COVID: China's Shanghai says new Omicron subvariant found (Jul 10, 2022)

With more data and studies coming through, more preprints are becoming available:

Effectiveness of vaccines in preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19: A multicenter hospital-based case-control study, Germany, June 2021 to January 2022 (Jun 29, 2022)

The decline of COVID-19 severity and lethality over two years of pandemic (Jul 2, 2022)

Understanding the impact of disease and vaccine mechanisms on the importance of optimal vaccine allocation* (Jul 3, 2022)

Inferring the differences in incubation-period and generation-interval distributions of the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 (Jul 5, 2022)

Quantifying the impact of vaccines and booster doses on COVID-19 in the U.S. (Jul 6, 2022)

Overall, there are a few lessons learned; I'm sure there will be more.

Some evidence pointing at the wet markets:

The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic (Jul 26, 2022)

The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 (Jul 26, 2022)

Jane Qiu, National Geographic, adds some perspective:

Debate deepens over Wuhan wet market's role in kickstarting the pandemic (Jul 27, 2022)

Thanks, this is interesting.

What’s missing, of course, is that we don’t yet know exactly which animals were involved in the transfer of SARS-CoV-2 to humans. Live wildlife were removed from the Huanan market before the investigative team entered, increasing public safety but hampering origin hunting.

The opportunity to find the direct animal host has probably passed. As the virus likely rapidly spread through its animal reservoir, it’s overly optimistic to think it would still be circulating in these animals today.

...and furthermore:

The lab leak theory rests on an unfortunate coincidence: that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in a city with a laboratory that works on bat coronaviruses.

Some of these bat coronaviruses are closely related to SARS-CoV-2. But not close enough to be direct ancestors.

Sadly, the focus on the Wuhan Institute of Virology has distracted us from a far more important connection: that, like SARS-CoV-1 (which emerged in late 2002) before it, there’s a direct link between a coronavirus outbreak and a live animal market.

Conveniently (and some would say too conveniently). the research community can sigh of relief. Hopefully they found which animal it was.

FYI, should anyone still be interested, a handful of recent articles:

Sep 26, 2022 Association of Primary and Booster Vaccination and Prior Infection With SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 Outcomes
Oct 10, 2022 Pandemic origins and a One Health approach to preparedness and prevention: Solutions based on SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses
Oct 12, 2022 Immune Imprinting and Protection against Repeat Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2
Oct 13, 2022 How SARS-CoV-2 battles our immune system
Oct 13, 2022 Epidemics That Didn't Happen

As of typing, the virus has spread more or less everywhere with impressive success.

Fortunately, it hasn't been as dangerous as the 2003 outbreak, which had a 10% fatality rate, and we're fortunate that such a deadly mutation hasn't emerged in this round.

Just thought I'd drop this little gem in here:

Interesting video and analysis. In the description of the video the doctor warned: The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of covid infection. and then he shows some evidences related to the number of taken vaccines and the correlation of percentage of people testing positive.

Well, it is obvious, right? Whenever you put vaccines on the population the people tend to start relaxing towards the precautions. But the vaccines are not there to "prevent" infections but to saves us from death. My parents and I have taken two vaccines and we were infected by Covid. We didn't get close to death thanks to the vaccines but it is obvious that sooner or later we would be infected. It is impossible the opposite.

I respect the analysis and evidences of the doctor of the video. But in my humble opinion, I think they are not related to the main cause of massive vaccination.

Or it could be that naturally acquired immunity is just better for some reason.

We've learned that locking down has a downstream cost in terms of flu and other viral outbreaks. Hopefully someone in China will pay attention to this and start thinking in post-lockdown terms. Lock downs can't stop the pandemic. All they do is preserve healthcare capacity.

Or it could be that naturally acquired immunity is just better for some reason. — frank

It could be. But we suppose to save the most possible lives. If we only use the naturally immunity there would be a lot of weak people dying just for an experiment and I see it unfair... I think everyone deserves to be safe from covid.

In the other hand, China has two main issues related to their current crisis: 1. Opaque data so we don't truly know what is going on there. 2. The Chinese vaccines are not good enough so these are not helping the citizens. I think that with European/American vaccines the context would be different.

