Report: Omicron is much more contagious - Discussion on severity (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

And yet its taking the good bouncers longer on average to clear the bar of the infection. Its not a good selling point. They might be beefed up, but they suck at their jobs when their time is called. 

???

I disagree with the bolded. The issue is not "sucking at their job", it's that Omicron BA.5  brings far more bikers to the bar than original Omicron, WAY more than Delta, and jillions more than older COVID variants/strains. Doesn't matter how much of a bad-#### your bouncers are, it's going to take them longer to throw out 1,000 guys than 50 guys.

A COVID infection getting a foothold by landing some virions in your nasal passages and commencing replication ... that's not a vaccine failure at that point. Not even the so-called "sterilizing immunity" vaccines act immediately. When some polio or measles virions gets onto/into your vaccinated body, they don't just instantly 'die'.

 

[Max Power]

???

I disagree with the bolded. The issue is not "sucking at their job", it's that Omicron BA.5  brings far more bikers to the bar than original Omicron, WAY more than Delta, and jillions more than older COVID variants/strains. Doesn't matter how much of a bad-#### your bouncers are, it's going to take them longer to throw out 1,000 guys than 50 guys.

A COVID infection getting a foothold by landing some virions in your nasal passages and commencing replication ... that's not a vaccine failure at that point. Not even the so-called "sterilizing immunity" vaccines act immediately. When some polio or measles virions gets onto/into your vaccinated body, they don't just instantly 'die'.

Its a comment on clearing the virus. It's taking the beefed up "better" bouncers longer to do it according to a recent study.  There is even a running joke in the FFA thread about who is taking the longest to clear the virus.  Those are vaccinated folks. 

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has demonstrated that people who are triple-vaccinated (boosted) against COVID recover significantly more slowly from COVID infection and remain contagious for longer than people who are not vaccinated at all.

The study did not deal with the severity of illness with or without a vaccine.

Researchers swabbed infected people and cultured the swabs, repeating the process for over two weeks until viral replication was not observed.

At five days post-infection, less than 25 percent of unvaccinated people were still contagious, whereas around 70 percent of boosted people were still carrying viable virus particles. For those partially vaccinated, around 50 percent were still contagious at this point.

Even more strikingly, at ten days post-infection, one-third of boosted people (31 percent) were found to still be carrying live, culturable virus. By contrast, just six percent of unvaccinated people were still contagious at day 10.

In other words, people who have received a booster shot are five times more likely still to be contagious at ten days post-infection than are unvaccinated people.

The findings go a long way to explaining why Paxlovid, Pfizer's anti-viral medication, is often not effective for people who have been vaccinated against COVID, with many experiencing a recurrence of symptoms along with a positive COVID test after completing the five-day regimen (as recently occurred with quadruple-vaccinated Dr. Anthony Fauci). This phenomenon is known as COVID rebound.

New study: COVID booster significantly delays end of infection | Israel National News - Arutz Sheva

 

[LawFitz]

Its a comment on clearing the virus. It's taking the beefed up "better" bouncers longer to do it according to a recent study.  There is even a running joke in the FFA thread about who is taking the longest to clear the virus.  Those are vaccinated folks. 

Wow. Remember when this was conspiracy theory and disinformation. 

 

[Doug B]

I know you'll consider this a cop-out, but I'm not going to take that source's word for it.  For a few reasons:

1) One study. Like all individual studies, it would need replication and corroboration.
2) No information about the study at all. No researchers' names, no link to research material, no link to the NEJM article, no information about when data was collected or what variant was in play. Nothing.
3) Any article so devoid of detail that whips out the "New England Journal of Medicine!" or "Lancet! or something like that ... that's a giant red flag If you've got the goods, show them and let readers inspect them.

 

[Max Power]

I know you'll consider this a cop-out, but I'm not going to take that source's word for it.  For a few reasons:

1) One study. Like all individual studies, it would need replication and corroboration.
2) No information about the study at all. No researchers' names, no link to research material, no link to the NEJM article, no information about when data was collected or what variant was in play. Nothing.
3) Any article so devoid of detail that whips out the "New England Journal of Medicine!" or "Lancet! or something like that ... that's a giant red flag If you've got the goods, show them and let readers inspect them.

Is there a recent study showing the unvaccinated are testing positive and remaining contagious longer then the vaccinated?

It shouldn't be taking vaccinated people two weeks to clear covid and we're trying to call that an improvement. 

 

[Doug B]

Is there a recent study showing the unvaccinated are testing positive and remaining contagious longer then the vaccinated?

