Coronavirus, Late January, 2021
By the Numbers
A note on scams. There scammers reaching out and offering head of line privileges for the vaccine in exchange for money. This is a total scam, just hang up on them.
There is also a concept
referred to as a “Covid Pet”. People are
buying animals to keep themselves company to deal with the isolation. An OK concept, but scammers are also working
this angle. If you are inclined to do
this, make sure your store is legitimate.
If the price keeps going up because of new conditions, you are probably
dealing with a scammer. For more on
scams, I have a brief blog at: https://phil-bythenumbers.blogspot.com/2019/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
Rules of thumb regarding scams:
Don’t give money to anyone that you haven’t met.Don’t give anyone money without sleeping on it.
Talk to a friend or family.
New C-19 Variants
One mutation in the UK is called Kent. It spreads faster than the original version, and is no less lethal, and is becoming the dominant strain in the UK. Fortunately, the current vaccines should handle it.
The other prominent version is called South Africa. It spreads faster than the original version, and is no less lethal. It is more resistant to anti-bodies used to target it, reducing the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Update on when and where you can find if you are eligible for the vaccine.
I mentioned in my last blog that I really didn’t know how to go about finding out what my priority is. I knew I was not in the top tier and probably not in the second tier as well, so I was just going to wait and let those more in need get their jabs.
So I investigated the web for Pennsylvania sites.
Here is the primary PA web page with other links:
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/Vaccine.aspx
Download the provided excel sheet. It has a list of locations and doses available week by week, and is updated weekly.
The PA Distribution plan. Warning, it is some 66 pages long:
https://states.aarp.org/pennsylvania/covid-19-vaccine-distribution
The naming conventions in the documentation is not consistent. The term “Phase” may be synonymous to “Tier”, or “Priority Groups”. Also, Phases 1 and 2 are sub divided into A and B. I am not criticizing here, the plan was probably written by a number of individuals. I know when I write up a document that I try to, and fail often, to be consistent with the verbiage. They are doing the best they can and trying to keep the plan flexible to meet changing realities.
Summary:
Phase 1A Health Care Personne, Residents in Long-Term Care Facilities
Phase 1B Critical workers Including police, protective services and critical manufacturing, food processing, Teachers, Day Care, and over 75.
People with underlying conditions like cancer, kidney, obesity, diabetes, smokers and pregnant and over 65.
Phase 2A People with “broader health provision” I am not sure what that means, but the implication is more likely to be exposed than the general population.
Phase 2B
Other high risk conditionsPeople that directly work with the public.
Ages 40-64
Phase 3 General population
As of Jan 19, Pennsylvania officially entered Phase 1B.
Every state is running its own plan, so you are on your own to do your research on when you are eligible. In Florida for example, the state has devolved the planning down to the county level, so they are running with 67 different plans. Don’t count on being notified when it is your turn.
Someone I know published the Illinois tiered system. It was similar to the Pennsylvania, but not exactly the same.
More details on the vaccines
Over 16 million Americans have
gotten their first dose of vaccine. As of
Jan 22, over 2.400,000 have gotten their second dose and can be
considered protected by the time I publish this. Source USA Facts
A bit of a correction on how long in between the first and second dose is required. For the Phizer’s vaccine it is 2 doses, 21 days apart,
For the Moderna’s vaccine, requires 2 doses, 28 days apart.
I was running on older information which had a generic 30 day gap listed, but the have since looked at more official documentation. Sorry about the error, but the concept is the same.
I recently received a
misinformation accredited by a "Dr David Martin" about the vaccine. I won’t repeat the lies. But it looks really authoritative, but a lie
none the less. So if you see that name,
regard the post with suspicion. Several
news organizations have tried to find this doctor and failed. However there is a David Martin that produced
a documentary last year called “Plandemic”. So I am attibuting this article as another in a long stream of agenda based misinformation campaigns.
In the middle of last year there was a deluge of false information about the efficacy of wearing masks. I found over 40 of them, and had the time and inclination to read through them. Most of them were deliberately misrepresented studies. Sometimes re-headlined to support their position. Sometimes the study proved the value of wearing masks as a conclusion. I do not understand the motivation of some people to plant fake information, but it is everywhere. Yesterday my sister created a meme that was an out and out political lie, but when called on it, claimed it was just a joke.
Boiler Plate:
We hit a total 400,000 deaths around Jan 14. The surge from the gatherings during Christmas peaked on Jan 8th at over 300,000 new cases. For nine days in January, the daily death count was over 4,000 a day. Depending on your state, the current growth in new cases is between 5 and 10 times what it was in September. My state from 700 new cases in September and had 10,000 on Jan 8, before settling down to 5,600 on Jan 21.
Overall, the trend for the week of 1/17 to 1/24 seems to be about the same as the week after Thanksgiving, when that holiday surge started to grow. The Christmas surge has backed down to about 190,000 new cases per day, with deaths still over 4,000 deaths a day. But deaths are a lagging indicator against new cases, and should drop proportionally in about a week. The total number of active cases I estimate at 5.3 million, up from an estimated 850,000 in September.
Mask deniers
I am noticing an uptick in the conversation about masks being ineffective. Last year, I made it a mission to rebuke these people wherever they occurred. After a while they were getting repetitive with only slight rewording of arguments. So I started keeping a log of the false articles and my conclusion after reading it. Oddly, most of the "proof" offered had, as their conclusion, that masks DID work, if you bothered to read it. The #2 offenders were studies that were not even about proving the efficacy of masks.
