Showing posts with label Transmission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transmission. Show all posts

CDC Finally Admits Natural Immunity is Looking Good

Can We Get Our Jobs Back?

Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Associate Professor

CDC finally tells us what we already knew. Why am I not surprised.

So in other words the science has not changed, the CDC has just decided to acknowledge it now. We should have been focusing on treatment the whole time.

So, how do we compensate and get the jobs back for all those that got covid, served our community and then got fired for not following draconian mandates?

We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves. 


Here is the link to the CDC

The key contribution is the following chart, which illustrates the effectiveness of the vaccine (for the duration of the study) and plots that against the effectiveness of natural immunity with and without the vaccine.

What it reveals is a point that has been strangely disputed or at least too often left unacknowledged: the power of natural immunity to serve as protection against severe outcomes from reinfection.

This reality bears strongly on the question of vaccine mandates.



Virginia Democrats Pass Mask Freedom Bill

Virginia Senate approves amendment to bill allowing parental choice over masks

The Democrat-controlled Senate chamber voted 29 to 9 in favor of the amendment Tuesday, creating the option for parents to opt-out from school mask mandates, without giving an excuse and regardless of rules adopted by local school boards.

“In an overwhelming bipartisan show of support, the Senate of Virginia took a significant step today for parents and children. I applaud Senator Petersen’s amendment to give parents the right to decide whether their children should wear masks in schools,” said Gov. Glenn Youngkin, praising in a Tuesday press statement the “overwhelming” adoption of Petersen’s amendment to SB739.

“In the last week, we have seen Democrat-led states like Oregon, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware move away from universal mask mandates in schools. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for doing the same in Virginia. This shows that when we work across the aisle, we put Virginians first. I look forward to signing this bill when it comes to my desk,” he continued.

Governor Youngkin Praises Overwhelming Adoption of Senator Chap Petersen’s Amendment to SB739

Victory for parents and children statewide 

Governor Glenn Youngkin today released the following statement on State Senator Chap Petersen’s Amendment to Senator Siobhan Dunnavant’s SB739, adopted 29-9, creating a parental opt-out from local school mask mandates: 

“In an overwhelming bipartisan show of support, the Senate of Virginia took a significant step today for parents and children. I applaud Senator Petersen’s amendment to give parents the right to decide whether their children should wear masks in schools. In the last week, we have seen Democrat-led states like Oregon, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware move away from universal mask mandates in schools. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for doing the same in Virginia. This shows that when we work across the aisle, we put Virginians first. I look forward to signing this bill when it comes to my desk,” said Governor Glenn Youngkin. 

Evidence Mounting on Negative Efficacy of the Jabs

sheep get slaughtered

Read the COVID-19 Positive Reddit Messageboard.  It's hilarious. 

Data from highly vaccinated countries suggests strongly that the answer is yes; vaccinated people are at higher risk of infection from Omicron.  

Denmark has fewer than 6 million people - 1/60th as many as the United States.

Nearly all adults are vaccinated, mostly with the Pfizer mRNA vaccine that is the world’s supposed gold standard. Half have received the third “booster” doses. On Wednesday Denmark reported 28,000 Covid infections - equal to about 1.7 million in the United States.

The figures are similar in the United Kingdom, and all over Western Europe. Many countries are at 90 percent adult Covid vaccination levels, with boosters soaring. And they are all now in the midst of an epidemic of Covid contagion that dwarfs any that has come before.

The vaccines sure seem to have failed. That’s wrong, though.The reality is worse.The data from several countries now show clearly that infection rates are higher in vaccinated people.

We already know vaccine protection against earlier variants of Sars-Cov-2 falls sharply within months of the second dose, as the vaccine-generated antibodies fade.

But the new data go a step further, showing that previously vaccinated people are actually more likely to contract Omicron.

The government of Ontario has reported exactly the same pattern. So have Danish researchers, in a paper two weeks ago, when they found protection against Omicron turned negative three months after the second dose.

The vaccine fanatics have said that boosters are the answer against Omicron, that people who receive a third dose will regain protection.

This is - at best - a highly optimistic view.  Remember the happy vaccine valley?

During the 2021 mass vaccination campaigns, Covid infections (whether Delta or the original strain) fell close to zero in the four months after the second dose, as antibodies peaked.

The happy vaccine valley no longer exists. Boosters begin to fail essentially immediately against Omicron, despite the massive (and potentially dangerous) increase in anti-spike-protein antibodies they produce.

