Page History

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19843315.covid-scotland-case-rates-lowest-unvaccinated-double-jabbed-elderly-drive-rise-hospital-admissions/

Image Added

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/supreme-court-ruling-biden-covid-vaccine-mandates.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its sweeping vaccine-or-test requirements for large private companies, but allowed similar requirements to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments.

The rulings came three days after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency measure started to take effect.

That mandate required that workers at businesses with 100 or more employees must get vaccinated or submit a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace. It also required unvaccinated workers to wear masks indoors at work.

“Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category,” the court wrote.

But in a separate, simultaneously released ruling on the administration’s vaccination rules for health-care workers, the court wrote, “We agree with the Government that the [Health and Human Services] Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him.”

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the rulings.

OSHA, which polices workplace safety for the Labor Department, issued the mandates under its emergency power established by Congress. OSHA can shortcut the normal rulemaking process, which can take years, if the Labor secretary determines a new workplace safety standard is necessary to protect workers from a grave danger. 

The Biden administration argued before the high court Friday that the rules were necessary to address the “grave danger” posed by the Covid pandemic. Liberal justices, clearly sympathetic to the government’s position, highlighted the devastating death toll from the pandemic and the unprecedented wave of infection rolling across the nation due to the omicron variant.

But the court’s 6-3 conservative majority expressed deep skepticism about the federal government’s move.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said during arguments that he thinks it’s hard to argue that the 1970 law governing OSHA “gives free reign to the agencies to enact such broad regulation.”

The vaccine-or-test rules faced a raft of lawsuits from 27 states with Republican attorneys general or governors, private businesses, religious groups and national industry groups such as the National Retail Federation, the American Trucking Associations and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The mandates were the most expansive use of power by the federal government to protect workers from Covid since the pandemic began.

https://swprs.org/professor-ehud-qimron-ministry-of-health-its-time-to-admit-failure/

https://english.tau.ac.il/profile/ehudq - Profile on Ehud Qimron

Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University and one of the leading Israeli immunologists, has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic.

Original letter in Hebrew: N12 News (January 6, 2022); translated by Google/SPR. See also: Professor Qimron’s prediction from August 2020: “History will judge the hysteria” (INN).

∗∗∗

Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure

In the end, the truth will always be revealed, and the truth about the coronavirus policy is beginning to be revealed. When the destructive concepts collapse one by one, there is nothing left but to tell the experts who led the management of the pandemic – we told you so.

Two years late, you finally realize that a respiratory virus cannot be defeated and that any such attempt is doomed to fail. You do not admit it, because you have admitted almost no mistake in the last two years, but in retrospect it is clear that you have failed miserably in almost all of your actions, and even the media is already having a hard time covering your shame.

You refused to admit that the infection comes in waves that fade by themselves, despite years of observations and scientific knowledge. You insisted on attributing every decline of a wave solely to your actions, and so through false propaganda “you overcame the plague.” And again you defeated it, and again and again and again.

You refused to admit that mass testing is ineffective, despite your own contingency plans explicitly stating so (“Pandemic Influenza Health System Preparedness Plan, 2007”, p. 26).

You refused to admit that recovery is more protective than a vaccine, despite previous knowledge and observations showing that non-recovered vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than recovered people. You refused to admit that the vaccinated are contagious despite the observations. Based on this, you hoped to achieve herd immunity by vaccination — and you failed in that as well.

You insisted on ignoring the fact that the disease is dozens of times more dangerous for risk groups and older adults, than for young people who are not in risk groups, despite the knowledge that came from China as early as 2020.

You refused to adopt the “Barrington Declaration”, signed by more than 60,000 scientists and medical professionals, or other common sense programs. You chose to ridicule, slander, distort and discredit them. Instead of the right programs and people, you have chosen professionals who lack relevant training for pandemic management (physicists as chief government advisers, veterinarians, security officers, media personnel, and so on).

You have not set up an effective system for reporting side effects from the vaccines and reports on side effects have even been deleted from your Facebook page. Doctors avoid linking side effects to the vaccine, lest you persecute them as you did to some of their colleagues. You have ignored many reports of changes in menstrual intensity and menstrual cycle times. You hid data that allows for objective and proper research (for example, you removed the data on passengers at Ben Gurion Airport). Instead, you chose to publish non-objective articles together with senior Pfizer executives on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.

