Connect with us

COVID-19

You don’t have to be afraid but you have to stay at home – From the front line in Italy

Published

5 minute read

Dr. Daniele Maccini is a doctor on the front line of Italy’s fight against coronavirus 

This is from his Facebook post from late February which is just as COVID-19 began to devastate Italy’s health care system.  It has been translated from Italian.

Good morning everyone. For various reasons it’s been a lot since I posted on Facebook. But today I think it is useful to spend a page to share and ask you to share the words of a fellow common sense reanimator who in my opinion has been able to summarize a message that I would like to be transposed by everyone, regarding what is happening about the epidemic from Coronavirus Covid 19.

Therefore I quote:

” Coronavirus: we explain why you don’t have to be afraid but you have to stay at home.
I’m a CPR doctor and this is why I allow myself to explain why the State is making such drastic decisions.
The problem with Coronavirus is not its gravity, since it is only 10, or maybe 20 times more serious than the flu. Why is it more serious than flu?
It’s different, so we’re not very used to it;
Elders are not vaccinated.
So who is more at risk? The elders. As usual. Children much less, no serious paediatric cases are reported for the time being.
So why do we worry so much? Because it is MUCH MORE INFECTIVE than the flu, that means it is transmitted with enormous ease.
At this point let’s do some calculations so we can better understand what the problem is.

The Influence
As a rule, flu hits over a season, let’s assume in 5 months, about 10 % of the population. So it hits around 5 million Italians in the span of 30*5 = 150 days. Mortality is 0,1 %, so we have about 5000 deaths (almost all elderly) every year in 150 days. For each dead, we suppose we have about 4-5 patients in CPR, to keep us wide, and everyone should be put into ICU. We then put 25.000 people in ICU in 150 days, with an average inpatient of 7 days, which means 1000-2000 patients a day in ICU in Italy during the winter.
Let’s summarize:
Infectivity: 10 % potential (real data) = 50 million * 10 % = 5 million infected, many of them unaware.
Mortality: 0,1 % estimated = 5000 people in 150 days.
Critics: 5*0,1 % = 25.000 people in 150 days. so about 1000-2000 people in ICU a day due to flu.
The beds in ICU are for the province of Venice, where I live, about 60 out of 1 million inhabitants, so it could be about 4000 across Italy. This means that at worst case scenario patients with flu and its complications, i.e. pneumonia, occupy between 25 % and 50 % at maximum intensive therapies in Italy at peak.

The Coronavirus
Let’s see now what can happen with the Coronavirus. Let’s remember that the big difference is that Coronavirus is extremely more infectious and could infect us, instead of in 150 days, in 30-60 days. Suppose 60 days. Let’s remember that it can affect up to 60 % of the population, estimated data, so let’s do some calculations:
Infectivity: 60 % potential (estimated data) = 50 million * 60 % = 30 million infected, of which the vast majority unaware.
mortality: 1-2 % estimated = between 500.000 and 1.000.000 million people.
Critics: 5 % = 1.500.000 people in 60 days. so about 300.000 people in ICU.
But we only have 4000 beds! How can we put 300.000 people in ICU when we only have 4000 beds?
NOW YOU UNDERSTAND WHY YOU NEED TO BE HOME?
If you stay home, people get infected little by bit. Many don’t notice. The others, especially the elderly, but also some young people, we doctors and nurses take them, put them in ICU, treat them and return them to you. A little bit at a time.
If everyone leaves the house, the risk is that they will all get infected together and that we cannot manage them, with an important increase in mortality.
YOU DON ‘ T HAVE TO PANIC BUT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. STAY HOME.

And above all, let me add, don’t come to the ER for futile reasons. We always say it but this time it’s even more important.”

So don’t be scared: each of you who will read this message has a very low probability of having big trouble from this infection, but try to behave so as to safeguard everyone’s good because there are many people (maybe even your acquaintances) who can instead risk a lot.

My endless date with self-isolation has led to some sobering realizations

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

COVID-19

CDC Quietly Admits to Covid Policy Failures

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Harvey RischHARVEY RISCH 

Instead of admitting policy error that the Covid vaccines do not much control virus spread, our public health administration doubled down, attempting then to compel vaccination on as many more people as could be threatened by mandates.

In so many words—and data—CDC has quietly admitted that all of the indignities of the Covid-19 pandemic management have failed: the masks, the distancing, the lockdowns, the closures, and especially the vaccines; all of it failed to control the pandemic.

It’s not like we didn’t know that all this was going to fail, because we said so as events unfolded early on in 2020, that the public health management of this respiratory virus was almost completely opposite to principles that had been well established through the influenza period, in 2006. The spread of a new virus with replication factor R0 of about 3, with more than one million cases across the country by April 2020, with no potentially virus-sterilizing vaccine in sight for at least several months, almost certainly made this infection eventually endemic and universal.