Here’s the most recent report on vaccine protection from the United Kingdom, from last week.

The black boxes represent protection against the Delta variant (which is overstated because of the healthy vaccine user bias, but put that fact aside). As you can see, peak protection against Delta starts around 90 percent two weeks after the second dose. It remains at 60 percent six months out. A third dose pushes it back to 90 percent, and it barely budges for the first 10 weeks.

But what’s true for Delta is NOT true for Omicron.

Even at their absolute peak, two doses of mRNA vaccines offer only 60 percent protection against Omicron. Within four months protection has fallen almost to zero. A booster returns protection to 70 percent, but two months later it has fallen to about 50 percent.

That’s a decline to 50 percent protection from Omicron (at most, because the unseen confounders will tend to overstate vaccine efficacy) within 10 weeks of a third dose. We have every reason to expect it too will plunge to zero within a few more weeks.

What then? A fourth dose? A fifth a few weeks after that? How much mRNA do the public health authorities intend to cram in us?

And what about the real terror, antibody-dependent enhancement?

Are the vaccines only driving infection with Omicron, or are they increasing the risk of serious illness too?

We don’t really know yet, in part because Omicron is milder across the board. In addition, the wave of cases has hit so fast that it will take time for serious illness to catch up. Finally, the problem of incidental hospitalizations (with, not from Covid) is worse and will further muddy the data.

That said, hospitalizations of vaccinated people with Omicron are rising very fast, and the gap between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is shrinking. The Danish government reported on Jan. 3 that only 24 percent of the people hospitalized with Omicron during late November and December were unvaccinated - while 76 percent were vaccinated, including 18 percent who were boosted. During the same period, unvaccinated people made up 45 percent of those hospitalized with earlier variants - yet more proof the vaccines simply do not work as well against Omicron as earlier variants.

Why are we encouraging people to get “vaccinated” or “boosted” with a “vaccine” that within a few weeks probably increases their risk of becoming infected with the newly dominant variant of Sars-Cov-2?

We were lucky with Omicron; it is apparently quite mild.

But we are now in a world where Sars-Cov-2 cannot be contained and where it will continue to mutate in both humans and animals in ways we cannot predict (some scientists believe that Omicron underwent most of its mutations in mice before before jumping back to humans).

Nor do we yet know whether and how vaccines will interfere with the development of immunity after Sars-Cov-2 infection and recovery; will they prevent our immune systems from developing antibodies to other parts of the coronavirus, or interfere with B- and T-cell maturation?

All we really know is that the vaccines don’t prevent infection for very long and for many healthy people have side effects that are significantly worse than coronavirus infection. Both those facts were true before Omicron. Both are doubly true now.

Yet the drive to vaccinate - and boost - continues.

Why?

Bill Gates - We need a new a new way of doing the vaccine

Despite being one of the largest proponents of presently-available COVID-19 vaccines, Gates admits to the failure of the vaccine industry that he has worked so hard to prop up.

Gates told Hunt that “we didn’t have vaccines that block transmission” regarding the available remedies for the virus at the onset of the crisis, later saying of the abortion-tainted COVID jabs, “we got vaccines to help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmissions.”

“We need a new a new way of doing the vaccines,” Gates, who has been a prominent pusher of the shots, added.

Vaccinated Case Rates Are Higher Than Unvaccinated in the UK

The UK weekly Covid-19 surveillance reports suddenly stopped publishing this chart comparing case rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated, so I made it for them from data in the last 4 reports. How should these data be interpreted?

Notice how it's "cases" now. Is there a way to show how many in each age group with the same criteria, ended up in hospital because of Covid-19 (not "with" where someone is injured goes for treatment and tests positive and is then counted as an unvaccinated hospital case) and deaths? That would be interesting.

Here is the report

Vaccine Interferes With Your Body’s Innate Immune System After Infection

natural immune system

The British government admitted today, in its newest vaccine surveillance report, that:

N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.”

What does this mean? Several things, all bad. We know the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission of the virus (in fact, the report shows elsewhere that vaccinated adults are now being infected at much HIGHER rates than the unvaccinated).

What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.

This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably).

It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction, because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.

Aside from that, everything is fine.

UK Covid Vaccine Surveillance Report

Dr. Bryan Ardis Exposes Hospital Protocols Murdering Americans

Dr. Bryan Ardis discusses the 4,000 new cases of "multi-inflammatory disease"  among children where organs are getting inflamed and this is brand new in 2020. 