It could be. But we suppose to save the most possible lives. If we only use the naturally immunity there would be a lot of weak people dying just for an experiment and I see it unfair... I think everyone deserves to be safe from covid. — javi2541997

Vaccinated people don't get as sick as unvaccinated, so it definitely is a life saving measure for many.

In the other hand, China has two main issues related to their current crisis: 1. Opaque data so we don't truly know what is going on there. 2. The Chinese vaccines are not good enough so these are not helping the citizens. I think that with European/American vaccines the context would be different. — javi2541997

I don't really understand what they're doing. No one thinks lockdowns can stop the Omicron strain. It's just too contagious.

I don't really understand what they're doing. No one thinks lockdowns can stop the Omicron strain. It's just too contagious. — frank

I wish China will be more cooperative in the following weeks... It will be better for all of us. Like it is a country you necessarily depend with. Most of the products and technology industries comes from there... That's the reality. We depend on Chinese enterprises.

We know that the vaccines likely were never meant to stop transmission, and now we also learn that, as far as this study goes, vaccination for some reason might increase the chance of infection.

Government narratives that focused on pressuring people to get vaccinated to protect others are getting more far-fetched by the day, yet the adverse effects and even deaths they caused are very real.

Governments basically under false pretenses pressured people into taking vaccines that had a non-trivial chance of severe adverse side-effects.

I hope this once again underlines the importance of respecting people's right to choose what they inject into their own bodies, and the dangers of giving governments who believe they have a monopoly on wisdom carte blanche to force their policies on their citizens.

, immunization can prepare the body to do away with the invader — the sooner the better — and hence
can decrease chance of mutations
can decrease transmission (showering/sanitizing can help too :gasp: oh and decreasing your exhaust on others)
can prevent death

But of course there's no magic bullet, no guarantees or certain stoppage, it's life, bathed in organics and other hazards. I guess every bit helps (if done (right)).

Fortunately, it hasn't been as dangerous as the 2003 outbreak, which had a 10% fatality rate, and we're fortunate that such a deadly mutation hasn't emerged in this round. — Oct 19, 2022

Some mutations in this round have proven wickedly good at getting around.

Investigations into origins have come up again recently. We'll see what comes of it.

But of course there's no magic bullet, no guarantees or certain stoppage, it's life, bathed in organics and other hazards. I guess every bit helps (if done (right)). — jorndoe

:up:

Anyway, I think China needs to start being more sensible and cooperative. It will be better for Chinese citizens and the rest of the world. I still do not understand why Xi Jinping acts in suck way. We are not debating on economics and digits but human lives.

China’s neighbors wary of dubious Covid data as they brace for influx of travelers

The official Covid-19 data released by China is proving to be unreliable. In December, internal documents were leaked that put the number of infections for that month at 248 million, but only 450,000 were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). In other words, China only reported one of every 550 cases.

It is official: we no longer have to wear masks in public transport after three years since this pandemic started!

No more masks on public transport in Spain from February 8.

The Minister of Health Carolina Darias confirmed today that the requirement to use masks on public transport was no longer necessary from Wednesday, February 8.
The change means that from tomorrow no masks will need to be worn on aeroplanes, buses and trains although everyone retains the right to do so. Masks, however, remain mandatory in health centres, hospitals and pharmacies.

We forget, we suffer!

The Cochrane review finally out on masks...

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

A few highlights...

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Oh...I forgot to cheerily sign off...

:mask: :mask: :mask: :mask:

:up:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).

We all were agreed in this point but you know, politicians tend to be stubborn and egocentric. They lasted three years to admit that wearing masks in the public transport is worthless...
They are happy living in their lies and fantasy worlds, while the rest of us were tired of wearing masks :mask:

Yeah. To be clear, I think a general policy of mask wearing was a sensible public health precaution in the face of uncertainty.

I think screaming about non-maskers "murdering" innocents and equating dissent over their value with tinfoil-hat wearing flat-earthers was not only unhinged but positively dangerous.

It's one thing for a government to make difficult decisions with limited data. It's quite another for a whole section of the population to treat those decisions as if they were the word of God and all dissent as the work of Satan.