I don't know. I've been searching for such a study in good faith because if there is something concrete here, I'd like to know. After several keyword searches came up empty, I went to the NEJM's COVID Vaccine Resource Center page itself and combed through that. Nothing's turned up yet going back to late April 2022.

It shouldn't be taking vaccinated people two weeks to clear covid and we're trying to call that an improvement. 

1) Is that two weeks an average, or typical? What do we know here?

2) Even if two weeks is the average, and is typical ... why shouldn't it take that long to clear? What are the underlying principles that inform that statement? Remember, don't conflate "testing positive" with "infirm".

 

[Max Power]

I don't know. I've been searching for such a study in good faith because if there is something concrete here, I'd like to know. After several keyword searches came up empty, I went to the NEJM's COVID Vaccine Resource Center page itself and combed through that. Nothing's turned up yet going back to late April 2022.

1) Is that two weeks an average, or typical? What do we know here?

2) Even if two weeks is the average, and is typical ... why shouldn't it take that long to clear? What are the underlying principles that inform that statement? Remember, don't conflate "testing positive" with "infirm".

I'll have to dive into the NEJM later as well as I agree with you that the news site not linking the study is unsatisfactory. 

For the duration of a positive... the CDC hasn't changed its recommendations of 5 days isolation and up to 10 with a mask. If infection is averaging longer the CDC should update this guidance as people dont always have the resources to continuously test.

Over the initial Omicron outbreak I saw most people I know get through the virus in a week. It clearly seems to be taking people longer to clear the recent strains.

Check out the reddit page r/covid19positive and you can see just how many people are testing positive on RAT for 10+ days.

I also haven't seen any data that shows getting additional boosters help reduce the duration of being infectious. There was a side note in a recent study that showed no difference in clearance timelines for a 2 shot person vs a 3 shot.

 

[Doug B]

I also haven't seen any data that shows getting additional boosters help reduce the duration of being infectious. There was a side note in a recent study that showed no difference in clearance timelines for a 2 shot person vs a 3 shot.

I don't see this as problematic at all. The third shot is not supposed to amplify previous shots -- it's supposed to give you a recent immune boost after some time has passed since your previous shot and prior immunity has been waning. Same as an annual flu shot.

Combine that with Omicron BA.4/5 replicating faster than BA.2, which was faster than BA.1, which was faster than Delta ... I think we're generally seeing in the (replicated and corroborated) data what we're supposed to be seeing.

 

[Max Power]

I don't see this as problematic at all. The third shot is not supposed to amplify previous shots -- it's supposed to give you a recent immune boost after some time has passed since your previous shot and prior immunity has been waning. Same as an annual flu shot.

Combine that with Omicron BA.4/5 replicating faster than BA.2, which was faster than BA.1, which was faster than Delta ... I think we're generally seeing in the (replicated and corroborated) data what we're supposed to be seeing.

I wasn't trying to highlight it as a problem, just something that I don't think can be sold as a benefit to getting a booster.  

If people want to get boosted, I'm all for it.  I just don't believe the data is there to support it for mass distribution. Funny to see Ontario Canada is coming around on this now. 

I'm really worried they will mandate a booster for the military and federal workers.  The mandate idea should be long dead by now, but it keeps popping its head up in my circles. 

 

[The Commish]

A good case can be made these variants are coming from vaccinated people as the virus learns how to stay alive in the vaccinated population by mutating to elude current protections. 

I'll say it for the billionth time...this is not how viruses work.  Viruses DO NOT have the capacity/ability of thought.

 

[Max Power]

I'll say it for the billionth time...this is not how viruses work.  Viruses DO NOT have the capacity/ability of thought.

You're right.  Thank you for correcting me on the accuracy of my wording. 

 

[[icon]]

Its a comment on clearing the virus. It's taking the beefed up "better" bouncers longer to do it according to a recent study.  There is even a running joke in the FFA thread about who is taking the longest to clear the virus.  Those are vaccinated folks. 

It's always struck me as entertaining how these fringe articles never actually link to the actual studies they quote. 

More than a few times I've found out why... after digging up the study itself, I found they had poorly misrepresented the data. I would probably not link my sources either, if I was doing that.  

 

[Battersbox]

I'll say it for the billionth time...this is not how viruses work.  Viruses DO NOT have the capacity/ability of thought.

Sure. But kind of pedantic. Upthread we were talking about viruses as if they were rowdy bikers and drunken hooligans because it helped elaborate a relevant point and nobody batted an eye. We all know viruses don't think, but they change/adapt and that's what he was talking about.