Irreversible damage to trust

However, from the heights of your hubris, you have also ignored the fact that in the end the truth will be revealed. And it begins to be revealed. The truth is that you have brought the public’s trust in you to an unprecedented low, and you have eroded your status as a source of authority. The truth is that you have burned hundreds of billions of shekels to no avail – for publishing intimidation, for ineffective tests, for destructive lockdowns and for disrupting the routine of life in the last two years.

You have destroyed the education of our children and their future. You made children feel guilty, scared, smoke, drink, get addicted, drop out, and quarrel, as school principals around the country attest. You have harmed livelihoods, the economy, human rights, mental health and physical health.

You slandered colleagues who did not surrender to you, you turned the people against each other, divided society and polarized the discourse. You branded, without any scientific basis, people who chose not to get vaccinated as enemies of the public and as spreaders of disease. You promote, in an unprecedented way, a draconian policy of discrimination, denial of rights and selection of people, including children, for their medical choice. A selection that lacks any epidemiological justification.

When you compare the destructive policies you are pursuing with the sane policies of some other countries — you can clearly see that the destruction you have caused has only added victims beyond the vulnerable to the virus. The economy you ruined, the unemployed you caused, and the children whose education you destroyed — they are the surplus victims as a result of your own actions only.

There is currently no medical emergency, but you have been cultivating such a condition for two years now because of lust for power, budgets and control. The only emergency now is that you still set policies and hold huge budgets for propaganda and psychological engineering instead of directing them to strengthen the health care system.

This emergency must stop!

Professor Udi Qimron, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/08/end-mass-jabs-and-live-with-covid-says-ex-head-of-vaccine-taskforce

https://7argumente.de/

1st argument: The pandemic with SARS-CoV2 will not be ended by vaccination

One goal of the general vaccination obligation is to create a population immunized against SARS-CoV2. We consider it questionable that this goal can actually be achieved with the available vaccines that are still conditionally approved in the EU.

1.) The immunization by the current vaccines is much weaker and shorter lasting than expected and promised. At best, self-protection exists against severe courses and only for a few months.

2.) These vaccines do not produce ‘sterile’ immunity. Despite vaccination, infections and the transmission of viruses are possible at any time. The extent and duration of foreign protection are unknown.

3.) New virus variants are bypassing vaccination protection more and more successfully. At present, the development and vaccination of a vaccine adapted to new virus variants will take longer than the average time interval of occurrence of more successful variants. Consequently, this reactive vaccine adaptation cannot produce a uniformly immunized population.

4.) The evolutionary logic of the virus mutation is that of the new variants, those that best bypass the protection of the existing vaccines will be the most successful. A complete vaccination of the population - with a vaccination that does not produce sterile immunity – can increase the selection pressure on the virus and therefore even be counterproductive.

Argument 2: The risk potential of vaccines is too high
Since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, no systematic research has taken place – including the long–term risk potential of the novel vaccines. For the gene-based COVID19 vaccines, it is particularly important that the vaccines and their modes of action are fundamentally new and have not been researched in long-term studies. Vaccine damage could occur in a different way than the experience with conventional vaccines suggests.

1.) The suspected cases of side effects from COVID19 vaccination recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute are already of concern in relation to reports on other vaccines. A systematic investigation of side effects and risk factors of the vaccinations is therefore urgently required.

2.) In addition, current research shows warning signals for a significant risk potential of these vaccines:

a) In 2021, and especially in recent months, there has been a significantly increasing excess mortality, which has parallels with vaccination: if the number of vaccinations increases, the excess mortality also increases, the number of vaccinations decreases, the excess mortality also decreases. This pattern is found in different countries and could possibly be an indication of dramatic side effects that have been overlooked so far (Appendix 1).

b) The unusually strong increase in cardiovascular and neurological diseases since the beginning of the vaccination campaign also shows parallels to the vaccination curves (Appendix 2).

c) There is evidence that the indicators of the risk of infarction, detectable in the blood, increase significantly after vaccination.

d) The effect of the spike proteins on human cell metabolism is largely not understood. There is serious evidence that they can be the cause of unwanted side effects.

e) Research results indicate that these side effects may be individual and deviate from the previously known patterns.

f) Current findings on the Omikron variant indicate that persons vaccinated against an earlier variant are more susceptible to this new variant than non-vaccinated persons.