Donate and support our work: https://earthnewspaper.com/index.php/donate

The Dr. Ardis Show: https://www.thedrardisshow.com

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: https://www.fuellmich.com


Dr. Bryan Ardis joins John Di Lemme on the CBJ Real News Podcast Show to discuss Covid-19 hospital protocols that are killing Americans, the deadly vaccine, and more!

Follow John Di Lemme and the CBJ Real News on Telegram at https://t.me/cbjrealnews

Support Conservative Business Owners and Entrepreneurs by going to https://ConservativeMarketplace.com/



Dr. Bryan Ardis hospitals are killing people

10 Examples of How China's Corruption & Government Killed People

A plethora of politicians and government officials across the globe screwed up in their handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Chinese government, however, was acutely damaging with its ineptitude, because it, more than any other entity, had a chance to limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus when it first emerged in late 2019. Instead of trying to contain the virus with the help of the international community, however, the Chinese government lied, misled, and stalled. All of humanity has experienced the disastrous result of this negligence.

In his new book, Uncontrolled Spread, physician, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb focused his considerable expertise on pointing out the ways in which the world's response to COVID-19 fell short, and how we can better prepare for the next inevitable pandemic. Early on in the book, he chronicled numerous examples of the Chinese government's inept, corrupt handling of what was then an emerging outbreak. 

Here are ten of them:

1. Silencing Genetic Sequencing.

 In late December 2019, doctors around Wuhan started noticing people coming in with a strange pneumonia, and began sending patient samples to genomics companies for sequencing. The reports they received back were disturbing – it was a never-before-seen, SARS-like coronavirus. By January 1, provincial health officials instructed these companies to stop testing samples from the Wuhan outbreak and to destroy their remaining specimens. Two days later, China's top health authority ordered genomics labs not to publish any data related to the novel coronavirus.

2. Censoring Doctors. 

Early on in the pandemic, Wuhan's local doctors quickly realized that a novel virus was spreading, and took to social media platforms like WeChat and Weibo to share information with each other. They were soon censored by the Chinese government, and posts related to what was then dubbed "Wuhan SARS' were suppressed. Many doctors were detained, interrogated, and threatened with prosecution. "Chinese scientists and physicians took risks, and their efforts saved lives," Gottlieb wrote.

3. Deploying Social Media Bots. 

According to ProPublica, more than ten thousand Chinese government-linked accounts on Twitter were used to cast doubt on early reports related to the outbreak in Wuhan.

4. Censoring Social Media.

 Citizen Lab documented thousands of keywords related to COVID that were suppressed by the Chinese government on platforms YY and WeChat. Many deleted posts criticized the government for their handling of the outbreak.

5. Not Reporting the Outbreak to the WHO as Required. 

As a signatory to major public health treaties, the Chinese government was required to notify the world community of any unusual, novel pathogen within its borders that could spread internationally, typically within 72 hours of detection. The novel coronavirus clearly met this description, yet Chinese officials withheld information about the virus for weeks.

6. Refusing to Share the Coronavirus' Genetic Sequence. 

When the genetic sequence of the coronavirus was first shared widely in early January, it was a heroic, rogue Chinese researcher, not the government, who did so. Dr. Zhang Yongzhen was directed not to release the information, but frustrated with what he perceived as irresponsibility by government officials, he defied their order. Within hours, Zhang's lab was shut down by the Shanghai Municipal Health Commission for "rectification".

7. Not Sharing Virus Samples.

 Very early on, global researchers were clamoring for Chinese officials to share samples of the novel coronavirus so they could evaluate it and begin developing diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapeutics. Government officials never did. "Access to those samples at the outset could have helped the world prepare," Gottlieb wrote. "And without the source strains, it would be impossible to determine with any certainty the virus's origin."

8. Attempting to Avoid Travel Restrictions. 

In early February, as it started to become clear that China was losing control of the outbreak, the government was still privately clashing with the WHO to block the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Government officials wanted to avoid burdensome travel restrictions which the PHEIC would likely lead to.

9. Misleading the World Health Organization. 

In the early days of the pandemic, the WHO publicly stated that it was in constant contact with Chinese government officials. This was true, but the dialogue was essentially useless. "The WHO would submit long lists of questions to Chinese officials, related to the scope and severity of the epidemic. In return, the Chinese government would provide achingly incomplete replies," Gottlieb wrote. Little of value was relayed.