 

[Max Power]

It's always struck me as entertaining how these fringe articles never actually link to the actual studies they quote. 

More than a few times I've found out why... after digging up the study itself, I found they had poorly misrepresented the data. I would probably not link my sources either, if I was doing that. 

Yeah, I agree. I wish both the news and medical community as a whole wouldnt do that.

 

[Doug B]

More than a few times I've found out why... after digging up the study itself, I found they had poorly misrepresented the data. I would probably not link my sources either, if I was doing that.  

In addition: Fair or unfair, the Israeli popular media is very sensationalist and tabloid-ish. I always look for an alternate source if something is linked from an Israeli source. It's not always (or even usually) BS, but it's usually incomplete and/or sensationalized (e.g. the meat of the info is glossed over while a small barely-relevant bit is trumpeted).

 

[Dickies]

It might and I don't think we'll know until we see it in the real world.  What we don't have a reason to recommend healthy 18-49 years go get vaccinated again with a known risk for an unknown reward (if any reward).  

Now they have Paxlovid they can recommend after infection.  To me that takes the place of needing constant boosters that don't stop infection. 

Why are you pushing back against vaccine booster shots, but are seemingly okay with Paxlovid?

 

[Doug B]

We all know viruses don't think, but they change/adapt and that's what he was talking about.

They do change, but they don't adapt. It's a completely input-free, uninformed process. Essentially, viruses deal trillions of poker hands until they spit out four royal flushes in a row out of a one-deck shoe. 20 cards, 10-J-Q-K-A in each of the four suits. All in a row.

If that Quad-Royal Flush yields a genetic mutation that happens to change the spike protein in a way that makes that virion better able to evade a vaccine, then it is, by happenstance, advantaged and replicates in greater numbers than its cousins. Far more often, those Quad-Royal Flushes yield nothing in particular at all -- a mutation with no effect, the viral equivalent of brown vs hazel eyes.

The thing is, though ... the various COVID strains deal so, so many hands. And keep on dealing them.

 

[Battersbox]

They do change, but they don't adapt. It's a completely input-free, uninformed process. Essentially, viruses deal trillions of poker hands until they spit out four royal flushes in a row out of a one-deck shoe. 20 cards, 10-J-Q-K-A in each of the four suits. All in a row.

If that Quad-Royal Flush yields a genetic mutation that happens to change the spike protein in a way that makes that virion better able to evade a vaccine, then it is, by happenstance, advantaged and replicates in greater numbers than its cousins. Far more often, those Quad-Royal Flushes yield nothing in particular at all -- a mutation with no effect, the viral equivalent of brown vs hazel eyes.

The thing is, though ... the various COVID strains deal so, so many hands. And keep on dealing them.

I believe someone (maybe you?) likened viruses to water. They change in relation to the environment. Water flows where the environment allows it to flow easiest, but it doesn't mean it thinks. That comparison feels apt to me.

 

[Max Power]

Why are you pushing back against vaccine booster shots, but are seemingly okay with Paxlovid?

Paxlovid has a role. Its marketed and pushed as a covid treatment for some people who I don't think benefit from it though.

Ultimately the boosters are still being approved under an emergency use authorization even after the emergency is over for many age groups and we now have other treatment options. 

The benefit of the booster isnt there for me. I also find it concerning the FDA is willing to go straight to market with a BA4/5 formula that never goes through trials first.

 

[Doug B]

I also find it concerning the FDA is willing to go straight to market with a BA4/5 formula that never goes through trials first.

Proof of concept is in place, and IMHO the safety profile is more than sufficiently established. Slight changes to the mRNA (which, at the micro-level is basically nucleic-acid Legos, not trial-and-error). Why not put them on the same track as annual flu vaccines?

 

[The Commish]

Sure. But kind of pedantic. Upthread we were talking about viruses as if they were rowdy bikers and drunken hooligans because it helped elaborate a relevant point and nobody batted an eye. We all know viruses don't think, but they change/adapt and that's what he was talking about.

Wasn't in on that conversation...first time dipping my toes in the noise again and that was the first one I saw.  I don't know what that conversation was about you are referring to, but if it was a similar thought process, you'd be wrong too.  This comment is wrong even....change and adapt are two different things.  They DO change...they DON'T adapt.  Feel better?