3rd argument: The risk potential of multiple administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations is insufficiently researched
The vaccination obligation probably provides for continued booster vaccinations, as vaccination protection is rapidly decreasing and new virus variants are emerging. Multiple vaccination (more than two) is an ongoing experiment on the population on cumulative vaccination risks. Because:

1.) No data have been collected so far in the approval studies of the manufacturers.

2.) Also in connection with the currently running booster campaigns, hardly any comprehensive analyses on the safety of the procedure have yet been published.

4th argument: The general obligation to vaccinate with the currently conditionally approved COVID19 vaccines violates constitutional law
The guarantee of human dignity in Article 1 of the Basic Law is the basis of the Basic Law: as an end in itself, man is the reason and goal of law. It must never be treated by state measures as a mere means to an end (even if it is for the common good). The dignity of the individual subject cannot be weighed against other fundamental rights; rather, it applies absolutely. An obligation to vaccinate includes the protection of the right to self-determination guaranteed by the guarantee of human dignity with regard to medical interventions in physical and mental integrity and in the protection of the right to self-determination guaranteed by Art. 2 para. 2 GG protected the physical integrity of the person concerned. It is also possible to impair freedom of belief and conscience in accordance with Art. 4 GG.

1.) With regard to the intervention in Art. 2 para. 2 GG, the constitutionality of an obligation to vaccinate is to be doubted because of the questionable purpose and lack of suitability, necessity and appropriateness.

a) In this respect, the choice of a legitimate purpose is already unclear. In particular, the following can be considered: herd immunity, interruption of infection chains, avoidance of deaths and severe courses (and associated relief of the health system), termination of the pandemic.

b) The appropriateness of a general vaccination obligation is to be clearly denied in any case with regard to the first two purposes mentioned under a). With regard to the prevention of severe courses, it should be noted that the conditionally approved vaccines lose their effect after a very short time (3 to 6 months) and in this respect in any case do not have a permanent suitability. Furthermore, their effectiveness cannot be assumed for new virus mutations (cf. 1st argument under 3.). A general vaccination obligation is also unsuitable for the end of the pandemic for the same reasons.

c) The necessity would only be to be answered in the affirmative if there were no milder means that would be equally suitable for achieving the goals. Since the suitability is already questionable, considerations about this are hypothetical at best: such considerations concern, for example, the protection of vulnerable groups, the improvement of the health care system or the (if possible) timely adaptation of vaccines. In the design of the general vaccination obligation, less drastic variants would also have to be considered: for example, a wide exemption for medical indications even in the case of existing medical uncertainties (autoimmune diseases, dispositions for vaccine damage – previous allergies or damage during vaccinations, known heart diseases, etc.), which allow an individual doctor-patient assessment.

d) Appropriateness in the narrower sense presupposes that there is a clear preponderance for the protection of the general public intended by the vaccination obligation when weighing up the impaired and protected interests. That is not the case here. Because the risk relationship between the risk of a severe course or death from COVID and the risk of severe or fatal side effects from vaccination is not in favor of vaccination for large groups of people. According to the statements of serious scientists, the risk of younger adults is higher in the case of vaccination. In addition, there is a demonstrably significant and not yet sufficiently known risk potential of the novel and only conditionally approved vaccines (cf. 2nd argument). This means that serious risks to the health of the individual must be balanced with unclear benefits for society as a whole.

2.) A compulsory vaccination with a fine conflicts with Art. 1 GG. This protects the human being from being treated as a reified – as a mere object. He would be forced by the mandatory vaccination to tolerate an irreversible intervention in his body through a medical treatment that has only been approved to a limited extent so far, i.e. a medical treatment complex that has not yet been sufficiently researched. This would also be done solely for the sake of the other members of society or for the sake of the other members of society. for the purpose of combating the pandemic in society as a whole or – depending on the target – maintaining medical treatment resources. To what extent these purposes can actually be achieved by compulsory vaccination is unclear. However, it is constitutionally clear that the purpose of the individual is inadmissible even if it can almost certainly protect the well-being and even the lives of many others. The unvaccinated person in his sheer existence would be illegalized by a general obligation to vaccinate and criminalized by threatening sanctions.