10. Refusing to Allow CDC Scientists Into Wuhan. 

Roughly a dozen CDC staff are permanently stationed in Beijing. On January 1, 2020, CDC Director Robert Redfield emailed Dr. George Fu Gao, the director of China's CDC, requesting that these U.S. researchers be granted access to the outbreak hot zone to assist in identification of the novel pathogen. Gao refused, and would do so again when Redfield pressed the matter. At the time, Chinese officials were still saying publicly there was no evidence of person-to-person spread. Redfield believes that U.S. scientists would have quickly discovered that the coronavirus was spreading human-to-human, and doing so asymptomatically.

Fully Vaccinated Are COVID ‘Super-Spreaders,’ Says Inventor of mRNA Technology

 
On the latest episode of “The Hidden Gateway” podcast, Dr. Robert Malone, recognized for his role in inventing mRNA vaccine technology, said, “The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody's vaccinated, you're not going to have virus spread is totally false. A total lie.”

On the latest episode of “The Hidden Gateway” podcast, host Justin Williams spoke to Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized medical doctor and scientist who assisted with inventing mRNA vaccines.

The wide-ranging discussion covered:

The invention and early testing of mRNA technology, in which Malone was heavily involved.
How governments are employing different forms of coercion to drive vaccine uptake, policies Malone said he believes are illegal.

How public health authorities lack the normally required safety and efficacy information for a global vaccination campaign.

How governments and public health authorities are lying to the public “for their own good.”
Malone referenced two instances where citizens are being “enticed” to take what he refers to as the “experimental” vaccine.

“There was a period where West Virginia was trying to get people to get vaccinated,” Malone said. “And so they had a shotgun lottery. And in Canada, there was a policy of offering free ice cream to children to get them to take the jab even without their parents’ approval. So those are just two particularly clear examples of unfair coercion … It’s not actually legal.”

Malone likened what’s going on today with COVID vaccines to the illegal medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany. “[During the Second World War], Jews and other ethnic groups were subjected to horrible experimental medical research,” Malone said. “And they justified it by saying it was for the common good.”

Malone said the Western World “agreed we weren’t going to do that anymore. Yet, from time to time we seem to forget, and of course, Tuskegee is one example, and frankly, this is another example.”

In an attempt to clear up misinformation coming from the medical establishment, Malone said fully vaccinated individuals can spread COVID. “The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody’s vaccinated, you’re not going to have virus spread is totally false. A total lie,” Malone said.

The vaccinated are actually the “super-spreaders” that everyone was told about in the beginning of the pandemic, Malone argued.

He said:

“If you consider the scientific fact that vaccinated people have less symptoms than the unvaccinated, but can still easily spread disease, consider your fellow vaccinated worker, whose unvaccinated son brought the disease home and gave it to him … He might not have any symptoms … but he’ll definitely be producing the virus. And he’s going to say, hey, I can go to work today. But he’s going to be spreading the virus like crazy.”

Malone also touched on the idea of “the noble lie:”

“If the government isn’t going to disclose to you what the [vaccine] risks are, and they’re not going to disclose to you what’s really going on because they think that you can’t handle the news … this is called the noble lie.”

Malone denounced the “noble lie” as “paternalistic authoritarianism.” He said the idea of governance-by-lying goes back to Plato and Ancient Greek philosophy which argues that it’s  “okay for politicians and people in authority positions to lie to the general public because they have special knowledge and ability to understand things … and the general public can’t cope with that level of information. And so it’s okay to lie to them.”

“I really disagree with this line of thinking,” Malone said. “Yet it has been public policy in the United States and worldwide in public health for a very long time.”

The Balancing Act of Herd Immunity - Wealth vs Health

Harvard Suggest Intermittent Social Distancing Could Be More Effective

Harvard University researchers say an on-again, off-again approach to social distancing could be a more effective strategy to avoid overwhelming hospitals and to build herd immunity against the novel coronavirus — but other experts aren’t so sure.

An April study, conducted at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, championed intermittent social distancing — measures that are periodically reimposed when cases reach certain levels.

According to the researchers’ modeling, as long as social distancing occurred between 25 percent and 75 percent of the time, the world could both build immunity and keep the healthcare system from overloading.  Watch the video on this page.

