(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
Here’s the link to the story in NPR. It provides many details on the study and the Administration’s flawed attempt to cite it as a reason for the US developing its own test. The conclusion they drew is that the reasons why the study was retracted have not been revealed. According to the NPR:
Without access to the paper, nobody can assess the value of the work or determine whether it suffers from a scientific flaw. It’s also unknown if the paper was retracted for political reasons. That’s a possibility, though it was retracted well before U.S. officials started citing it in public in a way that disparaged the Chinese coronavirus test.
The study cited a 47% positivity rate in asymptomatic close contacts of ill patients. This number may well be accurate, although since the retraction, we cannot rely upon it. The revelation that asymptomatic people can carry and transmit the virus in a quarter to a third of cases puts this in perspective. The possibility is that many positive-tested patients are asymptomatic, and in this perspective, a 47% number is not so questionable.
The study may have been retracted for political reasons, namely the Chinese government’s attempts to cover up the fact that they have not included asymptomatic positive-testing people in their case counts. As of today, the Chinese will start to include such patients in their case counts. When they announced the coming change, they revealed that roughly 1,500 people were currently in quarantine for positive tests but lacking in symptoms (roughly a third of the total under isolation).
So it’s speculation, but I say that it’s possible that the retraction was not due to scientific inaccuracy, but for the way it made the Chinese government “look bad” or made them lose face. The Chinese are extremely sensitive, and they have an enveloping censorship that makes the true facts very hard to ascertain. The epidemic in China may have been much worse than they were willing to admit, and it may be continuing despite their best efforts.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
The details: the impeachment trial’s pre-ordained conclusion occurred on February 5, 2020. The first known patient with COVID-19 arrived in the US on January 15 and was hospitalized on January 19-20. Details of his case were published in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) on January 31. Briefings for the *president on the threat of the new virus had already been held.
Himself was holding rallies and golfing thru-out the month of February and into March. He visited Mar-a-Lago repeatedly and met with officials from Brazil (after which multiple members of the Brazilian delegation turned out to be positive for the new virus). He was calling the virus a “Democratic hoax” all along. This is at the same time that he was getting regular briefings on the advance of the virus in the US.
After impeachment was over, he pivoted towards retaliating against those who dared to come forward and testify to his corrupt actions. He kicked Alexander Vindman off the NSC (National Security Council). He threw Vindman’s twin brother out (who had done nothing) at the same time.
George (“Mr. KellyAnne”) Conway pushed back on McConnell’s claims, according to IJR (Independent Journal Review):
Conway noted that the impeachment trial — which ended on Feb. 5 — was “over before it even started, thanks in large part to McConnell.”
Himself made his first tweet about COVID-19 on January 24, projected confidence, and made no mention of its spread to the US.
On February 29, the first US death from the new virus was reported. Himself had already banned travel from China on January 31 (after removing US nationals from the country) and reported new travel bans on the 29th. He boasted that the travel ban for China had been very effective.
All in all, multiple news outlets have contradicted the claim that impeachment was a distraction– or would have been for the average president. Clinton had made a good show of concentrating on actual business while he was being impeached. But Himself couldn’t concentrate on anything except the attack on his standing in government and its narcissistic threats to his self-image.
Long after impeachment was over, He held rallies, golfed, travelled, and raved about the new virus as a “Democratic hoax”. McConnell’s new claim is just an attempt to deflect blame for His tardy response towards the Democrat’s quixotic quest to remove the sociopathic, narcissistic solipsist who claims to be our leader.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
Blank Post: COVID Isolation Picture
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
(photo/image courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
The need is apparent for all people, not just those who are ill, to wear facemasks in public. The only question is where they will come from. I have seen news accounts of home-made masks being produced by, dare I say it, entrepreneurs. These would appear to be ideal for the general public rather than medical providers, since they don’t look standard and may not be particularly effective.
The original purpose of facemasks, as I see it, was to prevent a surgeon and his (in the old days, they were almost all male) assistants from contaminating the surgical incision and the patient’s insides with bacteria-laden spittle, beard hairs, and the like. They seem to have been highly effective as the surgical infection rate has been very low for many years. So why won’t they work for the general public?
The authorities may be fearful of people de-identifying themselves. Just a thought.
This (wearing masks) has been done in Asia for years already and doesn’t provoke any second glances in places like Hong Kong and Tokyo. They are doing it in Europe. It is time we started doing it too.
(Cat (Olive Oyl) looking in window. Wants to know when is dinnertime?)
A few questions I have after reading news reports on my iPhone ($30 a month, is it worth it to spend 4 hr a day reading the news?)…
First, what will happen to the newspapers? Advertising revenue has dried out, leaving those with subscription services like NYT as the only ones with any money coming in. Free newspapers are dead; no ventilators available to these once frequented hard copy sources. Local newspapers have been dying for years because of the shifts in revenue and aging out of those who like to read the paper with their morning coffee.
Second, where do some hospitals and those who own them come off telling employees that they can’t talk to reporters or make posts on Faceplant? Haven’t they heard of the First Amendment or are they just closet fascists? What is the difference between a capitalist and a closet fascist? Don’t they know that healthcare employees are much in demand right now, and if someone gets fired they can sue (someone has already)? Raising privacy issues is a non-starter– these people are not identifying or discussing individual patients. Their real objection is that they don’t want people to know that the medical system is under extreme stress and that personal protective equipment is in such short supply, there are none available for the general public.
I know you already have the answers to these questions. So do I, that is, I mean, these questions are rhetorical. Enough speculation, time to gather more data.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and Ri_Ya)
(image courtesy of pixabay.com and TheDigitalArtist)
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that an article in Science magazine (paywall, sorry) details current efforts to find out which people are most genetically susceptible to severe infections with the novel coronavirus.
Research efforts include looking at variations in gene coding for the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme on the outer surface of cells, that could affect how easily the coronavirus can enter targeted cells, as well as differences in the human leucocyte [sic] antigen genes that influence how the immune system responds to viruses, according to a report in Science magazine.
Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at the University of Helsinki’s Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, has led the International Covid-19 Host Genetics Initiative to gather genetic data from patients. The team compares patients with mild infections to those with severe cases. He said he expected the first susceptibility genes to be identified within a few months.
So far, we have found that those with Type A blood are more susceptible than those with Type O, according to another SCMP article. Type O is found in an average of 33% of people in the world, with type A at 25% and B at 27%. Only 6.5% have type AB. Chile, with type O at 86%, and Peru with 70%, are outliers in the world spectrum. Japan has about 40% type A. (Figures from babymed.com)
The fact that almost a third of infections are asymptomatic is surely a coincidence, despite the nearly identical 1/3 prevalence of type O across the world.
A rumor has been floating around that the high use of chloroquine for malaria prophylaxis in Africa has conferred protection from the pandemic there. This is dubious because the virus simply hasn’t found its way to Africa yet. Don’t believe anything you read that has not been adequately evaluated with a skeptical eye.
Conrad Theodore Seitz 