Jump to content

Menu

wuhan - coronavirus


gardenmom5

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/eating-a-plant-rich-diet-helps-to-protect-against-covid-19

Note that they looked at possible interference from issues such as BMI, ethnicity, population density - which is often a proxy for deprivation in the UK, etc. 

Plant rich, not vegetarian or vegan.

Thank you for specifiying! I eat more variety of veg now that I'm a meat eater than I did when I was vegetarian! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RootAnn said:

My state has canceled their state of emergency (or let it expire). Along with that, the widespread testing is closed. I actually have no idea where to get a test right now.

We can get them at a nearby urgent care. Have you checked at those? (I don't know if all of them do it, but this one seems to be really good about lots of things.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was another recent study on diet confirming the ZOE results:

"After adjusting for important confounders, participants who reported following ‘plant-based diets’ and ‘plant-based diets or pescatarian diets’ had 73% (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) and 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99) lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 severity, respectively, compared with participants who did not follow these diets. Compared with participants who reported following ‘plant-based diets’, those who reported following ‘low carbohydrate, high protein diets’ had greater odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.13 to 13.24)."

https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/4/1/257
 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting MedCram lecture on a possible explanation for different outcomes based on diet
"
Dr. Roger Seheult of MedCram explains new research on Neu5Gc, a sialic acid molecule found in meat and dairy, and how it may contribute to severe COVID-19 symptoms, inflammation, and certain chronic diseases and cancers."

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Since Australia is so good at contact tracing, are they seeing any outdoor transmission? Feels like if anyone would know if that was actually happening, it would be Australia. 

I would really love to know the answer to this myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/briefing/delta-variant-spread-contagious.html

“The Delta variant is more contagious. It does not appear to be more severe.” Multiple experts quoted, most in Twitter thread (more if you click), if you are out of free views.

Quote

 

 

Quote
Quote


 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-variant-hospitalizations-covid-coronavirus-vaccine-immunity-11626374706

there is more to the thread with other info from article if you click on the link. WSJ is very stingy with free articles.

Quote

 

 

Edited by Penelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There was another recent study on diet confirming the ZOE results:

"After adjusting for important confounders, participants who reported following ‘plant-based diets’ and ‘plant-based diets or pescatarian diets’ had 73% (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) and 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99) lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 severity, respectively, compared with participants who did not follow these diets. Compared with participants who reported following ‘plant-based diets’, those who reported following ‘low carbohydrate, high protein diets’ had greater odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.13 to 13.24)."

https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/4/1/257
 

Thank you! Interesting, and not surprised.

I have wished from the beginning that the message “eat lots of vegetables and get some sunshine and exercise” had been consistently promoted along with “practice physical distancing and wear a mask indoors.” 

Edited by Penelope
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns
 

Quote

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data

 

Quote

The preprint study on the efficacy and safety of ivermectin – a drug used against parasites such as worms and headlice – in treating Covid-19, led by Dr Ahmed Elgazzar from Benha University in Egypt, was published on the Research Square website in November.

It claimed to be a randomised control trial, a type of study crucial in medicine because it is considered to provide the most reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions due to the minimal risk of confounding factors influencing the results. Elgazzar is listed as chief editor of the Benha Medical Journal, and is an editorial board member.

The study found that patients with Covid-19 treated in hospital who “received ivermectin early reported substantial recovery” and that there was “a substantial improvement and reduction in mortality rate in ivermectin treated groups” by 90%.

But the drug’s promise as a treatment for the virus is in serious doubt after the Elgazzar study was pulled from the Research Square website on Thursday “due to ethical concerns”. Research Square did not outline what those concerns were.

Quote

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions.

Quote

Brown created a comprehensive document uncovering numerous data errors, discrepancies and concerns, which he provided to the Guardian. According to his findings the authors had clearly repeated data between patients.

“The main error is that at least 79 of the patient records are obvious clones of other records,” Brown told the Guardian. “It’s certainly the hardest to explain away as innocent error, especially since the clones aren’t even pure copies. There are signs that they have tried to change one or two fields to make them look more natural.”

Quote

Other studies on ivermectin are still under way. In the UK, the University of Oxford is testing whether giving people with Covid-19 ivermectin prevents them ending up in hospital.