Social distancing restrictions could be eased under various scenarios, according to the authors—if COVID-19 treatments become available, if hospitals can increase their intensive care bed capacity, if there’s aggressive contact tracing and quarantine, or if a vaccine is developed.
“I think social distancing interventions of some sort are going to have to continue, hopefully, lightened and in conjunction with other interventions,” said Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics and co-senior author of the study, in an April 14 article in STAT.

Here is a video explaining how the no lockdown strategy and accelerated "herd immunity" might be working in Sweden but also explains the risks.   Sweden prefers to use the term "transmission" for fear that they are perceived as giving up on fighting the disease.  Sweden's strategy would mean their death toll will be higher earlier and lower later as herd immunity is achieved.  Thus, Sweden would not likely experience a second wave of transmission in the fall and winter months.   



It also raises the question of how many people are actually following the stay at home orders
Here is a Twitter poll asking if Intermittent social distancing would be effective? 

Why Wearing A Face Mask Outdoors Isn't Necessary

Each orange dot represents a dose of respiratory particles capable
of infecting someone if inhaled by breathing, speaking, and shouting

In the worst-case scenario (lower right corner) – shouting or singing in a closed space for an hour – a person with Covid-19 releases. 

Risk of coronavirus infection changes depending on the number of contagious particles you breathe in. El Pais illustrated the differences when you take certain measures, namely wearing masks, ventilation, and decreased exposure time.  The suggestions are based on statistical models, so there is more uncertainty than I think the explanations provide, but the sequence of illustrations provides a clear picture of what we can do — if you must do things indoors.

In the spring, health authorities failed to focus on aerosol transmission, but recent scientific publications have forced the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC to acknowledge it. An article in the prestigious Science magazine found that there is “overwhelming evidence” that airborne transmission is a “major transmission route” for the coronavirus, and the CDC now notes that, “under certain conditions, they seem to have infected others who were more than six feet [two meters] away. These transmissions occurred within enclosed spaces that had inadequate ventilation. Sometimes the infected person was breathing heavily, for example, while singing or exercising.”

At present, health authorities recognize three vehicles of coronavirus transmission: the small droplets from speaking or coughing, which can end up in the eyes, mouth, or nose of people standing nearby; contaminated surfaces (fomites), although the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that this is the least likely way to catch the virus, a conclusion backed by the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (ECDC) observation that not a single case of fomite-caused Covid-19 has been observed; then finally, there is transmission by aerosols – the inhalation of invisible infectious particles exhaled by an infected person that, once leaving the mouth, behave in a similar way to smoke. Without ventilation, aerosols remain suspended in the air and become increasingly dense as time passes.

At the beginning of the pandemic, it was believed that the large droplets we expel when we cough or sneeze was the main vehicle of transmission. But we now know that shouting and singing in indoor, poorly ventilated spaces over a prolonged period of time also increases the risk of contagion. This is because speaking in a loud voice releases 50 times more virus-laden particles than when we don’t speak at all. These aerosols, if not diffused through ventilation, become increasingly concentrated, which increases the risk of infection. Scientists have shown that these particles – which we also release into the atmosphere when simply breathing and which can escape from improperly worn face masks – can infect people who spend more than a few minutes within a five-meter radius of an infected person, depending on the length of time and the nature of the interaction. In the following example, we outlined what conditions increase the risk of contagion in this situation.

If the buildings are properly ventilated, with good air conditioning,  there is less risk.  University of Colorado Boulder atmospheric chemist Jose-Luis Jimenez has released an airborne transmission pilot tool that may help us answer some of these questions, or at least provide some informed guidance. 

CDC Study Finds Majority Of People Get Coronavirus Wearing Masks

mask vs no mask policy

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from the same health care facility who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

“In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus.

While the study notes that some of these people may have contracted the virus from the few moments that they removed their mask to eat or drink at “places that offer on-site eating or drinking,” the CDC concedes that there is no successful way to evaluate if that was the exact moment someone became exposed and contracted the virus.

“Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when the widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities,” the report states.

In fact, the report suggests that “direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance.”

Despite this new scientific information, the CDC, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many political authorities are still encouraging people to wear masks. Many states and cities have even mandated masks, citing them as one of the main tools to “slow the spread” of coronavirus and keep case numbers in their area down.

Read more 

Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread


Data show that compulsory lockdowns have had a high cost, with a questionable impact on transmission.

