Care) and the Vaccines Task force (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy). ML has received honoraria from Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Sanofi Pasteur, outside the submitted work. MM is a member of Independent SAGE and Research Director European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, which manages the COVID Health Systems Response Monitor. DS sits on the Scottish Government COVID-19 Advisory Group, has attended SAGE meetings, and is on the Royal Society DELVE initiative feeding into SAGE. CS reports grants from BMS, Ono-Pharmaceuticals, and Archer Dx (collaboration in minimal residual disease sequencing technologies), outside the submitted work; personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Ventana, Ono Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Celgene, Illumina, MSD, Sarah Canon Research Institute, Genentech, Bicycle Therapeutics, and Medicixi, outside the submitted work; personal fees and stock options from GRAIL and Achilles Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; and stock options from Epic Biosciences and Apogen Biotechnologies, outside the submitted work. GY directs the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health at Duke University, which has received grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for policy research that includes policy analysis on COVID-19 control. All other authors declare no competing interests within the submitted work.

Signatories are listed in the appendix.

by **admin** » Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:37 am

9 things to know about the COVID-19 vaccine
by MD Anderson Cancer Center Staff
December 11, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to increase, you probably have a lot of questions about the coronavirus vaccine. Why are health care workers receiving the COVID-19 vaccine first? How soon will you be able to get the COVID-19 vaccine and get back to some semblance of a normal life? When can cancer patients get vaccinated?

For answers, we spoke with our chief medical officer Welela Tereffe, M.D., and infectious diseases specialist and head of Internal Medicine David Tweardy, M.D.

Why are health care workers receiving the COVID-19 vaccine before patients?

Tereffe: As vaccine production ramps up, there will be a limited number of doses available.

Federal and state guidelines require that, as long as vaccine supply is limited, the vaccine must be available to health care workers first. MD Anderson is one of the Houston health systems selected as a pre-position site for COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized by the Food and Drug Administration for emergency use. MD Anderson’s initial vaccination clinics will safely and efficiently vaccinate health care workers caring for highly immune compromised patients and those with increased risk of occupational exposure.

By offering the vaccine to health care workers first, public health officials hope to reduce everyone’s risk – patients and staff – of exposure to the coronavirus in hospitals and clinics and to ensure continued care for patients.

When will the COVID-19 vaccine be available for cancer patients?

Tereffe: People with serious health conditions such as cancer, and people with weakened immune systems, were not included in many of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.

As the vaccine becomes more widely available, we’ll learn more about the indications, benefits, and side effects in people with serious health conditions. Your care team will then be able to give you that information so you can make an informed choice about vaccination.

It’s important to continue taking precautions such as wearing a mask, maintaining social distancing and washing your hands frequently, even after you receive a COVID-19 vaccine. These precautions will be necessary until public health experts advise otherwise.

How do the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines work?

Tweardy: Our cells use messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce the various proteins our bodies need to function. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both use an mRNA sequence that codes for the unique spike protein on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Once a person receives the vaccine, their cells take up that mRNA sequence and produce the COVID-19 spike protein. Their immune system then detects those proteins as foreign and creates antibodies against them, which helps provide protection from future COVID-19 infections.

Currently, both of these vaccines require two doses given a few weeks apart to be effective.

What are the other types of coronavirus vaccines being developed?

Tweardy: There are three other types being developed that are in the lead. One involves deactivated virus. The third type uses a carrier virus (such as an adenovirus) containing the part of the coronavirus’ DNA that encodes the spike protein. The fourth type uses a single protein from the tip of the spikes that cover the coronavirus and allow it to bind to and infect human cells.

The type that uses deactivated virus is the most old-fashioned and the least sophisticated. It involves injecting people with virus that’s been inactivated (or made harmless) through heat or some other means. This causes a very broad immune response in the recipient, but not necessarily the one you want.

The carrier virus method targets the really important part of the virus — the protein spikes that stick up like little maces all over its surface — instead of the virus as a whole. It prompts the body to generate the spike protein itself. Once that happens, the immune system recognizes it as an invader and starts developing antibodies against it. So, when the real coronavirus comes along, these antibodies can shut it down. This is the strategy that most of the vaccine makers are pursuing right now.