3.) With regard to Art. 4 GG, it should be borne in mind that the individual person is free in the area of his freedom of belief and conscience to refuse medical interventions for ideological or religious reasons.

5th argument: The overload of hospitals by COVID19 patients is not clearly proven by the statistical data
The general obligation to vaccinate is justified, among other things, by relieving the burden on hospitals and, in particular, intensive care units. In this context, there are also many open questions.

1.) Even after almost two years of the pandemic, there are no reliable findings on which proportion of the reported COVID19 patients is treated in hospitals for a COVID19 disease and which proportion is in the hospital for another cause.

2.) There is insufficient statistical information on the vaccination status, age distribution and the presence of pre-existing diseases of the actual COVID19 patients.

3.) Hospitals are subject to economic constraints and political incentives in providing treatment capacities for COVID-19. Ongoing debates about the decreasing number of beds reported as "operable" under changing conditions lead to the question: Can a relief of this system not be achieved by adequate and transparent administrative and financial support?

6th argument: measures other than vaccination are not exhausted

The one-sided propagation of the vaccination obligation continues the neglect of other effective measures against the pandemic that has already been practiced in the last two years, such as the lack of improvement in the working conditions of nurses and doctors, the maintenance or replenishment of intensive care bed capacity, as well as the development and use of therapies and medications.

7th argument: The COVID19 vaccination obligation accelerates social conflicts
The obligation to vaccinate is based on the assumption that society can thus return to normality. The opposite is the case: society is becoming more deeply divided. Citizens who consciously decide against vaccination for medical, ideological, religious or other reasons are excluded, possibly even prosecuted. Public discourse creates artificial worlds in which critical voices can hardly be heard. The language itself is also being pushed into the role of a vicarious agent of controversial political goals. Simplifying definitions ("vaccinated" - "unvaccinated") promote polarization in our society; euphemistic abbreviations such as "2-G" obscure the fact that a (large) minority is systematically, publicly and rigidly excluded from social life.

Due to the growing politicization, there is also an ideologizing unification as "science" in academic research across disciplines. This constitutes a disregard for the plural, free discourse on the urgently needed gain of knowledge about the benefits and risks of vaccination.

The confidence of many citizens in the state could be fundamentally shaken by strengthening this course. The resulting conflicts affect the rule of law and democracy.

The seven arguments presented are intended to raise questions, the clarification of which should be a prerequisite for making a decision regarding mandatory vaccination against Covid-19.

The arguments are not directed against a specific position in terms of content. Rather, they are arguments for the fact that in the current situation it is important to develop a common approach to questions in science, which makes it possible to gain a solid foundation that does not exist at the moment, in order to alleviate health and mental distress with each other with a view to all dimensions of the crisis.

We ask that, in this spirit of scientific freedom and human dignity, we make joint efforts to overcome the current situation with its multiple suffering and the division of our society and to permanently heal its scars.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/new-data-on-covid-19-transmission-by-vaccinated-individuals

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v1.full

PDF version in case the stude is removed (not peer reviewed yet)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10358361/Omicron-nearly-100-TIMES-deadly-seasonal-flu-scientists-believe.html

Omicron could be even less deadly than flu, scientists believe in a boost to hopes that the worst of the pandemic is over.

Some experts have always maintained that the coronavirus would eventually morph into a seasonal cold-like virus as the world develops immunity through vaccines and natural infection. But the emergence of the highly-mutated Omicron variant appears to have sped the process up.

MailOnline analysis shows Covid killed one in 33 people who tested positive at the peak of the devastating second wave last January, compared to just one in 670 now. But experts believe the figure could be even lower because of Omicron. 

The case fatality rate — the proportion of confirmed infections that end in death — for seasonal influenza is 0.1, the equivalent of one in 1,000. 

One former Government adviser today said if the trend continues to drop then 'we should be asking whether we are justified in having any measures we would not bring for a bad flu season'. But other experts say coronavirus is much more transmissible than flu, meaning it will inevitably cause more deaths.