So if you are interested, below are 20 links posted by someone as “proof” that masks don’t work. And my notes after reading them.
1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2
Not a study, but an evaluation of other studies.
Stated CONCLUSION: Most included trials had poor
design, reporting and sparse events. There was insufficient evidence to provide
a recommendation on the use of facial barriers without other measures. (IE, the studies evaluated were crap)
2 https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Not a study, but an evaluation of other studies.
Hand Hygiene was identified as effective in preventing some respiratory diseases
Conclusion regarding face masks. "In theory, transmission should be reduced the most if both infected members and other contacts wear masks, but compliance in uninfected close contacts could be a problem (12,34). Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission (39). Thus, education on the proper use and disposal of used face masks, including hand hygiene, is also needed."
So this conclusion is NOT saying masks are not effective, but the improper use of masks needs to be addressed.
3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf
Not a study, but an evaluation of other 31 other studies.
Results. ".. wearing a facemask may very slightly reduce the odds of developing ILI /respiratory symptoms,.."
and "...infected household member wore facemasks the odds of further household members becoming ill may be modestly reduced by around 19%
So stating that infected people wearing masks do reduce the spread
4 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
This is not a study about the effectiveness of facemasks over all but a comparison of N95 masks vs Ordinary hospital masks.
So is not relevant to the claim that Masks are Neither effective nor safe. (the double negative in the claim should be a clue as to the literacy level of the aggregator of the link, but moving on...)
5 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
This is not a study about the effectiveness of facemasks over all but a comparison of N95 masks vs Ordinary hospital masks.
So is not relevant to the claim that Masks are Neither effective nor safe.
6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/
Not a study, but an evaluation of other studies.
Observational studies: All but two #12 and #13 of the case–control studies in healthcare workers reported that wearing masks and/or respirators appeared to protect workers from acquiring SARS.
Implying that Masks did prevent the spread of SARS like diseases.
7 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
This trial was too small a sample size. 32 people split into 2 groups of 16. One consistently wore masks, one did not.
The results are 1 from each group caught a cold. However 1 is not statistically significant. As the transmission could be from a variety of methods.
So this study would need to be expanded.
8 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720
Does not state that masks are ineffective, but can be made more effective.
9 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086
This is more about the specifications of the N-95 mask system, and not about effectiveness of preventing infection.
10 https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf
Comparison of Filtration Efficiency and Pressure Drop in Anti-Yellow Sand Masks, Quarantine Masks, Medical Masks, General Masks, and Handkerchiefs
This is not a study on masks preventing infection. But a comparison of how well each type of mask work.
In short Handkerchiefs are lousy, other masks are better.
11 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/?fbclid=IwAR25VAoC4vRzHq6HtOJb0YqImbCuOWoDbgC9TnSNT0QpVDoTiYI-1VKyCYE
This is a comparison between cloth masks to medical masks
It is not a study of efficacy of masks in general to prevent infection, just the difference between two different models of masks.
12 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full?fbclid=IwAR3LE3nJMRCu9lEeNzOWx_MKnJdQALBfQ_rJwlrkgfRbx6wof_n-8Nbenc0
This is a comparison between cloth masks to medical masks
It is not a study of efficacy of masks in general to prevent infection, just the difference between two different models of masks.
NOTE: this link is just another reference to the same study as number 1 on your list.
13 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
This one is a study of decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations, a possible hazard, on surgeons
The study noticed a drop in Oxygen after one hour of surgery, but only after on hour, and no increased drop.
However, the effect was most prominent on the surgeons aged over 35.
The conclusion reads: This early change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress.
And so is inconclusive.
14 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00173017
This is the very first real sounding report that N-95 masks can cause dizziness, headache, and short of breath .
It is an observation made by National Taiwan University Hospital, but has not been validated.
N-95 have better filtration, but is not what is being worn in public. So if validated, is not likely to be a pose serious Risks to healthy individuals.
15 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/
Not about masks at all, but about a slowly progressive lung disease.
16 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35797-3?fbclid=IwAR3KPW7YQJ2N-eNzxL7ZBDFls-DLw2UeksTHuCXgFwpA7xQB46k2dXU0N4w
Not about masks at all, but about Sleep Apnea
17 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
This is a comparison between N95 masks and medical masks
It is not a study of efficacy of masks in general to prevent infection, just the difference between two different models of masks.
18 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577?fbclid=IwAR0WnL4UEztetFtw7GVRByFyWA3p95YB8wTMRVPDe6xophHYaPKk-2S3-lQ#T1
This is a comparison between cloth masks to medical masks
It is not a study of efficacy of masks in general to prevent infection, just the difference between two different models of masks.
It's conclusion is that medical masks have superior efficacy in preventing infection over cloth masks
19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
This is a comparison between properly fit N-95 and fitted N-95
It is not a study of efficacy of masks in general to prevent infection.
But does demonstrate the properly fitted masks are better at preventing infection then improperly fitted masks.
20 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
Actual study about efficacy of masks:
Results read "...laboratory-confirmed viral infections ... were consistently lower in the mask arm compared with control"
And Conclusion reads "The study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control..."
Lots of work Phil. Thanks for your concern and commitment.
ReplyDeleteYour welcome.
ReplyDelete