Coronavirus news

[James S. Rustad]

Got any ideas about how a dentist could require masks "during treatment"?

A dental dam?

[James S. Rustad]

So much for ever finding the root cause of the pandemic.

WHO abandons plans for crucial second phase of COVID-origins investigation
Sensitive studies in China were intended to pinpoint the source of the pandemic virus.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has learned.

Researchers say they are disappointed that the investigation isn't going ahead, because understanding how the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 first infected people is important for preventing future outbreaks. But without access to China, there is little that the WHO can do to advance the studies, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. "Their hands are really tied."

[Terry W Culler]

So much for ever finding the root cause of the pandemic.

WHO abandons plans for crucial second phase of COVID-origins investigation
Sensitive studies in China were intended to pinpoint the source of the pandemic virus.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing ongoing challenges over attempts to conduct crucial studies in China, Nature has learned.

Researchers say they are disappointed that the investigation isn't going ahead, because understanding how the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 first infected people is important for preventing future outbreaks. But without access to China, there is little that the WHO can do to advance the studies, says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. "Their hands are really tied."

Or maybe this hints at the root cause 

[James S. Rustad]

Facebook continues to censor articles critical of CDC.

Facebook Says Noting the CDC's Scientific Misrepresentations 'Could Mislead People'
The social media site slapped a warning on a column in which I criticized the CDC for exaggerating the evidence supporting mask mandates.

Facebook says my recent column about face masks is "missing context" and "could mislead people," based on an assessment by "independent fact checkers." That judgment and the analysis underlying it show how reflexive deference to government agencies distorts supposedly "independent" summaries of scientific evidence on controversial issues, especially issues related to COVID-19 control measures. When one of those agencies gets something wrong, criticism of its position is apt to be labeled "misleading" on social media platforms that strive to police COVID-19 "misinformation" at the government's behest, regardless of what the evidence actually shows.

My column summarized the results of January 30 Cochrane Library review that considered 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at measuring the effectiveness of surgical masks or N95 respirators at reducing the spread of respiratory viruses. Judging from those studies, the Cochrane review found, wearing a mask in public places "probably makes little or no difference" in the number of infections. The authors said that conclusion was based on "moderate-certainty evidence."

[Fletch1]

This article might be of interest.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/do-masks-work?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Excerpts:

On my way back from Turkey, and there's nothing quite like international travel to help put things into perspective. There are much bigger problems in this world right now than the mask debate.

Still, it would be tragic if people left the emergency thinking one of two extremes: "masks don't work" or "any mask works." Another pandemic will come, and we will need to be better and smarter. Hell, every winter, we could be smarter.

This post is to provide a sober perspective on the "story arc" of the science around masks—an attempt to communicate important nuances and provide clarity to a story that is not yet done.

The question

Everyone wants a one word answer to this question: Do masks work? But these three words strung together beg several loaded questions: What does "work" mean? What kind of mask? During what period of transmission? During what disease? In what social context?

All these questions and the answers are getting jumbled together for the public. This may be intentional (to make a point) or unintentional because people really want a simple answer to a complicated question.

Science has been moving at a lightning speed, and we've been discovering answers as we go.

<snip - there is much more material and data at the linked website>

Where are we going?

All of the aforementioned studies have limitations. Every single one. No study is perfect. This is normal. Because of that, we have holes in our knowledge and, as we fill them, evidence will continue to evolve.

We now have the time, data, and energy (maybe?) to understand why, where, and how well masks work, so we can be better and smarter next time.

Bottom line

The scientific "arc" of mask discovery is ongoing. Science is always evolving. Do not let anyone convince you of a one word answer to the question: Do masks work? It depends.

[Dan Fienen]

Do masks work? Sometimes in some situations. Do masks hurt? Sometimes in some situations. I had a member stop coming to church after we restarted in person worship because we obeyed the mask mandate and requested masking. He had respiratory problems and simply could not tolerate the masks. We were, at that time, posting links to recordings of the service on line and I visited him as a shut-in. Was it worth requesting masking even though that prevented a member from attending? (Note, it was not that he simply didn't like masks and refused to wear them, his medical condition prevented him from wearing them.) Perhaps. The jury is still out on how effective and necessary masks were at that stage of the pandemic.


There can be no blanket answer to the question of masking. It depends on the illness being combated, the situation, and the deleterious effects of masking. Perhaps given the state of knowledge at the time the mask mandates were effective and beneficial. What is important in any such discussion is information as accurate and complete as possible. There have been some indications that along the line, information was given to the public that was more limited than what was really known and slanted to producing the effect among people that was desired by officials. There have been suggestions that early on as we were first beginning to grapple with the pandemic it was stated to the public that masks were ineffective and unnecessary not because the data supported that conclusion but to prevent the public from buying up effective masks that were needed for medical personnel.


When there was vigorous public debate, there was a distinct tendency to oversell masks and downplay or even ignore the difficulties, especially among children of masks. Again, not fully informing people but rather doling out information so as to manipulate rather than inform people. This manipulation tends to destroy rather than foster trust in those that we should be able to turn to for information and advice and fuel conspiracy theories.


What doesn't help my trust level are news articles from various cities and agencies suggesting renewed masking mandates and public event restrictions because of continuing Covid concerns while we are also told that as far as the borders are concerned, the pandemic is over and Covid border restrictions should be dropped.