 

[[icon]]

Proof of concept is in place, and IMHO the safety profile is more than sufficiently established. Slight changes to the mRNA (which, at the micro-level is basically nucleic-acid Legos, not trial-and-error). Why not put them on the same track as annual flu vaccines?

Because then the "But the vaccines (designed for strain 1) don't reduce risk of infection (vs strain 50) talking point goes away?  

 

[Max Power]

Proof of concept is in place, and IMHO the safety profile is more than sufficiently established. Slight changes to the mRNA (which, at the micro-level is basically nucleic-acid Legos, not trial-and-error). Why not put them on the same track as annual flu vaccines?

The VAERS data should be a caution flag. That's what the program was intended for. The reporting is quite substantial and not in the same ballpark of the flu shots. So I disagree with your safety profile assessment. Especially when this country (and others) have some unexplained excess mortality. Not saying it is the vaccine, but it cant be automatically ruled out either.

I don't know how complicated this micro level switch is, but it's taking big pharma 6-9 months to figure them out. 

All said, the reward for getting boosted is minimal. The first two or three shots protects against severe illness and hospitalization "very well" already. The standard for continuing to get boosters should be going up and not down.

 

[Doug B]

I don't know what that conversation was about you are referring to, but if it was a similar thought process, you'd be wrong too.

It was on the bottom of the previous page -- I posted that biker bar metaphor this morning. It was pushback against the idea that if vaccines don't stop infection, they don't do anything worthwhile.

 

[Max Power]

It was on the bottom of the previous page -- I posted that biker bar metaphor this morning. It was pushback against the idea that if vaccines don't stop infection, they don't do anything worthwhile.

It was more that the 4th one doesn't. If the only criteria for taking another one is an increased antibody response what's the end game ever?

 

[Doug B]

It was more that the 4th one doesn't. If the only criteria for taking another one is an increased antibody response what's the end game ever?

Again, flu vaccination

Why does there have to be an end game, anyway? Think of vaccination as a consumable. You put gas in your car, drive around a while, and then have to do it again. You eat breakfast, do some work or something, and then feel hungry for lunch.

In practice, where I think it will end up is a lot like flu vaccinations now. People will generally be exposed to COVID several (dozen?) times in their lives as little kids, teens, and young adults. There will be calls to get that annual COVID shot, but most under 40 won't bother, or at least not year-in-year-out.

Young adults will be like "Free COVID shots at work? Sure, why not. Make a trip somewhere, go out of my way? Nah."

But then, the calendar keeps rolling ... and you turn 50, then 60. You start going to the doctor more regularly for all kinds of this and that. And they start hammering on you "Look, you're not a kid anymore -- you need to stay on top of your COVID vax." You could still ignore it while elderly, sure, as plenty do with flu shots now. But many others will actually start taking up the COVID vaccine more and more regularly as they age.

And that's the almost-certain end game.

 

[The Commish]

It was on the bottom of the previous page -- I posted that biker bar metaphor this morning. It was pushback against the idea that if vaccines don't stop infection, they don't do anything worthwhile.

Well, I DID see that...an analogy to describe a mechanic <> misstating how a mechanic works.  Anyway, I think I've also made the point you did with the analogy about a billion times in these threads too.  Maybe you'll have better luck with the analogy angle instead of the boring, uncolorful explanations I provided  

At this point I have no idea what is to be discussed...either get the vaccine or don't.  I'm not sure there's anything I care less about anymore on this topic.  I guess some are still holding on for the day where a variant is completely uneffected by the vaccines created almost two years ago so they can have their "Ha, told you they don't work" moment?   

 

[Max Power]

Again, flu vaccination

Why does there have to be an end game, anyway? Think of vaccination as a consumable. You put gas in your car, drive around a while, and then have to do it again. You eat breakfast, do some work or something, and then feel hungry for lunch.

In practice, where I think it will end up is a lot like flu vaccinations now. People will generally be exposed to COVID several (dozen?) times in their lives as little kids, teens, and young adults. There will be calls to get that annual COVID shot, but most under 40 won't bother, or at least not year-in-year-out.

Young adults will be like "Free COVID shots at work? Sure, why not. Make a trip somewhere, go out of my way? Nah."

But then, the calendar keeps rolling ... and you turn 50, then 60. You start going to the doctor more regularly for all kinds of this and that. And they start hammering on you "Look, you're not a kid anymore -- you need to stay on top of your COVID vax." You could still ignore it while elderly, sure, as plenty do with flu shots now. But many others will actually start taking up the COVID vaccine more and more regularly as they age.

And that's the almost-certain end game.

