How Covid-19 Spreads. The Effect Of Lockdowns.

Here's a chart of the new COVID cases in the various states relative to the population over the past 7 days. The darker the color, the greater the number. The geographic distribution is striking. The history of the virus activity since March is one of moving from one area of the country to another, first the Northeast, then the South and West, and now the Mid-West and Mountain states. The only exception is New Mexico which initially escaped the involvement in the Southwest, but now has more intense infection.

What explains this? Why, as the virus spreads from one area to the next, doesn't it simply persist and grow worse in the new site. Why does it appear to die away and move on? I like the explanation that in every community there is variation in susceptibility so that when it enters there is a large outbreak followed by a dying down as the virus encounters more resistant individuals. To be sure this is the usual behavior of epidemic illnesses. There is considerable scientific justification for this idea. It's becoming increasingly clear from studies of T cell reactivity to the virus that resistance is much more prevalent than previously thought and may be seen even before any possible previous exposure, perhaps from contact with other common coronaviruses. T cells are recruited against the virus invaders early on, often before antibodies appear and probably confer much longer lasting immunity than is suggested by antibody presence. Some of this might begin to explain the puzzling low incidence of infection in children and the likelihood of only mild symptoms in younger individuals.

This new understanding suggests that lockdowns in rapidly worsening areas may be necessary early on to prevent overwhelming of the medical facilities, but if continued beyond that may be a setup for recurrences. As social interaction resumes the virus encounters individuals previously unexposed and susceptible and surges, as we saw recently happening in Europe and some Northeastern states. Consistent with this idea is that cases now seem to be leveling off or declining in most of these areas. Considering all of this, as some experts contend, should our public health strategy be to concentrate our preventive efforts and vaccine administration when available to those at high risk and otherwise allow more general immunity to develop, and at the same time avoiding the many serious consequences of intense societal lockdowns.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Do Masks Give Protection. A New Negative Study.

To mask or not to mask. That is the scientific question. Early on in the infection we were told by both the WHO and Dr. Fauci that masks did not help and had some negative effects, including giving a false sense of security and encouraging facial touching. There has now been a complete 180 such that not only are the 2 authorities mentioned above advising masks but CDC head, Dr. Robert Redfield, said in September that masks are a more effective tool than a vaccine. At this point various state authorities, citing "the science" have gone whole hog and are requiring mask wearing indoors on Thanksgiving, and also while eating, carefully lowering the mask between bites.

 

But what about "the science"? Well, up until now there has been precious little to support an almost puritanical trust in masking as a major key to controlling our modern-day plague. The number of supporting studies are few, and all of the observational variety, the type that was disparaged as being of little value in the great hydroxychloroquine debate.

 

But now we have an honest to goodness randomized controlled trial on the subject, the first of this type to be done, from Denmark, carried out in the spring and eventually published only a couple of days ago in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study randomized 2 large groups of people, one of which wore no masks, and the other of which was given a large supply of surgical masks and was asked to wear them full time, and then the number of subsequent infections in the two groups was observed. There was no meaningful difference.

 

This finding does not sit well with the authorities in academic medical circles as reflected in 2 accompanying editorials commenting on the findings, and nevertheless recommending continued universal mask wearing. Some points are well taken, such as that the study was conducted during a time when there was as yet little mask wearing in the community so that perhaps it might not apply where there was general mask wearing. On the other hand, the mask-wearing group in this study was given a large supply of high quality surgical masks which were not reused and was carefully instructed in the proper technique of mask use, such as avoiding touching them when putting them on and off and many other precautions which are not followed at all in the general mask wearing we presently see around us.

 

The negative findings in this study are buttressed by a study of about 300 patients by the CDC in July which found that extended mask wearing seemed to give little protection from contracting the disease.  Indeed, the common experience of a rising number of cases in areas where there is a fairly high amount of mask wearing suggests the same conclusion. It should be pointed out that the new Danish study says nothing about the question of whether masks prevent an infected person from passing on the germ, but just that evidence for a protective function in those wearing them is weak.

 

A major problem with this issue, like everything connected to the epidemic, is that it has become political. Mr. Trump early on eschewed mask usage seeing that he and everyone around him was being tested regularly, so that mask wearing has become to some extent symbolic of one's political feelings. Mr. Biden has made it a fetish, a reflection of his earnestness in his contention that Mr. Trump bears the responsibility for our troubles. Personally, I'm somewhat neutral. I don't like wearing a mask, and I have plenty of company there, and I think that the appearance of everyone walking around wearing a mask is strangely inhuman. On the other hand, I carry one in my pocket and put it on when the sign says to do it, which is almost everywhere. At the same time, I couldn't disagree more with Dr. Redfield that general mask wearing will prove to be more helpful than the new vaccines waiting in the wings.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Biden Administration's Insipid Ideas For Coronavirus.

Dr. Atul Gawande, a reliable liberal who will be a Biden advisor, thinks the key to control will be mask wearing. What? Does Dr Gawande not know that 34 states, especially those with the most viral activity,  presently have mask-wearing mandates. Furthermore, in southwest Florida where I am at present, and which does not have a mask mandate, there's not a single business establishment you can enter without a mask. Masks are everywhere, with many wearing them on the street, alone in their car, and running in the park. If masks are the answer, how is it then that the virus is increasing, and more so in the states with the mask mandates?

Here's what Dr. Videk Murthy, Co-chair of Mr. Biden's advisory team describes as their plan: "(it) involves expanding testing capacity, increasing contact tracing, ramping up the production of personal protective equipment, and issuing guidance." Is this insipid list the answer to our problem that somehow escaped the notice of President Trump?