The last type of coronavirus vaccine involves injecting people with the spike protein itself, instead of pushing their bodies to generate it.

All three of these last approaches have been used successfully, based on the studies done so far. The last one is just not quite as far along in testing as the RNA and carrier approaches are.

What makes the RNA-approach so different from that of previous vaccines?

Tweardy: This is the first time this type of technology has ever been used for a vaccine. And the speed at which it is being developed is truly mind-boggling.

Remember, this particular coronavirus was virtually unknown in November 2019. The actual syndrome caused by it was only first described in December 2019. A month later, scientists had isolated the virus and sequenced its genome. That’s something that used to take a full year or more. Two months later, we had the first COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Four months after that, some were already in Phase III clinical trials. And we’ll have a coronavirus vaccine available to health care workers in December 2020.

We’re living through a modern scientific miracle. Vaccines have not been developed at this speed before. Vaccine development usually takes 10 to 15 years after the identification of a new infectious disease. I’ve been working in infectious diseases for 40 years, and I never would’ve thought it was possible.

Could this same mRNA vaccination method be used again against future coronaviruses?

Tweardy: Absolutely. This strategy has the capacity to almost let us anticipate the next strain of coronavirus so we can be prepared for it, kind of like we do now with the flu.

We could sequence the next coronavirus that’s identified as distinct and separate from this one in a month or less. Once we had that, we could insert the sequence of its spike protein into every step of the vaccine development pathway. That could get us another vaccine for testing within three months.

With this family of coronaviruses, that could potentially allow us to have a vaccine ready before the next one even becomes a pandemic. So theoretically, we could stop the next pandemic in its tracks.

Is the coronavirus vaccine safe?

Tweardy: Yes. I think anyone who gets a coronavirus vaccine can have confidence that it will be safe. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be approved. The Food and Drug Administration has been looking at this very carefully, and the vaccine has had to be tested on a lot of people to get approved.

COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus similar to SARS and MERS, and researchers were able to build upon previous work creating vaccines for these diseases as they searched for a vaccine against COVID-19. mRNA has been studied for many years in relation to the study of infectious diseases and as an area of opportunity in cancer treatment.

COVID-19 is the third in a series of coronaviruses. After SARS and MERS, we understand the pathogenesis and early aspects of immunity and have learned from those experiences and taken that knowledge to target the weak spot of coronaviruses.

Even more closely watched than the efficacy of the vaccines in the clinical trials is the safety of the participants. For the FDA to consider an application for emergency authorization of a vaccine, more than half of the people enrolled must have been monitored for at least two months. Preliminary data shows the observed side effects are very similar to the flu vaccine, such as pain at the injection site and fatigue.

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee comprises experts in medicine and research who meet to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of the vaccine, and these experts evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Clinical trial participants will continue to be followed even after any EUAs are granted.

Should I be concerned when I hear that an ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trial has been paused?

Tweardy: No. It’s fairly common for studies to be stopped temporarily. This gives researchers time to determine if any serious adverse events people experience are due to the vaccine or caused by something else.

Even during a pandemic, life goes on, so people can still become ill for any number of reasons. If researchers determine the adverse events are unrelated to a vaccine, then studies can be restarted. This has occurred in the case of two big COVID-19 vaccine trial; the pause was lifted and the trial restarted after a one-week review by independent trial safety experts determined that the adverse event was unrelated to the vaccine.

How long will the coronavirus vaccine be effective?

Tweardy: We’d obviously love for it to give lifelong immunity against COVID-19, but that remains to be seen. If I had to guess, I would say it’s probably going to fall somewhere between influenza and the mumps, in terms of longevity of protection. It will probably be closer to the flu, because respiratory viruses don’t tend to lead to long-term immunity.

by **admin** » Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:46 am

New cancer patients — especially Black people — are more susceptible to severe Covid-19 infections
by Elizabeth @cooney_liz
Statnews.com
December 10, 2020

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Recently diagnosed cancer patients are more vulnerable to Covid-19 infection and face more severe illness than people without cancer, a risk that is significantly higher for Black people than for white people with both diseases, a large new analysis concludes.

Deploying artificial intelligence to comb through 73 million Americans’ electronic health records, researchers discovered that people who learned they had leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or lung cancer in the past year were at the greatest risk for Covid-19 infection compared to those without cancer or those whose cancers had been diagnosed longer ago. For Black people with cancer, the risk of Covid-19 infection was highest in patients who had breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer.