In 1932, Justice Louis Brandeis of the Supreme Court famously referred to the states as "democracy laboratories." Different states can test different policies and can learn from each other. In 2020, that proved valid. Governors in various states react to the COVID-19 pandemic at different times and in different ways. Sweeping shutdowns were ordered by some states, such as California. A more targeted approach was taken by others, such as Florida. Others, such as South Dakota, transmitted data but had no lockdowns at all.

As a consequence, to test the question no one wants to ask, we can now compare findings in various states: Did the lockdowns make a difference?

If the course of this pandemic was really altered by lockdowns, then the coronavirus case counts should have fallen clearly whenever and wherever lockdowns took place. The effect, albeit with a time lag, should have been apparent. It takes time to formally count new coronavirus infections, so we'd expect the numbers to fall as soon as the waiting time is over.

For how long? New infections should drop on day one and be noticed about ten or eleven days from the beginning of the lockdown. The number of patients with the first signs of infection should decrease by day six (the average time for symptoms to show is six days). By day nine or ten, far fewer people will be going to hospitals with deteriorating symptoms. If COVID-19 tests were conducted immediately, we would expect the positives to drop dramatically on day 10 or 11 (assuming rapid test turnarounds).

To judge from the evidence, the answer is clear: Mandated lockdowns had little effect on the spread of the coronavirus. The charts below show the daily case curves for the United States as a whole and for thirteen U.S. states. As in almost every country, we consistently see a steep climb as the virus spreads, followed by a transition (marked by the gray circles) to a flatter curve. At some point, the curves always slope downward, though this wasn’t obvious for all states until the summer.

Study Suggests Outdoor Virus Transmission Data Near 0%



Study:  .02% Outdoor Virus Transmission Rate (2 People out of 7,000)

A recent paper from China reviewed over 7000 cases from 320 cities in China

Our study does not rule out the outdoor transmission of the virus. However, among our 7,324 identified cases in China with sufficient descriptions, only one outdoor outbreak involving two cases occurred in a village in Shangqiu, Henan. A 27-year-old man had a conversation outdoors with an individual who had returned from Wuhan on 25 January and had the onset of symptoms on 1 February.

Home outbreaks were the dominant category (254 of 318 outbreaks; 79.9%), followed by transport (108; 34.0%; note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category).

There has been a LOT of literature (not even too recent!) about how even superspreaders don't spread very well outdoors. If we can verify that, could be a big part of opening up certain places (conceivably, even Disneyland with appropriate distancing).

A team of three medical doctors and biologists from Harvard also wrote that "outdoors, the virus quickly disperses in the air," so the risk of becoming infected by someone running or walking past you is likely very low.

During the 1918 flu pandemic, experiments with open-air hospitals were highly successful at reducing the extent to which health care workers got infected. 

Florida's Governor did not say the risk of spreading coronavirus in a park is non-existent but cited a Department of Homeland Security Bio-defense Lab study that showed that ultraviolet radiation that mimicked natural sunlight destroys the new coronavirus.

This conclusion is still up for debate.  However, there is proof that vitamin D from sunlight helps your immune system.

New Study: Children Don’t Pass the Coronavirus on to Adults

Dr Bryan Ardis - Hospital Protocol Is What Is Murdering "Covid" Flu Patients

New Study: Children Don’t Pass the Coronavirus on to Adults

According to a new study children don’t pass the Coronavirus on to adults. If true, given the fact that the mortality rate for kids from this virus is near zero.
Among the study's findings are: 
  • A China/World Health Organization joint commission couldn’t find a single case of a child passing the virus to an adult. 
  • Low case rates among children may be due more to higher numbers remaining asymptomatic, rather than a lower infection rate. 
  • Analysis of Chinese data in confirmed and suspected cases showed that 32% of affected children aged 6-10 years were asymptomatic. 
  • Precise details regarding
  • To date, only a handful of coronavirus deaths have been reported in children.
  • Very few newborns or infants contract Covid-19 and generally they do well in overcoming the virus.
The study is contained in a hard to read on mobile PDF so I added most of the text below. 

In order to help facilitate the best possible care for children with COVID-19, we sought to aggregate and rapidly review all of the original research being produced pertinent to children, making it available to everyone. Speed has been essential, and in order to keep pace with the rapid production of new evidence, we have proceeded with informal, rapid, evidence synthesis. There have been a handful of studies which were obtained and deemed not suitable for inclusion, due to poor quality or patient overlap. A list of studies not included is available. 