T

[JEdwards]

This article might be of interest.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/do-masks-work?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Thanks for sharing.  I think this is a nice, even-handed summary of what we have learned.

Peace,
Jon

[ghp]

Bottom line

The scientific "arc" of mask discovery is ongoing. Science is always evolving. Do not let anyone convince you of a one word answer to the question: Do masks work? It depends.

It's hard not to react cynically to something like this, after all the excoriation that happened because some dared to question things where "the science" had been "decided."


Perhaps it's in the difference between Science and "the science" 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Bottom line

The scientific "arc" of mask discovery is ongoing. Science is always evolving. Do not let anyone convince you of a one word answer to the question: Do masks work? It depends.

It's hard not to react cynically to something like this, after all the excoriation that happened because some dared to question things where "the science" had been "decided."


Perhaps it's in the difference between Science and "the science" 

I think it's the difference between actual scientists and bloggers and reporters.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

Do masks work? Sometimes in some situations. Do masks hurt? Sometimes in some situations.

The masking continuum....as best as I can construct it:

1) "I believe masks work--everyone must wear a mask"
2) "I'm not sure if masks work, but out of 'an abundance of caution' everyone must wear a mask"
3) "I believe masks work, I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
4) "I'm not sure if masks work, but out of an "abundance of caution' I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
5) "I don't believe masks work, I will wear a mask, you do what you want"
6) "I don't believe masks work, I won't wear a mask, you do what you want"
7) "I don't believe masks work, I won't wear a mask, and you shouldn't either"
8) "I don't believe in masks--nobody should wear a mask"

Other than Medicare reimbursed health care and long-term care facilities and an increasingly few performance venues and museums stuck at position # 2 most of the US appears to have progressed higher.

[James S. Rustad]

Bottom line

The scientific "arc" of mask discovery is ongoing. Science is always evolving. Do not let anyone convince you of a one word answer to the question: Do masks work? It depends.

It's hard not to react cynically to something like this, after all the excoriation that happened because some dared to question things where "the science" had been "decided."

Perhaps it's in the difference between Science and "the science" 

I think it's the difference between actual scientists and bloggers and reporters.

There's more to it.  Various government agencies (including the White House) pressured social media to not allow debate about masking.  The recent Facebook warnings on an article about the Cochrane Library review (posted previously in this thread) is just the latest example of the outcome.

[Dan Fienen]

The U. S. Department of Energy has released a report stating that that the Covid 19 epidemic most likely originated from a lab leak in Wuhan. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html The US intelligence community is still divided as to the origin of the pandemic. The lack of cooperation from China in investigating the origins hinders the investigation. That makes it less likely that we will ever come to a definitive conclusion and is somewhat suspicious but also par for the course with Red China.


While the intelligence community has not, and probably never will come to a definitive conclusion, it makes the early conclusion ruling out a lab leak as origin and labelling anyone who suggested that as a peddler of misinformation was premature at best. Early on there was a concerted effort to stop any discussion of the possibility of a lab leak as the point of origin and the denigrate anyone who suggested that as a theory.  How many additional deaths occurred because politics interfered with the response to Covid cannot be even guessed, but politics, from the American Right and Left, China, and elsewhere around the world (including at the WHO) certainly made a bad situation even worse.

[James S. Rustad]

So now Fauci says it wasn't his fault that people listened to his bad advice.

Anthony Fauci Says Don't Blame Him for COVID Lockdowns and School Closures
Fauci says public officials should have listened to other advisers and made better decisions. That's true! It's also incredibly frustrating.

[D. Engebretson]

So now Fauci says it wasn't his fault that people listened to his bad advice.

Anthony Fauci Says Don't Blame Him for COVID Lockdowns and School Closures
Fauci says public officials should have listened to other advisers and made better decisions. That's true! It's also incredibly frustrating.

So much is becoming clearer in the aftermath, but the author is correct about responsibility: "success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan".  Fauci is clearly concerned about his legacy.  And it's very easy to say after the fact: It wasn't my fault! They didn't have to take me that seriously!

I truly hope we come out of this having learned something should this happen again (and it will).  We learned that governors cannot have unlimited emergency powers.  Many of our churches were essentially shut down by government authority, only to be opened up a few months later.  Thank goodness our state's supreme court intervened and got our doors open after only about 2 and a half months.  Some states had it much, much worse.

And when they kept family and clergy from the dying they also did a horrible disservice, spiritually, emotionally, psychologically.  I'm thankful that I was still able to do funerals once our doors were opened again, but there is still a nursing home that has yet to welcome back local clergy to do weekly devotional services.  A whole ministry was shut down and never opened up again. 

Mistakes were made, but it seems all too typical that those in high places are the last to admit fault or responsibility.  And I don't expect them to.  Passing the buck is the rule of the game.  It was the previous administration's fault.  Someone else is to blame.  And on and on. 

This article reveals some disappointing truths, but it is anything but shocking.

[James S. Rustad]

mRNA technology is moving into flu vaccines.  The hope is that an mRNA vaccine will remain effective as it targets a protein that mutates at a lower rate than the current technologies.

Human trial of mRNA universal flu vaccine begins
It's still very early days, but the race to develop the first safe and effective mRNA-based influenza vaccine is gathering momentum.
The latest move sees a Phase 1 trial at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, get under way, testing the safety and immune response of H1ssF-3928 mRNA-LNP, developed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' (NIAID) Vaccine Research Center (VRC).