“The important differentiating factor was that African Americans with cancer were more susceptible to Covid-19 infection than Caucasians,” said Nathan Berger, a medical oncologist and professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is a co-author of the study published Thursday in JAMA Oncology.

Black people were more likely than white people to be hospitalized for cancer alone, Covid-19 alone, or both diseases. The difference in death rates did not reach statistical significance — 18.5% for Black patients vs. 13.5% for white patients — but the analysis was limited by small numbers — 100 of 670 patients with Covid-19 and cancer died, 50 Black and 50 white — an editorial appearing with the paper said.

Recent research has found that death rates inside hospitals are similar, but death rates outside hospitals are disproportionately higher among Black people.

The combined cancer-Covid-19 risk was higher than adding numbers for the two diseases together. In all patients, “The combination of the virus and cancer is synergistic and leading to mortality. The death rates are much higher than they are for either of the diseases alone,” Berger said.

The reasons for leukemia, lymphoma, and lung patients being more susceptible to Covid-19 can likely be explained by the biology of those malignancies. Blood cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma arise when immune cells fail to function as they should, so impaired defenses could open the door to a viral infection. While Covid-19 ultimately affects multiple organ systems in the body, it is primarily a pulmonary disease attacking the lungs, so lungs damaged by cancer would be more vulnerable to Covid-19.

The amount of time since cancer diagnosis may contribute to risk of infection because people with lower immunity beginning cancer treatment have more potential exposures than other cancer patients. Newer cancer patients might see more people in hospitals or doctors’ offices, especially health care workers during the pandemic’s first months, when PPE was not recognized as essential or wasn’t available.

The reasons why Black people with Covid-19 and cancer had a greater risk of being hospitalized — 55.6% for Black patients vs. 43.2% for white patients — are probably societal, Berger said, although the study was not able to discern those factors. Societal inequities have loomed as large as medical comorbidities since the pandemic began: lower income, less opportunity to work remotely, crowded housing, poorer access to health care.

The study did account for comorbidities that put people at higher risk for worse Covid-19 illness: obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma. When those factors were taken out of the equation, Black people still had a higher risk of being infected: 32.5% vs. 19.1% for white people.

Robert Carlson, chief executive officer of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, said he was surprised by how much more vulnerable cancer patients were to Covid-19, in contrast to reports from earlier in the pandemic suggesting there was no substantially greater risk.

“The part that doesn’t surprise me is the disparity in outcomes between African Americans and whites,” said Carlson, who was not involved in the study. “We see that consistently across our health care system. The magnitude of the differences is pretty big. And it’s also consistent.”

A recent study reinforces the idea that racial disparities in Covid-19 stem from different levels of exposure to the virus. Gbenga Ogedegbe, the director of the division of health and behavior at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, led a study analyzing the health records of nearly 12,000 patients admitted to NYU’s Langone Health system during the March pandemic surge. That research, published Dec. 4 in JAMA Network Open, found that Black people had higher rates of infection and hospitalizations but in-hospital death rates were lower or comparable to those in white people. Death rates outside hospitals are disproportionately higher among Black people.

“The higher rates of mortality in Blacks are not due to inherent immunity or biology or comorbidity like cancer but due to exposure and other factors driven by structural inequities,” Ogedegbe said about the new paper based on national data, saying it confirmed his research and other studies. He was not involved in the new paper.

“The disparities noted are driven by exposure, access to care, and other social deprivation factors that are pervasive in Black communities,” he said. “I might add that this unfortunate Covid-19 pandemic has again revealed what we have known for a while: that your ZIP code is a better predictor of your life expectancy than your genetic code.”

Using the AI tool IBM Watson Health Explorys to parse electronic health records allowed the Case Western researchers to cast a wider net and include people who may not be seen in more traditional clinical trials, Berger pointed out.

“I don’t know if this is systemic racism, but part of the problem of doing clinical studies in this country is that studies are usually underpowered for underrepresented [groups] that for one reason or another, they’re not being included,” Berger said. “So when you’re talking about 73 million patients, you’re talking about a lot of underrepresented minorities.”