Covid-19 starts as an annoying, intense, uncomfortable flu-like illness, and for most people, ends uneventfully 2-3 weeks later. Thus, management of the Covid-19 pandemic should not have relied upon counts of cases or infections, but on numbers of deaths, numbers of people hospitalized or with serious long-term outcomes of the infection, and of serious health, economic, and psychological damages caused by the actions and policies made in response to the pandemic, in that order of decreasing priorities.

Even though numbers of Covid cases correlate with these severe manifestations, that is not a justification for case numbers to be used as the actionable measure, because Covid-19 infection mortality is estimated to range below 0.1% in the mean across all ages, and post-infection immunity provides a public good in protecting people from severe reinfection outcomes for the great majority who do not get serious “long-Covid” on first infection.

Nevertheless, once the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, with a new large wave of the Delta strain spreading across the US in July-August 2021 even after eight months of the vaccines taken by half of Americans, instead of admitting policy error that the Covid vaccines do not much control virus spread, our public health administration doubled down, attempting then to compel vaccination on as many more people as could be threatened by mandates. That didn’t work out too well as seen when the large Omicron wave hit the country during December 2021-January 2022 in spite of some 10% more of the population getting vaccinated from September through December of 2021.

A typical mandate example: in September 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued Emergency Proclamation 21-14.2, requiring Covid-19 vaccination for various groups of state workers. In the proclamation, the stated goal was, “WHEREAS, COVID-19 vaccines are effective in reducing infection and serious disease, and widespread vaccination is the primary means we have as a state to protect everyone…from COVID-19 infections.” That is, the stated goal was to reduce the number of infections.

What the CDC recently reported (see chart below), however, is that by the end of 2023, cumulatively, at least 87% of Americans had anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to and thus had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, this in spite of the mammoth, protracted and booster-repeated vaccination campaign that led to about 90% of Americans taking the shots. My argument is that by making policies based on number of infections a higher priority than ones based on the more serious but less common consequences of both infections and policy damages, the proclaimed goal of the vaccine mandate to reduce spread failed in that 87% of Americans eventually became infected anyway.

In reality, neither vaccine immunity nor post-infection immunity were ever able fully to control the spread of the infection. On August 11, 2022, the CDC stated, “Receipt of a primary series alone, in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses, provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3,6). Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time.” Public health pandemic measures that “wane over time” are very unlikely to be useful for control of infection spread, at least without very frequent and impractical revaccinations every few months.

Nevertheless, infection spread per se is not of consequence, because count of infections is not and should not have been the main priority of public health pandemic management. Rather, the consequences of the spread and the negative consequences of the policies invoked should have been the priorities. Our public health agencies chose to prioritize a failed policy of reducing the spread rather than reducing the mortality or the lockdown and school and business closure harms, which led to unnecessary and avoidable damage to millions of lives. We deserved better from our public health institutions.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Harvey Risch

    Harvey Risch, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His main research interests are in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and in epidemiologic methods.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Japanese study shows disturbing increase in cancer related deaths during the Covid pandemic

Published on

From Cureus.com

The study is called:

Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

During the COVID-19 pandemic, excess deaths including cancer have become a concern in Japan, which has a rapidly aging population. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate how age-adjusted mortality rates (AMRs) for different types of cancer in Japan changed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022).

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic began in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and was first detected in Japan in January 2020. In response, a range of healthcare and socio-economic restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of the disease. Since February 2021, the mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP) vaccine has been available for emergency use and is recommended for all individuals aged six months and older, especially those at high risk.

As of March 2023, 80% of the Japanese population had received their first and second doses, 68% had received their third dose, and 45% had received their fourth dose [1]. Despite these national measures, 33.8 million people had been infected, and 74,500 deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 in Japan by the end of April 2023.

Additionally, excess deaths from causes other than COVID-19 have been reported in various countries [2-6], including deaths from cancer [7-10], and Japan is no exception [11,12]. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Japan, accounting for one-fourth of all deaths. Therefore, it is essential to understand the effects of the pandemic on mortality rates of cancer from 2020 to 2022. Age adjustment is necessary for accurate evaluation, especially in diseases such as cancer that tend to occur in elderly adults.

Japan has several characteristics that make it ideal for analyzing the impact of the pandemic on cancer mortality rates, including its large population of 123 million, availability of official statistics, and the high 80% accuracy rate of death certificates according to autopsy studies [13].

Conclusions

Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. The significance of this possibility warrants further studies.

From the YouTube channel of Dr John Campbell

Continue Reading

Trending

X