Our evidence summaries have undergone internal peer review, as well as being open to external review from our readers. We would like to highlight that due to the speed with which the evidence has been produced, much is of low quality. Many studies include few patients. There are 3 other significant issues:
  1. Heterogeneous denominators. There is a significant amount of heterogeneity in the way cohorts or cases have been collected, and many of these are not directly comparable.
  2. Overlap. Much of the current evidence has come from a few regions in China. We have tried to identify where cases series were at risk of including the same patients multiple times, but this remains a risk. 
  3. Non-peer reviewed evidence. Many included papers have come from pre-print servers. Whilst they appear of sufficient quality to be useful, they require caution when interpreting. 
We hope this evidence review proves useful in helping manage children with COVID-19
Contributors: The project was coordinated by Alasdair Munro. Reviews were conducted by Alasdair Munro, Alison Boast, Henry Goldstein, Dani Hall, and Grace Leo. Digital/technical support was provided by Tessa Davis.

Epidemiology

Following the initial epidemiological data released from China, it appeared children were significantly less affected by infection with SARS-CoV-2 than their adult counterparts. This was reflected both in total case numbers, but also severity, with very few cases in young children and no deaths in children under 10yrs in the initial report. This finding has been reproduced in subsequent data from other countries, most notably Italy, which showed much lower rates of infection in children and no deaths in those under 30 years of age. Low numbers of childhood cases have been seen in the rest of Europe, as well as the USA, where 1/3 of childhood cases are in late adolescence. Some concerns exist that low case rates reflect selective testing of only the most unwell, however data from South Korea and subsequently Iceland which have undertaken widespread community testing, have also demonstrated significantly lower case numbers in children. This has also been seen in the Italian town of Vo, which screening 70% of its population and found 0 children <10 years positive, despite a 2.6% positive rate in the general population.

More detailed information has emerged from China into childhood severity of COVID-19. A large number of children appear asymptomatic. Critical illness was very rare (0.6%) and concentrated in the youngest infants. It should be noted that large numbers of “suspected” cases in this group leave room for a significant number of illnesses to have been caused by other, familiar respiratory viruses. In the USA CDC data, infants appear most likely to be hospitalised, although rates of PICU admission do not appear to be significantly different as yet. To date, deaths remain extremely rare in children from COVID-19, with only a handful of reported cases.

Transmission

Precise details regarding paediatric transmission remain unclear. Low case numbers in children suggest a more limited role than was initially feared. Contact tracing data from Shenzen in China demonstrated an equivalent attack rate in children as adults, however this has been contradicted by subsequent data in Japan which showed a significantly lower attack rate in children. This, coupled with low case numbers would suggest at least that children are less likely to acquire the disease. The role of children in passing the disease to others is unknown, in particular given large numbers of asymptomatic cases. Notably, the China/WHO joint commission could not recall episodes during contact tracing where transmission occurred from a child to an adult. A recent modelling study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (pre-print, not peer reviewed) however has suggested the most plausible explanation for low case rates was that children are more likely to be asymptomatic, rather than less likely to acquire the disease. Studies of multiple family clusters have revealed children were unlikely to be the index case, in Guanzhou, China, and internationally A SARS-CoV2 positive child in a cluster in the French alps did not transmit to anyone else, despite exposure to over 100 people.

Several studies have now shown that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected by PCR in the stool of affected infants for several weeks after symptoms have resolved. This has raised the possibility of faecal-oral transmission. Research from Germany failed to find any live, culturable virus in stool despite viral RNA being detectable, suggesting this represents viral debris rather than active virus. Further studies will be needed to shed further light on this.

Clinical Features

A significant proportion of children with COVID-19 do not appear to develop any symptoms, or have subclinical symptoms. In the absence of widespread community or serological testing, it is uncertain what this proportion is. The most detailed paediatric population data from China showed 13% of confirmed cases had no symptoms (cases detected by contact tracing). Considering both confirmed and suspected cases, 32% of children aged 6-10yrs were asymptomatic.

Clinical features in symptomatic children are somewhat different to adults. Children tend to have more mild illness. The most common presenting features are cough and fever, occurring in over half of symptomatic patients. Upper respiratory tract symptoms such as rhinorrhoea and sore throat are also relatively common, occurring in 30-40% of patients. It is not uncommon for children to have diarrhoea and/or vomiting (around 10% of cases), even in some cases as their sole presenting features.