Carslon praised the speed of the AI analysis bringing these results to light now.

“I think we are quite frustrated by the lack of urgency in terms of addressing disparities,” he said, suggesting the pandemic could be “a tipping point, the crucial moment in history where perhaps we can start addressing this in a meaningful way.”

For now, Berger suggests doctors treating cancer should redouble their efforts to limit patients’ exposures to potentially infectious people in waiting rooms and consider oral medications that can be taken at home as opposed to drugs that must be infused in hospitals or clinics.

Doctors also urge patients to seek medical care for themselves or their children without delay, noting safety measures now in place prevent infection in doctors’ offices and hospitals.

Berger has one other piece of advice:

“Everybody should get vaccinated.”

That could be particularly important for cancer patients. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, among others, recommends vaccination against Covid-19. “Although cancer treatment may reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, we believe the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and could offer important protection for cancer patients, who may be at higher risk for complications from Covid-19.”

by **admin** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:00 am

‘We want them infected’: Trump appointee demanded ‘herd immunity’ strategy, emails reveal
Then-HHS science adviser Paul Alexander called for millions of Americans to be infected as means of fighting Covid-19.
by Dan Diamond
Politico
12/16/2020 12:10 PM EST
Updated: 12/16/2020 01:22 PM EST

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

A top Trump appointee repeatedly urged top health officials to adopt a "herd immunity" approach to Covid-19 and allow millions of Americans to be infected by the virus, according to internal emails obtained by a House watchdog and shared with POLITICO.

“There is no other way, we need to establish herd, and it only comes about allowing the non-high risk groups expose themselves to the virus. PERIOD," then-science adviser Paul Alexander wrote on July 4 to his boss, Health and Human Services assistant secretary for public affairs Michael Caputo, and six other senior officials.

"Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…" Alexander added.

"[I]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected" in order to get "natural immunity…natural exposure," Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials. Caputo subsequently asked Alexander to research the idea, according to emails obtained by the House Oversight Committee's select subcommittee on coronavirus.

Alexander also argued that colleges should stay open to allow Covid-19 infections to spread, lamenting in a July 27 email to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield that “we essentially took off the battlefield the most potent weapon we had...younger healthy people, children, teens, young people who we needed to fastly [sic] infect themselves, spread it around, develop immunity, and help stop the spread.”

Alexander was a top deputy of Caputo, who was personally installed by President Donald Trump in April to lead the health department's communications efforts. Officials told POLITICO that they believed that when Alexander made recommendations, he had the backing of the White House.

“It was understood that he spoke for Michael Caputo, who spoke for the White House,” said Kyle McGowan, a Trump appointee who was CDC chief of staff before leaving this summer. “That’s how they wanted it to be perceived.”

Senior Trump officials have repeatedly denied that herd immunity — a concept advocated by some conservatives as a tactic to control Covid-19 by deliberately exposing less vulnerable populations in hopes of re-opening the economy — was under consideration or shaped the White House's approach to the pandemic. “Herd immunity is not the strategy of the U.S. government with regard to coronavirus," HHS Secretary Alex Azar testified in a hearing before the House coronavirus subcommittee on Oct. 2.

In his emails, Alexander also spent months attacking government scientists and pushing to shape official statements to be more favorable to President Donald Trump.

For instance, Alexander acknowledges in a May 30 email that a draft statement from the CDC about how Covid-19 was disproportionately affecting minority populations was "very accurate," but he warned HHS and CDC communications officials that "in this election cycle that is the kind of statement coming from CDC that the media and Democrat [sic] antagonists will use against the president." The problems were "due to decades of democrat neglect," Alexander alleged.

Alexander also appeared to acknowledge that the White House's own push to let states wind down their Covid-19 restrictions was leading to a spike in cases.

"There is a rise in cases due to testing and also simultaneously due to the relaxing of restrictions, less social distancing," Alexander wrote in a July 24 email. "We always knew as you relax and open up, cases will rise."

The emails represent an unusual window on the internal deliberations of the Trump administration, and the tensions between political appointees like Alexander — a part-time professor at a Canadian university — and staff members in health agencies. On Sept. 16, HHS announced that Alexander would be leaving the department, just days after POLITICO first reported on his efforts to shape the CDC's famed Morbidity and Mortality and Weekly Reports and pressure government scientist Anthony Fauci from speaking about the risks of Covid-19 to children.

