thevaccinereaction--2020-06-20--Why is Good News on COVID-19 Bad?

Why is Good News on COVID-19 Bad?

There seems to be a pattern emerging to push back on any new information that suggests COVID-19 may not be as severe as initially believed , even if that new information comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) and the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
It is unclear why , although one might speculate that it could have something to do with government lockdown policies and the rush to bring a COVID-19 vaccine to market before the end of this year , which requires everyone to have a sense of fear and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns and fast tracked vaccines .
On May 20 , 2020 , the CDC published a document titled COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios , which , among other things , estimated the infection fatality rate ( IFR ) for SARS-CoV-2 ( COVID-19 ) at 0.26 percent—slightly higher than the 0.1 percent estimated death rate for seasonal influenza.1 2 3 The new IFR is far lower than the death rate for COVID-19 previously estimated by U.S. health officials .
On Mar .
11 , 2020 , for example , Anthony Fauci , MD , director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) , told Congress that he believed COVID-19 was at least 10 times “ more lethal ” than seasonal influenza .
Prior to that , the WHO had estimated that COVID-19 might be 20 times more deadly than influenza.4 5 The immediate media response to the CDC ’ s much lower COVID-19 IFR estimate included headlines suggesting that many—if not most—public health professionals believed the mortality figure to be “ too low.
” A sub-headline in BuzzFeed News read : “ Public health experts are accusing the CDC of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus is less deadly.
” 6 In that article , Andrew Noymer , PhD , associate professor of population health at the University of California at Irvine , was quoted as saying : In the same article , epidemiologist Carl Bergstrom , PhD of the University of Washington in Seattle referred to the CDC ’ s lower COVID-19 rate as “ deeply problematic ” because it “ underestimate [ s ] fatality by a substantial margin compared to current scientific consensus.
” 6 Bear in mind that these comments are directed at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-governmental organization branded as “ anti-science.
” Epidemiologist William Hanage , PhD of Harvard University ’ s T.H .
Chan School of Public Health characterized the CDC ’ s new COVID-19 mortality figure as “ obviously lowball estimates.
” 7 Interestingly , the 0.26 IFR is consistent with two relatively recent studies conducted by researchers associated with Stanford University Medical School and the University of Southern California ( USC ) .
Both studies estimated the IFR for COVID-19 at 0.1 to 0.2 percent .
Compared to these studies , the CDC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimate but , rather , would be on the high side.8 9 WHO Pressed to “ Clarify ” Statement on Asymptomatic Spread of Coronavirus The latest pushback on positive information related to lower mortality associated with COVID-19 infections has come in response to comments made by epidemiologist Maria Van Kerkhove , MD of the WHO on June 8.10 11 12 Speaking about transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by infected persons who test positive for the virus but do not show clinical symptoms , Dr Van Kerkove said : From the data we have , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual .
We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing .
They ’ re following asymptomatic cases , they ’ re following contacts and they ’ re not finding secondary transmission onward .
It is very rare—and much of that is not published in the literature .
We are constantly looking at this data and we ’ re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question .
It still appears to be rare that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 These were clearly not flippant statements made in passing by Dr. Van Kerkhove , who is the WHO ’ s “ technical lead ” on COVID-19 .
This was a focused and precise statement given at a press briefing at United Nations ( UN ) headquarters in Geneva , Switzerland .
There was no mistaking what Dr. Van Kerkhove meant , and yet the following day she found it necessary to “ clarify ” her words .
An article by STAT noted : Dr. Van Kerkhove clarified by saying , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that people who have symptoms transmit the virus to other people through infectious droplets .
But there are a subset of people who don ’ t develop symptoms , and to truly understand how many people don ’ t have symptoms , we don ’ t actually have that answer yet.
” 13 In short , Dr. Van Kerkhove was pressured to backtrack and say something to the effect of , “ Well , perhaps I misspoke .
We really don ’ t know.
” The June 9 STAT article quoted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute : Harvard Researchers Collaborating with J & J on COVID-19 Vaccine with $ 1B Federal Funding A team of researchers at Harvard led by Dan Barouch , MD , professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School , is currently collaborating with Johnson & Johnson ’ s Janssen Pharmaceutical Cos. on the development of a COVID-19 vaccine .
The Harvard/Janssen joint venture plans to begin human clinical trials on their vaccine this fall .
“ We want to move as fast as we possibly can , because we think the world needs a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is also director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School.14 The effort on a COVID-19 vaccine by Harvard and Janssen is being funded through a $ 1 billion deal struck by Johnson & Johnson and the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) in March .
15