What the Cochrane review shows is not that masks are useless, nor that governments were wrong to mandate their use. It shows that those who disagreed with the government's policy were normal, rational people who simply had legitimate and well grounded differences of opinion about the best way forward.

Exactly.

I remember when the pandemic was in its hardest moment, the accusations against people who were against the decisions of the politicians or they simply had a different opinion or argument towards the "plan" of facing Covid. If you weren't part of the "mass" they treated you as a criminal.

Interesting fact (and I don't want to bore you): our constitutional court ruled that our government was against both Constitution and the rest of laws because of the way they were facing the pandemic. They promoted laws avoiding the free access to different regions and even some politicians didn't had the right to go to Congress. Randomly, our government decided to act so badly and it looked like a dictatorship. Fortunately, this happened years ago and now I see it far away...

our constitutional court ruled that our government was against both Constitution and the rest of laws because of the way they were facing the pandemic. — javi2541997

What happens in an ideal world is that a government rapidly (and proactively) makes public health decisions on the basis of listening to a range of different scientific opinions (with regards to the facts) and a range of different public opinions (with regards to values), and obviously a constitution fits in here too. Debate then continues in a relatively balanced way with the scientific arena discussing the facts as they are discovered (in their journals and conferences), and the public discussing their values in newspapers and social media. These discussions then change (or not) the data the government is using, which then changes (or not) government policy.

Obviously in the real world this doesn't happen because our system is imperfect.

What's been different this time is that the people who's role it is to push for a better system (activists, journalists, opposition...) were the ones most vocal about actively making the system worse. Actively limiting the full range of experts to be included in the debates over fact, actively removing dissenting voices from the public discussion over values, and actively campaigning for the government to ignore opinions which differ from their previous decisions.

It's not the government's behaviour that's been most reprehensible in this case (though it has been reprehensible), it's the activists, the community leaders, the journalists, the ordinary people... The ones who've not only willingly, but aggressively, pushed for a social world where questioning power is seen as a social taboo.

@Isaac

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

This is about outcomes for those who contracted the disease. It's saying that if you contracted the disease, your outcome is not changed by whether you wore a mask in public or not.

It's not examining whether requiring mask wearing impacts the spread of the disease.

That's true but the main problem (I guess) is not about the scientific research or the probabilities in infecting of coronavirus with/without mask wearing, but how the governments (at least in my country) lack of effectiveness. As you pointed out, this is about outcomes for those who contracted the disease, but the minister of health didn't even make a difference and we kept the wearing maks mandatory until today.
Why? Because is easier to rule with general plans rather than specific solutions.

For vulnerable people like the elderly and chronically ill, it makes sense to keep wearing them. For everyone else, probably not.

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence

At an individual level, the difference may be too small to justify a recommendation to wear a mask, but in a social setting, even 1 person protected means a chain reaction of infections has been forestalled (think, I suggest, in terms of a geometric progression).

For vulnerable people like the elderly and chronically ill, it makes sense to keep wearing them. For everyone else, probably not. — frank

:up:

This is about outcomes for those who contracted the disease. It's saying that if you contracted the disease, your outcome is not changed by whether you wore a mask in public or not. — frank

No it isn't. The review is entitled "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses"

It's objective is...

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

It goes on to say...

Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness

... and ...

The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread

Honestly, Frank, if you can't even read simple article before commenting I think it's best you just don't comment at all. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Isaac, the portion you quoted was about outcomes. Pay attention to what you're quoting.

Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness

It might not, but it may. I think most people get the flu from close contact indoors. It's spread by droplets. COVID-19 is airborne.

the portion you quoted was about outcomes — frank

Yes, and the 'outcomes' were, in that case, catching an ARI, not the course of that ARI once caught.

Only 3 studies out of the 12 had adverse affects as the outcome, all the rest had the mere contraction of an ARI. It was the summary of those that the quote referred to, as you would know if you had even a modicum of humility, and actually checked first before you blurt out whatever you 'reckon'.

No, Isaac
— Isaac

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks

Here outcome means whether you lived or died.

you would know if you had even a modicum of humility, — Isaac

What I need for you to understand is that nobody cares about your well crafted insults. This forum has practically no audience. It's just a few posters. There are more moderators on this forum than posters on any given day. Nobody is hurt by your acidic tone. Nobody cares.