Meanwhile, researchers at Washington University modelling the next stage of the pandemic expect Omicron to kill up to 99 per cent fewer people than Delta, in another hint it could be less deadly than flu. 

No accurate infection-fatality rate (IFR), which is always just a fraction of the CFR because it reflects deaths among everyone who catches the virus, has yet been published for Delta. 

But UK Government advisers estimated the overall figure stood at around 0.25 per cent before Omicron burst onto the scene, down from highs of around 1.5 per cent before the advent of life-saving vaccines. 

If Omicron is 99 per cent less lethal than Delta, it suggests the current IFR could be as low as 0.0025 per cent, the equivalent of one in 40,000, although experts say this is unlikely. Instead, the Washington modelling estimates the figure actually sits in the region of 0.07 per cent, meaning approximately one in 1,430 people who get infected will succumb to the illness.  

Leading researchers estimate flu's IFR to sit between 0.01 and 0.05 per cent but argue comparing rates for the two illnesses is complicated. 

+5

MailOnline analysis shows the UK's case fatality rate — the proportion of confirmed infections that end in death — has shrunk 21-fold from three per cent during the darkest days of the second wave last winter before the vaccine rollout to 0.15 per cent at the end of December. For comparison, widely-circulated data suggests seasonal influenza has a case-fatality rate of around 0.1 per cent

+5

Cambridge University researchers, who are No10 scientific advisors, estimate that less than one per cent of under-75s who catch Covid die from the virus, with the fatality rate dropping for younger age groups. Over-75s are at most risk from the virus, with three per cent of those infected estimated to die from the virus 

+5

The Oxford University team behind Our World in Data estimates that the UK's IFR rate is currently 0.1 per cent. At the peak of the wave last winter, they estimated three per cent of those who caught Covid died from the virus. The declining IFR will be impacted by the increase in testing capacity this year, as comparatively more cases are now being detected

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia, told MailOnline his 'very rough best guess' was that triple-jabbed people were at the same risk from Omicron as they are from the flu. 'Add the new medications into the mix and it gets even more complex,' he added.

But scientists today leaped on the estimates, saying it was more proof that the worst days of the pandemic were over and that Britain needs to get back on the path to normality. 

Professor Robert Dingwall, a former JCVI member of and expert in sociology at Nottingham Trent University, told MailOnline it will be a few weeks until there are definitive Omicron fatality rates, but if they are consistent with the findings that it is less severe 'we should be asking whether we are justified in having any measures we would not bring for a bad flu season'.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next

• Boris is urged to convene COBRA to save NHS from...Have you REALLY hit your booster jab target, Boris? Up to...EXCLUSIVE Did London's Covid outbreak peak an entire WEEK...EXCLUSIVE: Number of English Covid patients ending up in...One last party for England? Boris warns of 'challenges in...EXCLUSIVE: Are we on the brink of OVER-vaccinating in the...

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Share
774 shares

What do we know about Omicron? 

Scientists know Omicron is more infectious than previous strains of Covid due to the speed it has taken off around the world.

The variant has also been linked with causing more reinfections that previous strains, which experts say is likely due to its extensive mutations.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) analysis of nearly 800 Omicron infectious found six per cent were reinfections, suggesting it is 5.5 times more likely to re-infect than Delta. 

And some experts say the period of the new variant - the time taken from infection to first symptoms - appears to be much shorter than other strains.

However, experts in South Africa, where the strain first emerged, and in the UK have said the variant is milder than previous versions of the virus.

Scientists in the UK said those infected with Omicron are 70 per cent less likely to be hospitalised, but experts in South Africa said the figure may be as high as 80 per cent.

However, it is unclear whether this is because the strain is inherently less severe or if protection from vaccines and prior infection mean people who catch Omicron are becoming less unwell. 

Analysis by the UKHSA revealed immunity gained from third Covid jabs fades quicker against Omicron than Delta. 

Adults who received two AstraZeneca doses, plus a Pfizer or Moderna booster, are 60 per cent less likely to get symptoms than the unvaccinated if they catch Omicron up to four weeks after their third jab. But after ten weeks, efficacy drops to 35 per cent for Pfizer and 45 per cent for Moderna.

Meanwhile, those who received Pfizer for all three of their doses saw their protection levels increase to around 70 per cent for two weeks after their top-up dose before falling to around 45 per cent 10 weeks later. 

