Up From Facebook

  One of the questions about the COVID-19 vaccines is whether they will provide durable immunity six months or more after the last vaccine. Indeed, some folks are already getting boosters. So far, the news appears to be good on the durability of vaccine protection: "Wherry’s group found that memory B cells generated by the mRNA vaccines made by Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. and its partner BioNTech SE appeared better at blocking virus variants including alpha, beta and delta, than those produced in response to a mild case of Covid-19. Additionally, high levels of vaccine-induced T cells, a type of white blood cell capable of finding and killing virus-infected cells, were detected after six months, “maintaining an additional armor to protect us,” Wherry said. The findings help to explain why immunization remains effective at protecting against severe Covid-19, hospitalization and death even as more break-through infections occur. “We’re seeing a drop in efficacy when you only measur...

  In the unceasing effort by the right to politicize and weaponize the COVID-19 pandemic, some politicians have seized on a recent paper from Israel claiming that natural infection provides better protection than two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Setting aside the orders of magnitude difference between COVID-19 deaths in unvaccinated vs vaccinated patients, which render the argument for infection-based herd immunity risible, there are two technical comments to be made: 1. In the Israeli study, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2. Sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these num...

  I've read some posts advocating that we deny hospital care to unvaccinated COVID-19 victims, or at least deny insurance coverage. What about other reckless and avoidable behaviors: the injured motorcyclist who wasn’t wearing a helmet or the injured driver who wasn't wearing a seat belt? the liver-transplant patient who abused alcohol or the cancer patient who smoked? the hurricane or wildfire victim who refused the call to evacuate? the junk-food eater who never exercised and now needs bypass surgery or becomes diabetic? the person who caught chlamydia or HIV during unprotected sex? Health care would be much less expensive if we withheld care/insurance from everyone whose poor judgement put them in a life-threatening situation. There are few of us who don’t contribute in some way to our health problems. If we withhold care from people who caused their own troubles, or rationing it through much higher medical bills, anti-vaxxers will have plenty of company.

  Here's a link to a good think piece about COVID-19 boosters. The money quote: “In short, diminished vaccine effectiveness does not make the case for boosters. A reduction in severe outcomes makes the case for boosters, but we have no such data to date.” Also too, this grabbed my attention: ". . . two people with knowledge of the FDA's deliberation told The Washington Post that the agency was investigating myocarditis signal with the Moderna vaccination. Canadian data suggest the risk may be 2.5 times that of Pfizer's vaccine." https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94188?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-08-25&eun=g1700464d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202021-08-25&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

  To follow up on the previous ivermectin post, here is a recent summary of the findings on ivermectin as an antiviral. While this article hedges carefully throughout most of the text, here's the money quote on ivermectin and COVID-19: "Notably, the clinical outcomes upon prescribing IVM on its own did not result in significantly improved outcomes for COVID-19 patients and nor should it be particularly encouraged." As they say, read the whole thing: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.663586/full?fbclid=IwAR0JtTFLonCXB6agyE7mYzmABaJtZDHAh1IkP9J2jX5BlPR00rrxcvRwsa8

  People are taking the deworming medication ivermectin for COVID-19. This is nuts. There isn't any scientific evidence that ivermectin is an effective antiviral. Don't believe anyone who claims they know of someone who was successfully treated for COVID-19 with ivermectin. They don't know what they're talking about. Here's what the FDA says: • FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses). • Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm. • If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed. • Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals a...

  One of the difficult things for the lay public and popular press to grasp is that science doesn't deal in proof. Science deals in facts and evidence. All scientific conclusions are provisional and subject to refinement or falsification by further experiment. Accordingly, the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic is the subject of scientific debate. There are certainly gaps in our knowledge, but we know enough about Sarbecovirus transmission to adopt the null hypothesis that SARS-C0V-2 was of zoonotic origin. The alternative hypothesis, that it originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is so far unsupported by the available evidence. While the Institute may not have been as forthcoming as some might wish, that isn't evidence of a lab origin. Here's the latest I've read on the topic of SARS-CoV-2 origins: “Overall, SARSr-CoV animal-to-human transmission associated with infected live animals is the most likely cause of the COVID19 pandem...