Blood tests also show slightly different features to adults. Lymphocytopaenia is relatively rare in children, with the majority having normal or sometimes raised lymphocyte counts. Inflammatory markers such as CRP and Procalcitonin are often raised but only very mildly. Slight elevations in liver transaminases appears common.

Radiographic features in children are also somewhat different to their adult counterparts. Chest X-rays are often normal, and many CT chest scans are also normal. When present abnormalities are often less severe, however a reasonable number of children have bilateral pneumonia. Changes may be found on CT even in asymptomatic children. Common features in abnormal CT scans include mild, bilateral ground glass opacities, but with less peripheral predominance than is reportedly found in adults.

There appears to be little in the way of clinical signs in children to differentiate COVID-19 from other childhood respiratory virus infections.

Read more details on the report here

Study: Outdoor Virus Transmission Rates Near 0%

Popular Posts (All Time)

Topics

5G Activist ADE Advertising Air Quality Airlines Alchohol Alex Berenson Allergic Angry Moms Antibody Antitrust Apple Apps Arizona Aspirin Astra Zeneca Australia Bankruptcy Banks Banned Bars BBB Beaches Bell's Palsy Ben Shapiro Biden Big Pharma Big Tech Bill Gates BioNTech BitChute Black Rock Blackmail Blood Clots Booster Brave Brownstone Institute Bryan Ardis Business California Canada Cancer Candace Owens Cares Act CDC Censorship Chart ChatGPT Chicago Children China Class Action Clinical Trials Closures CNN Comirnaty Conspiracy Contact Tracing Corruption Cough COVAX Cover Up Crimes Against Humanity Cult Cuomo Dan Bongino DARPA Data David Martin Deaths DeSantis Diabetes Died Suddenly Disinformation Doctor Reiner Doctors DOJ Dominion Dr Michael Yeadon Dr Reiner Dr Shiva Dr Zelenko Drugs Durability DWAC ECDC Education Election Elon Musk Email Enforcement Europe Exemptions Extortion Facebook Fact Checkers Fake Laws Fake News Fake Tests Fake Vaccine False Positive Famotidine Fauci FBI FDA Fear Mongering Federal Reserve Feds Fines Florida Flu Flu Shots Fluvoxamine Fox France Fraud Free Speech Freedom FTC Gain of Function Research Gavin Newsom Geert Vanden Bossche Genome George Soros Germany Glenn Beck Globalism Google Government Guillain-Barré Halloween Harvard Health Health Department Healthcare Heart Herd Immunity Hero HHS Hospitals How To Humor Hydroxychloroquine Hypocrisy Immune System India Inflamation Injured Insurance Investment IRS Israel Italy Ivermectin J&J Japan Jeff Bezos Jim Jordan Jobs Joe Rogan Judy Mikovits LA County Larry Elder Lawsuits Leadership Let Them Breathe Lies Loans Local Laws Lockdown Long Covid Los Angeles Mandates Map Masks Mass Hypnosis Media Medicaid Melatonin Mental Health Michigan Microsoft Minnesota Moderna Money Montana mRNA Mutation Myocarditis Nanoscience Nashville Natural Immunity NBA New Jersey New Media New York Nextstrain NFL NIH Nursing Homes NY NY Post Ohio Omicron Omricon Opinion Opposing View Oppression Outdoors Parks Passport Patents PCR Pennsylvania Pericarditis Peter McCullough Pfizer Phishing Physicians Declaration Placebo Plandemic Pneumonia Police Politics Poll Pollution PPP Prevention Pro Choice Project Veritas Protest Racism Rand Paul Real Estate Refuse Regeneron Relief Checks Remdesirvir Restaurants Restraining Order Robert Kennedy Robert Malone Ron Johnson Rudy Giuliani Rumble Russia Safegraph SBA Scams Schools Science Scott Gottlieb Senate Seniors Side Effects Sinus Social Distancing South Korea Spain Sports Stadiums Stakeholder Capitalism Stay at Home Sterilization Steve Kirsch Study Substance Abuse Surveillance Sweden Swine Flu Symptoms T Cells Taxes Teachers Technology Teslaphoresis Testing Texas Tips Tom Cotton Tony Bobulinski Transmission Treatment Tribunals Trojan Horse Trump TruthSocial Tucker Carlson Twitter Tyranny UK Unemployment United Nations Unity Project Vaccine VAERS Video Vietnam Vitamin D War Warren Buffett Washington WEF Whistleblower WHO Wisconsin Women Workers Comp Wuhan Zinc