People given two AstraZeneca vaccines and a Moderna booster were the most protected, according to the report, with efficacy sitting at 75 per cent against Omicron and lasting for at least nine weeks.

He said: 'If we would not have brought in the measures in November 2019, why are we doing it now? What's the specific justification for doing it?

'If the severity of Covid infection is falling away to the point that it is comparable with flu then we really shouldn't have exceptional levels of intervention.'

There would be no justification in having 'any restriction we didn't previously have' if the modelling is confirmed in the coming weeks, Professor Dingwall said.

However, he noted that if the UK has two respiratory viruses in the population which are capable of producing significant levels of hospitalisation, the NHS may need more funding to deal with both Covid and flu to increase its capacity.

Washington University experts who made the claim that Omicron will cause 97 to 99 per cent fewer deaths than Delta — based on case and death data — admit their forecasts were more 'optimistic' than forecasts used by UK Government scientists.

The Prime Minister was warned that daily Covid deaths in Britain could breach 6,000 a day this winter under the worst-case scenario of Omicron's rapid spread.

But the doomsday projection, conducted by one of the modelling sub-groups who feed into No10's SAGE panel, was branded 'fictitious'. 

Daily coronavirus fatalities maxed out at slightly less than 1,400 during the depths of the second wave, before ministers embarked on a huge vaccination blitz.

And studies show two doses of the current crop of jabs still drastically cut the risk of patients becoming severely ill if they catch the virus, even if they offer little protection against falling ill in the first place.   

Booster vaccines — already dished out to 34million people across the UK, or 60.1 per cent of over-12s — bolster immunity even further, real-world evidence shows.

Independent academics have queried the University of Washington team's estimate, saying that they do not look plausible and there is still lots of uncertainty around Omicron data.  

The researchers did not offer an actual estimate for the IFR of Omicron — which scientists still barely understand given that it was only detected for the first time in mid-November.

The team said: 'Based on the available data, we expect the infection-fatality rate will be 97-99 per cent lower than for Delta.

'Huge numbers of infections and moderate numbers of hospitalizations may still translate into a peak of reported (global) daily deaths over 9,000 in early February.'

The IHME team also didn't offer an estimated IFR for Delta, which first cropped up in India before hitting the UK towards the end of spring.

Studies showed it was twice as deadly as the original virus, which was thought to have an IFR of around 1.4 per cent. But even using that figure would equate to an IFR of around 0.03 per cent if Omicron really was 97 to 99 per cent less lethal, making it similar to flu. 

Their own estimates for Omicron — as almost every case will be caused by the strain by January — correspond to an IFR of around 0.07 per cent, Professor McConway said. This is based on deaths peaking at around 330 per day in Britain. 

+5

MailOnline analysis shows just 0.15 per cent of cases led to a death towards the end of December, compared to highs of over three per cent during the darkest days of last year's second wave when the Alpha variant was in full motion and the NHS had yet to embark on its vaccination drive. The rate is calculated by comparing average death numbers to average case numbers from two weeks earlier, which is roughly the amount of time it takes for the disease to take hold, experts say

+5

Official data shows the number of people dying has barely changed across the UK over the last month, with fatalities dropping in the week up to December 31. Graph shows: Covid deaths by death date in the UK. More up to date death data by date reported is biased by reporting issues over the bank holiday weekends

Nearly 40% of NHS Covid 'patients' in England are NOT being treated for virus 

Nearly four in ten Covid patients in hospitals in England are not primarily being treated for the virus, according to official data that highlights the mildness of Omicron . 

NHS figures released today show there were around 13,000 beds occupied by coronavirus sufferers on January 4, of which nearly 4,850 were not mainly sick with the disease. It means close to 40 per cent of patients included in the Government's daily Covid statistics may have been admitted for something else, such as a broken leg.  

The share of so-called 'incidental' cases was even bigger in Omicron hotspot London, where 45 per cent of 'Covid patients' were not primarily in hospital for the virus. 

Experts say there is reason to believe that incidentals will continue to rise as the variant pushes England's infection rates to record highs, with one in 15 people estimated to have had Covid on New Year's Eve.  