Dr. Murthy said in an interview that Mr. Biden does not want to have a national lockdown after all but that. "the way we should be thinking about this is more like a series of restrictions that we dial up or down depending on how bad spread is taking place in a specific region," 

So I guess the idea is that now the federal bureaucracy is going to decide on high what we out here in podunk are to do and how we are to do it, instead of the state and local governments who know the situation on the ground.

This is all so dumb, dumb, dumb. Assuming the legal challenges to the election results don't manage to succeed, (and I fervently hope and pray that they do), it looks as if we've decided to put in charge of the problem a whole new bureaucracy with less experience, no new ideas, and a leader who's never accomplished anything in the real world

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Recent Coronavirus Statistics. Is President Trump To Blame?

Joe Biden in the campaign held the President responsible for the deaths of 200,000 Americans. Biden supporters agreed, complaining that Mr. Trump's laxity in addressing the coronavirus problem was evident, considering the better results in the rest of the advanced countries.

But the counting isn't over yet folks. Let's look at some recent statistics:

In the U.S. cases are indeed rising moderately but significantly. Of course, as we all are aware, the case count is not the important statistic, and far more telling is the hospitalization rate, and even more important the death rate. Even the death count is a problem since we have precious little information about what associated conditions were also affecting the deceased. However, accepting the death count at face value, not just cases but also deaths in the U.S. are rising modestly over the past 3 weeks.

But how about all the other countries which liberals hold up as models of effective government action and centrally controlled medical systems. Well here are a bunch of countries where the case rate and death rate is rising faster than in the U.S.: U.K., Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and – you get the picture. And, Oh yes, I left out the bestest of the best, Canada. You might notice one European country missing – Sweden, the pariah which ignored all the experts and did not do the forced lockdown and mask wearing. Their cases are rising with all the others. It's hard to avoid since people have increasingly been moving around Europe. Early on they appeared to be paying a price for their renegade strategy, but, unlike the other European countries their death rate over the past 2 months or so is remarkably low, including at present. Over the past 5 days Sweden reports 34 deaths, whereas Italy, which had undergone a very strict lockdown, reports 2,315 over the same period. Italy's population is 6 times that of Sweden, but you do the math. There is a lesson there I think but time will tell.

Looking at the U.S. more specifically, we have somewhat of a mixed bag. The major viral activity began in the New York Metro area, later migrated into the South and has now migrated into the Mid-West and Mountain States. By comparison in Florida, Texas and California the case counts are going up a bit, but the death trend is either stable or continuing down. Perhaps not surprisingly, as they relaxed a bit from their previous more strict lockdowns, there's a recurrence in the Northeast. And guess which Northeast state is having the biggest recurrence, in both cases and deaths, relative to population. None other than New York, the leadership of which has previously been held up as a model of success.

All this is not being said to minimize the severe impact of this epidemic, particularly in older people with chronic illness. Far from it. The illness is continuing to impact the lives of millions, interestingly predominantly in the more advanced Western countries. But the present statistics strongly point out that the charge that the President's response to the virus was lacking and worsened the situation in the U.S. is absolute nonsense. In fact, if one reviews the totality of his actions, which space will not allow, he did a very good job and has saved lives accordingly.

Were mistakes made in the midst of this unexpected, unknown and totally unpredictable situation? Of course they were. On Mr. Trump's part he was guilty of wishful thinking early on, but this feeling did not reflect in his many strong, forceful actions such as one would expect in a man used to solving problems.

But significant mistakes and misjudgments were made by many of our authority figures, including the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, Dr Fauci, and many of the President's political critics such as Speaker Pelosi and Mayor DeBlasio. And who can forget the colossal nursing home error of Governor Cuomo.

In the end President Xi Jinping has taken his revenge on Mr. Trump whose dramatically good economic results were turned to ashes by the Chinese originated virus. The infection has been a giant political gift to the Democrats and they have milked it for all it's worth. In their defense, what they've done is similar to what the Republicans most certainly would have done had it happened during the Obama administration. I can't excuse the major media so lightly. In this crisis they have totally failed us.

By the way, anyone who wants to take the trouble to investigate all this data can find it primarily at:

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=coronavirus+trends&cvid=e01e34b607294eb1a2cdc3c29fd954cf&FORM=ANSPA1&PC=U531

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Facebook Should Not Be A Censor

I just saw a video on Facebook sent by a friend which was commentary by a doctor with pretty good credentials who was making a fairly shocking, but at the same time informational, critique of the new Pfizer vaccine and coronavirus vaccines in general.

When you open the file you must first look at a screen from Facebook stating that the information in the video is false and referring you to a fact check organization. Then you are allowed to open it.

 

Don't the Facebook developers see how destructive this practice is, how it immediately irritates people who want to think for themselves, and in fact enhances the credibility of the video by suggesting that they are trying to hide it? Don't they understand that they are expected to be a forum for open communication and not a regulator of what we see and think?

 

I would have no problem with the Facebook people, if they feel the information is false, recruiting another expert to provide in the comment area an opposing commentary on the post or who might direct readers through a link to an alternative video from another expert rebutting the information, and let us decide for ourselves.

 

If those who run Facebook, and the other social media sites, don't understand that many of us are not particularly interested in their point of view and that in this free country, whose survival depends on the free flow of information and open debate, then they need to have serious competition and perhaps consideration of antitrust action or at least removal of any government protection they might presently enjoy.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10