In a statement, an HHS spokesperson said that Alexander’s demands for herd immunity “absolutely did not” shape department strategy.

“Dr. Paul Alexander previously served as a temporary Senior Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and is no longer employed at the Department,” the spokesperson said.

Alexander did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Caputo, who took medical leave the same day that Alexander left the department, has referred previous inquiries to HHS.

Public health experts have decried calls to deliberately infect younger, healthier Americans with Covid-19, saying that it would unnecessarily put millions of people at risk of long-term complications and even death. “We certainly are not wanting to wait back and just let people get infected so that you can develop herd immunity. That's certainly not my approach,” Fauci said in September.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), who chairs the coronavirus subcommittee, said in a statement that the documents "show a pernicious pattern of political interference by Administration officials."

"As the virus spread through the country, these officials callously wrote, 'who cares' and 'we want them infected,'" Clyburn added. "They privately admitted they ‘always knew’ the President’s policies would cause a ‘rise’ in cases, and they plotted to blame the spread of the virus on career scientists."

Clyburn said that the documents — which the Trump administration only released to his subcommittee after the election, more than two months after his probe began — underscore why HHS must cooperate with his investigation and that CDC Director Redfield must appear for an interview about an email that he allegedly told staff to delete. Otherwise, "I will be forced to start issuing subpoenas," Clyburn said.

The email cache provided a real-time look at the administration’s deliberations as the Covid-19 crisis first began to rebound during the summer.

"So the bottom line is if it is more infectiouness [sic] now, the issue is who cares?" Alexander wrote in a July 3 email to the health department's top communications officials. "If it is causing more cases in young, my word is who cares…as long as we make sensible decisions, and protect the elderely [sic] and nursing homes, we must go on with life….who cares if we test more and get more positive tests."

"How can this be researched and proven true or false?" Caputo asked Alexander in one July 25 email exchange, after Alexander had emailed Hahn and nine top communications officials across HHS and FDA about the value of herd immunity.

Alexander wrote back with data that he said he'd pulled from several studies, including a link to a June 30 Quanta Magazine article about the "tricky math" of herd immunity.

"I did not want to look like a nut ball and if as they think and as I think this may be true ... several hard hit areas may have hit heard [sic] at 20% like NYC," Alexander added. "[T]hat's my argument….why not consider it?"

The health department has worked to distance itself from Alexander since his mid-September departure, and several Trump appointees said that Alexander was often isolated during his roughly six-month stint advising department officials.

“His rants had zero impact on policy and communications,” a senior administration official insisted. “Caputo enabled him to opine, but people pushed back and it even got to a point where Caputo told him to stop sending the emails.”

But McGowan, the former CDC chief of staff, said that Alexander was effective at delaying the famed Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and watering down guidance that came from his agency.

“He absolutely put pressure on the CDC on different guidance documents, on MMWRs,” McGowan said. “He wanted to change MMWRs that were already posted, which is just outrageous.”

While McGowan said that even though agency officials fended off Alexander’s demands to edit the morbidity and mortality reports, “it’s the type of political meddling that delayed guidance, delayed MMWRs from getting them out as quickly as possible to be effective,” McGowan added.

FILED UNDER: HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL,

by **admin** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 2:05 am

‘Powerful vaccine in itself’: Trump says it’s ‘terrific’ that nearly 15 per cent of Americans got Covid
Daily death toll across US has exceeded 2,000 in recent days
by Louise Hall
Independent.co.uk
Wednesday 09 December 2020 13:55

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

Donald Trump has said it is “terrific” that nearly 15 per cent of Americans have contracted the coronavirus since the outbreak began in the US, citing the “powerful vaccine" of herd immunity.

During an Operation Warp Speed Vaccine Summit on Tuesday, Mr Trump was asked how Americans in areas with surging cases should protect themselves over Christmas ahead of the likely distribution of a vaccine.

In response, Mr Trump deferred to the Centres for Disease Control guidelines before citing growing immunity in the population as a result of the virus’ virulent spread throughout the country.

“Plus, you do have an immunity. You develop immunity over a period of time, and I hear we’re close to 15 per cent. I’m hearing that, and that is terrific,” Mr Trump said.