In South Africa — ground zero of the Omicron outbreak — up to 60 per cent of Covid patients were not admitted primarily for the virus at the height of the crisis there. 

There are growing calls among experts and politicians for the Government to differentiate between people who're admitted 'with' and 'from' Covid to assess the real pressure of the virus on the NHS.

The rise in incidental admissions and lack of any real uptick in ICU cases has given Boris Johnson the confidence to 'ride out' the Omicron wave without any further restrictions.

A host of studies suggest Omicron causes less severe illness than its predecessors because it replicates faster in the upper airways rather than in the lungs where it can do more damage. MailOnline analysis revealed the Covid case fatality rate — the proportion of confirmed infections resulting in death — is now 21 times lower than during the devastating second wave.

If Delta caused 97 to 99 per cent more deaths than this 0.07 IFR for Omicron, it would have an IFR of up to seven per cent, however, highlighting just how difficult it is too nail down an estimate. 

Professor Kevin McConway, a statistician at the Open University, told MailOnline the suggested IFR of as low as 0.0025 per cent was 'really, really tiny'. That estimate is based on the rolling IFR, estimated by Cambridge University academics, which has been skewed downwards because of the build-up of natural immunity. 

The Washington University experts acknowledge there is uncertainty in their projections, Professor McConway noted as he said it was possible they have 'got their numbers wrong somewhere'. But he said the actual projection — of up to 330 deaths per day — was plausible.

IHME told MailOnline they calculated IFR based on Covid seroprevalence data by age and Covid death figures. 

Real-time IFR can vary drastically in every nation based on previous immunity, prevalence of obesity and other medical conditions, and the population age structure.

Experts also say it is hard to track overall IFR because it is impossible to accurately tell exactly how many people have been infected because not everyone gets tested when they are ill.

But they believe the Covid IFR is dropping due to medical interventions.  

Dr Simon Clarke, a microbiologist at Reading University, said that he believes the future of Covid can be 'kept in check' with jabs, insisting there was 'no question' that vaccines have drastically changed the course of the pandemic.

He added: 'The immunity we are building up appears to be suppressing new variants from causing severe disease.'

But he warned it was not 'inevitable' that the virus will eventually morph into one that merely causes symptoms of the common cold.

MailOnline's analysis suggests the Covid fatality rate fell to as low as 0.14 per cent on December 28 — its lowest ever total — after dropping every day since November 18.

The rate is calculated by comparing average death numbers to average case numbers from two weeks earlier, which is roughly the amount of time it takes for the disease to take hold, experts say. 

It means the case-fatality rate was already dropping before the strain truly kicked off in Britain in mid December, showing vaccines have played a huge role in thwarting the virus.

But the figure is also skewed slightly by increased levels of testing, with the number of swabs being carried out every having shot by around 245 per cent over the past year. 

Testing in Britain reached its highest ever level in the week leading up to Christmas this year, before peaking on January 4 at more than 2million.

And data shows cases were predominantly occurring in people aged under-50, who have always been less at risk of dying from the virus. Rates are now only going up in over-60s in London, signalling what may be to come fore the res of the country.

Professor Paul Hunter, an infectious disease expert at the University of East Anglia, told MailOnline the Covid fatality rate has been falling in recent weeks in the UK but some of this 'is probably down to delayed reporting of deaths over Christmas'.

He said the 'fatality rate for Omicron does seem to be lower than we have seen with previous variants and is probably now below 0.2 per cent', similar to the rate for flu.

But nowhere near as many people are tested for the flu compared to Covid, which has seen more than 2million Brits get themselves swabbed each day. 

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/el-camino-hospital-cmo-admits-that?r=o7iqo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

In an internal memo sent by El Camino Hospital CMO Mark Adams to hospital staff, he disclosed three things that nobody is supposed to know and that the mainstream press is just never going to cover.

But hey, I’m not in the mainstream press, so I will cover it.

Here are the three key admissions:

1. “Currently, 57% of our hospitalized COVID patients are fully vaccinated.” In other words, a clear majority, almost 2/3 of the COVID patients in the hospital, are fully vaccinated. This suggests that the vaccines hardly work at all since this is slightly less than the vaccination rate in the area.