The government has never mandated a flu vaccine.  People haven't been fired over them. Students haven't been removed from classrooms over them. People haven't been shunned by their relatives and peers over them. Hell this very forum had posters supporting segregating the unvaccinated from society. That's pretty ####ed up. So yeah, I'd like to see some sort of end game. 

 

[Max Power]

I don't know. I've been searching for such a study in good faith because if there is something concrete here, I'd like to know. After several keyword searches came up empty, I went to the NEJM's COVID Vaccine Resource Center page itself and combed through that. Nothing's turned up yet going back to late April 2022.

So this was the study they picked those numbers from 

Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection | NEJM

Figure 1, Panel E.  It was a very underpowered study.  

 

[Max Power]

mRNA-1273 or mRNA-Omicron boost in vaccinated macaques elicits similar B cell expansion, neutralizing responses, and protection from Omicron - PubMed (nih.gov)

The data from this study showed the omicron specific booster did not perform better than the original strain booster after the initial titers increase.  Researchers cited the possibility of original antigenic sin as a reason why.  Basically the body continues to make antibodies targeting the original strain and doesn't update for the new variant. 

 

[Max Power]

Pretty shocking numbers coming out of Manitoba Canada showing higher rates in hospitalization and death in the vaccinated.  Boosting does appear to help. 

Provincial COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza Surveillance | Health | Province of Manitoba (gov.mb.ca)

 

[LawFitz]

Pretty shocking numbers coming out of Manitoba Canada showing higher rates in hospitalization and death in the vaccinated.  Boosting does appear to help. 

Provincial COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza Surveillance | Health | Province of Manitoba (gov.mb.ca)

Not shocking.

 

[Max Power]

Not shocking.

More shocking the public health officials posted those numbers.  England used to post their numbers by vaccine status before they censored that data claiming the anti-vax crowd was using the raw numbers incorrectly. 

 

[Max Power]

UK set a daily record today for new covid cases. Pretty sure we're headed in that direction as well.

 

[Doug B]

UK set a daily record today for new covid cases. Pretty sure we're headed in that direction as well.

Where did you see that?

 

[Max Power]

Where did you see that?

John Campbell's new video 

https://youtu.be/iFgOeWhN8BQ

 

[Doug B]

Where did you see that?

John Campbell's new video 

https://youtu.be/iFgOeWhN8BQ

He doesn't source it, and he can't be the source.

Just can't do videos ... too much of this kind of stuff. Anyone can say anything, and since it's online, "it's true".

 

[Max Power]

He doesn't source it, and he can't be the source.

Just can't do videos ... too much of this kind of stuff. Anyone can say anything, and since it's online, "it's true".

Dr. Campbell is very reputable. He does source it in the description section. 

https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data

 

[LawFitz]

Dr. Campbell is very reputable. He does source it in the description section. 

https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data

Dr. Campbell used to be reputable. Then he started criticizing many of the Covid vax narratives and was added to the pariah list. Just FYI, as you will have source policing coming soon.

 

[Max Power]

Dr. Campbell used to be reputable. Then he started criticizing many of the Covid vax narratives and was added to the pariah list. Just FYI, as you will have source policing coming soon.

Damn you weren't kidding. From his wiki...

Initially, his videos received some praise, but some latter videos contain misinformation, such as the suggestion that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeated false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7] By January 2022, his videos had been viewed more than 429 million times.

 

[jobarules]

Dr. Campbell is very reputable. He does source it in the description section. 

https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data

Interesting 

It looks like it includes those who take at home tests and report it to that app.

 

[Doug B]

Dr. Campbell is very reputable. He does source it in the description section. 

https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data

Interesting 

It looks like it includes those who take at home tests and report it to that app.

It should be noted that the UK-only ZOE Health Study does not yield an actual case count -- and ZOE is above-board about it. Scroll about a third of the way down the linked page to the "People with COVID (estimated from the app)" section:

"4,599,624 people are currently predicted to have symptomatic COVID in the UK"

ZOE extrapolates an estimate based on the individual reports submitted to their site. This contrasts with case-count sources such as Worldometers and Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center which count cases verified by various medical systems around the U.S. and around the world. From that count, neither WM nor JH attempt an extrapolation (though you'll find some third-party experts recommending a simple multiplication to derive an estimate, usually in the range of 7x to 10x)

To be clear: both ZOE's and WM/JH's approaches are limited, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the ZOE Health Study's extrapolative approach. It's a lot like influenza modeling in the U.S. except that flu numbers are initially sampled from the U.S.'s disparate medical systems (as opposed to a cell-phone app or self-reported online). But:

IMHO, Campbell overstates when he says definitively that a new single-day UK case record was set recently. He has to qualify that heavily because ZOE's inputs are very unlike those of, say, the UK's NHS. Again IMHO, what Campbell should really be saying is that "based on ZOE's ground rules, ZOE's extrapolated cases are higher now than ever before". If he says that, he should further explain why more UK cases are extrapolated this week than at the peak of the winter 2021-22 Omicron spike.