“That’s a very powerful vaccine in itself. And just tremendous progress has been made.”

The comments come as the country struggles with a resurgence of the virus, with record infections and a daily death toll that has exceeded 2,000 in recent days.

In total, more than 15 million Americans have been infected with the virus since the pandemic gripped the US in March, leading to the deaths of over 286,000 people.

Last week, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) predicted that a total of half a million people will have lost their lives by 1 April as a result of the disease.

In October, the head of the World Health Organisation (WHO) said it would be “unethical” to establish widespread immunity within a population by allowing the virus to spread and infect people.

"Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it," WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.

During the conference, Mr Trump celebrated the expected approval of the first US vaccine, branding it a “miracle” while praising his administration’s effort for its production and distribution.

The US Food and Drug Administration made research data public for the first time that showed the vaccine was found to be strongly protective against Covid-19, making the approval of the shot seem likely and imminent.

If the vaccine is approved, the first recipients would be health care workers and nursing home residents, according to plans laid out by each state.

President-elect Joe Biden has told Americans that he will oversee the distribution of 100 million vaccinations in his first 100 days as president, but only if the Trump administration cooperates.

In the speech on Tuesday, Mr Biden outlined his immediate plans for his first term in office, including the reopening of most of the nation's schools and a mask-wearing mandate.

“Masking, vaccination, opening schools, these are the three key goals for my first 100 days,” he said.

by **admin** » Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:38 am

Here’s how the Trump administration crushed the C.D.C., according to two who were there.
by Noah Weiland
New York Times
Dec. 16, 2020
Updated 9:08 a.m. ET

Kyle McGowan, a former C.D.C. chief of staff, outside his home in Roswell, Ga., this month. He and his deputy have gone public with their disillusionment.
Audra Melton for The New York Times

Kyle McGowan, a former chief of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his deputy, Amanda Campbell, were installed in 2018 as two of the youngest political appointees in the history of the world’s premier public health agency, young Republicans returning to their native Georgia to dream jobs.

But what they witnessed during the coronavirus pandemic this year in the C.D.C.’s leadership suite shook them: Washington’s dismissal of science, the White House’s slow suffocation of the agency’s voice, the meddling in its messages and the siphoning of its budget.

In interviews this fall, the pair decided to go public with their disillusionment.

“Everyone wants to describe the day that the light switch flipped and the C.D.C. was sidelined. It didn’t happen that way,” Mr. McGowan said. “It was more of like a hand grasping something, and it slowly closes, closes, closes, closes until you realize that, middle of the summer, it has a complete grasp on everything at the C.D.C.”

Last week, the editor in chief of the C.D.C.’s flagship weekly disease outbreak reports — once considered untouchable — told House Democrats investigating political interference in the agency’s work that she was ordered to destroy an email showing Trump appointees attempting to meddle with their publication.

The same day, the outlines of the C.D.C.’s future took more shape when President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced a slate of health nominees, including Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the chief of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, as the agency’s new director, a move generally greeted with enthusiasm by public health experts.

“We are ready to combat this virus with science and facts,” she wrote on Twitter.

Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell — who left the C.D.C. together in August — said that mantra was what was most needed after a brutal year that left the agency’s authority crippled.

One of Ms. Campbell’s responsibilities was helping clear the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, a widely followed and otherwise apolitical guide on infectious disease renowned in the medical community. Over the summer, political appointees at the health department repeatedly asked C.D.C. officials to revise, delay and even scuttle drafts they thought could be viewed, by implication, as criticism of President Trump.

Often, Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell mediated between Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the C.D.C. director, and agency scientists when the White House’s requests and dictates would arrive: edits from Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, and Kellyanne Conway, the former White House adviser, on choirs and communion in faith communities, or suggestions from Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and aide, on schools.

“Every time that the science clashed with the messaging, messaging won,” Mr. McGowan said.

A HAUNTING ARTIFACT: Mr. McGowan has held on to the email thread from Dec. 31, 2019, about a “cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China.”

Noah Weiland is a reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times, covering health care. He was raised in East Lansing, Michigan and graduated from the University of Chicago. @noahweiland

Altruistic World Online Library

U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at cent

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Re: U.S. government gave $3.7 million grant to Wuhan lab at

Who is online