2. “Only one patient is on a ventilator which is consistent with the evidence that the Omicron variant is more contagious but less virulent.” This suggests that all the panic and lockdowns to prepare for Omicron are insane.

3. “SCC public health has issued a new order that potentially might cripple our ability to provide patient care.  This is the only county in CA that is mandating that no health care worker (HCW) that is not boosted or has an approved exemption from vaccination can continue to work after January 24.” In short, in my opinion, Dr. Adams has correctly determined that Santa Clara County Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody is a complete bozo and is deliberately compromising patient safety because she can’t interpret the science correctly. He’s just making this accusation a lot more tactfully and diplomatically than I ever would. This just shows you how out of control our public health officials are. There is effectively no oversight for the reckless decisions of these people.

Kudos to Dr. Adams for telling the truth.

Here’s the memo:

MEMO

To:  El Camino Health Medical Staff
From:  Mark Adams CMO
Subject:  COVID-19 Update
Date:  January 6, 2022

Colleagues:

We are now in the midst of a COVID-19 surge driven by the Omicron variant.  

…

Currently, 57% of our hospitalized COVID patients are fully vaccinated.  Most have underlying medical conditions such as immunocompromised.   Only one patient is on a ventilator which is consistent with the evidence that the Omicron variant is more contagious but less virulent.  Unlike during previous surges, our biggest challenge this time is not the patients but staffing.  We are seeing many community acquired infections in our employees making it difficult to fully staff the hospitals.  To help maintain adequate staffing and still maintain a safe environment for patients we have modified our isolation and quarantine policies to reflect the differences in the behavior of the Omicron variant.  Anyone who is exposed but asymptomatic can continue to work unless symptoms develop without the need for testing.   Anyone who becomes symptomatic and tests positive must isolate for 5 days then if asymptomatic for 24 hours may return to work without testing.  For physicians who are symptomatic but need to work, we continue to offer special testing.  The physician can contact the house supervisor (AHM) who will bring a test kit to the car in the parking lot, the physician swabs themselves, the AHM then delivers the test to the lab and provides the rapid test result to the waiting physician.  This is only for symptomatic must work situations.  (Asymptomatic testing is now in short supply so cannot always be readily available.)

SCC public health has issued a new order that potentially might cripple our ability to provide patient care.  This is the only county in CA that is mandating that no health care worker (HCW) that is not boosted or has an approved exemption from vaccination can continue to work after January 24.  We believe this is an overreach and is not consistent with the evolution of the effects of the Omicron variant.  Hopefully, this will be reconsidered.

Because of the potential for a continued increase in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and further staffing shortages we may need to reduce/restrict elective procedures at our facilities.  We are monitoring this on a day to day basis but please be prepared that this could be necessary in the near short term.  We will keep you updated on that possibility.

We do have a limited supply of sotrovimab for IV infusion for high risk patients that test positive to prevent worsening symptoms.  This is administered in the ED.   Paxlovid distribution will be controlled by the state and has not yet been released.

The bottom line is that the “pandemic” is changing to “endemic” so will most likely be with us for an extended period of time.  This means that while it is no longer an emergency or crisis it is something that we must adapt to and accept as a regular part of our health care business.

Mark Adams, MD, FACS
Chief Medical Officer, Administration Department
2500 Grant Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040

Pandemic of the unvaccinated?

Just one more thing…

Didn’t the CDC say earlier this year that this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”?

For example, this article from US News and World Report (July 16, 2021) says:

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday warned that COVID-19 is becoming a "pandemic of the unvaccinated."

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that cases, hospitalizations and deaths from the coronavirus are increasing nationwide, adding that over 97% of new hospitalizations are in patients who are unvaccinated.

"There is a clear message that is coming through," Walensky said at a press briefing. "This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk, and communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well."

Someone is lying to you. Hint: It isn’t Mark Adams.

Of course it is certainly possible that El Camino Hospital is a statistical outlier. But that’s a huge difference from what is claimed, so is statistically unlikely.

And for those accusing me (without any evidence) of cherry picking from confidential internal memos meant for hospital staff only, let me clarify that this is the only such memo of this type I’ve ever received. So you can’t use the cherry picking argument.

Maybe it is time for our CDC Director to start telling the American people the truth?

Nah. Not going to happen.