One plausible reason, for example, could be that there are more ZOE inputs today than there were six months ago simply from a change in the number of app users. Perhaps there were 100,000 in January 2022, and (say) 1.2 million today as more people find out about ZOE. Such conditions would make comparing today's extrapolations to January 2022 extrapolations problematic.

 

[Doug B]

Dr. Campbell is very reputable.

Might just be my issue ... but whenever someone does a lot of videos and gets ignored by mainline scientific sources**, that's an immense credibility blow. I don't believe in "Information they don't want you to know, so I have to make videos to get the message out." Maverick scientific opinions are fine as a starting point for study, but such opinions are not persuasive to me without a critical mass of support within the field. And that support has to be gained the old fashioned way -- through experimentation, replication, corroboration, and consensus-building in the field. Not by collection of more opinions.

** and for these, stuff linked to the NIH.com's PubMed journal-indexing service, pre-print servers like medRxiv.org, and open-source document collection such Google Scholar are specifically excluded because there is no vetting of information.

 

[Max Power]

Might just be my issue ... but whenever someone does a lot of videos and gets ignored by mainline scientific sources**, that's an immense credibility blow. I don't believe in "Information they don't want you to know, so I have to make videos to get the message out." Maverick scientific opinions are fine as a starting point for study, but such opinions are not persuasive to me without a critical mass of support within the field. And that support has to be gained the old fashioned way -- through experimentation, replication, corroboration, and consensus-building in the field. Not by collection of more opinions.

** and for these, stuff linked to the NIH.com's PubMed journal-indexing service, pre-print servers like medRxiv.org, and open-source document collection such Google Scholar are specifically excluded because there is no vetting of information.

Have you watched a single John Campbell video? The guy was in the medical community for years and understands how to read medical studies. His videos are basically him reading medical reports and breaking them down so everyday people understand. His videos are actually pretty boring, but they are 100% based in factual reporting.

He is a pro vaccine person, but he has started coming around on the fact that bad policy has been pushed. I'd love to see what they call his Ivermectin misinformation. He isnt the type to offer his opinion often and keeps his reporting based on data. 

 

[Insein]

NY Health Commissioner admits to lying about pediatric Covid cases to "motivate" pediatricians into recommending the vac for kids. 

https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1548873705329156101?t=JURbCD65Ok2yRwDXziPAZA&s=19

 

[(HULK)]

NY Health Commissioner admits to lying about pediatric Covid cases to "motivate" pediatricians into recommending the vac for kids. 

https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1548873705329156101?t=JURbCD65Ok2yRwDXziPAZA&s=19

Did you watch the video? I did. I didn't see or hear her admitting to lying.

 

[Terminalxylem]

So this was the study they picked those numbers from 

Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection | NEJM

Figure 1, Panel E.  It was a very underpowered study.  

I don’t think you can conclude much from that study, and certainly not that double boosted people remained contagious longer or recovered more slowly from covid.

 There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status, although the sample size was quite small, which led to imprecision in the estimates 

In this longitudinal cohort of participants, most of whom had symptomatic, nonsevere Covid-19 infection, the viral decay kinetics were similar with omicron infection and delta infection. Although vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease, we did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted.

 

[Max Power]

I don’t think you can conclude much from that study, and certainly not that double boosted people remained contagious longer or recovered more slowly from covid.

It was a small number for sure, but the vaccinated on average did remain contagious for longer. I'm open to looking at another recent study on the topic.

 

[Insein]

Did you watch the video? I did. I didn't see or hear her admitting to lying.

The part where she said she manipulated a small sample size in order to get pediatricians to make it seems like a bigger problem so they would push the shot. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

It was a small number for sure, but the vaccinated on average did remain contagious for longer. I'm open to looking at another recent study on the topic.

The differences were not statistically significant. Completely ignoring issues with using NAATs as a proxy for contagion, a scientist would not use that as evidence to support a longer contagious period for vaxxed.