The Elgazzar study was one of the the largest and most promising showing the drug may help Covid patients, and has often been cited by proponents of the drug as evidence of its effectiveness. This is despite a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in June finding ivermectin is “not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients”.

Meyerowitz-Katz told the Guardian that “this is one of the biggest ivermectin studies out there”, and it appeared to him the data was “just totally faked”. This was concerning because two meta-analyses of ivermectin for treating Covid-19 had included the Elgazzar study in the results. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies to determine what the overall scientific literature has found about a treatment or intervention.

“Because the Elgazzar study is so large, and so massively positive – showing a 90% reduction in mortality – it hugely skews the evidence in favour of ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz said.

“If you remove this one study from the scientific literature, suddenly there are very few positive randomised control trials of ivermectin for Covid-19. Indeed, if you get rid of just this research, most meta-analyses that have found positive results would have their conclusions entirely reversed.”

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Yikes. That's egregious. What happens to the meta-analyses that relied on this study? Do they get retracted? This is a good example of why we need to be especially careful with data from preprints. Obviously plenty are reliable, but then things like this can get through. Will something happen to the author as a result?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

Ooooh, yikes!! That's awful. Thanks for posting this. 

 

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome’ on one occasion,” Lawrence said.

That's kind of hilarious, I have to admit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Penelope said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/briefing/delta-variant-spread-contagious.html

“The Delta variant is more contagious. It does not appear to be more severe.” Multiple experts quoted, most in Twitter thread (more if you click), if you are out of free views.

 


 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-variant-hospitalizations-covid-coronavirus-vaccine-immunity-11626374706

there is more to the thread with other info from article if you click on the link. WSJ is very stingy with free articles.

 

Tweets from individuals claiming they "haven't seen any evidence" of greater virulence doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. This Scottish study found that Delta patients required hospitalization much sooner than those with other variants, and this Canadian study found that Delta significantly increased risks of hospitalization and death: "Increases with the Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death." That study also found that "individuals with N501Y-positive variants and probable Delta infection were significantly younger and less likely to have comorbidities than individuals with non-VOC infections."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I would really love to know the answer to this myself. 

Don't quote me, because I was only glancing at my phone during lunch break, but I'm pretty sure at the press conference yesterday (NSW) they said they hadn't seen outdoor transmission events. 

I think, though, they mean just walking past other people outdoors, not like, an outdoor concert, sports game etc. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Since Australia is so good at contact tracing, are they seeing any outdoor transmission? Feels like if anyone would know if that was actually happening, it would be Australia. 

Yes. The footy 

That is why we are currently locked down. It spread at the footy. 

Every single case in Aus is contact traced and genome tested to see how it spreads

  • Like 5
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Melissa in Australia said:

Yes. The footy 

That is why we are currently locked down. It spread at the footy. 

Every single case in Aus is contact traced and genome tested to see how it spreads

Lots of yelling and singing,  I assume. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Melissa in Australia said:

Yes. The footy 

That is why we are currently locked down. It spread at the footy. 

Every single case in Aus is contact traced and genome tested to see how it spreads

Were the footy people in the stands, or up in the schmoozing part ( idk what it's called, where the rich ppl go, enclosed rooms at the top of the stand? Corporate boxes)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Were the footy people in the stands, or up in the schmoozing part ( idk what it's called, where the rich ppl go, enclosed rooms at the top of the stand? Corporate boxes)

They were in the members stand. I am so sports illiterate that I am unsure, but I think that is out in the open. 

It wasn't necassaraly in the immediate area of the positive person. There was at least one that was a tier 2 exposure that caught it. That is further away. 

Edited by Melissa in Australia
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TCB said:

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but I don’t think the mask threads are very active now so putting this link here about a previous study about kids and masks and CO2 concentrations that has been retracted.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782288?fbclid=IwAR0CohQPu6VD4mzgeXMyml0gEZSE1gbqCLzC2s4G5SwyhNjDzf2vnU6DUZI

Yeah, that one was pretty poor, apparently.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Tweets from individuals claiming they "haven't seen any evidence" of greater virulence doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. This Scottish study found that Delta patients required hospitalization much sooner than those with other variants, and this Canadian study found that Delta significantly increased risks of hospitalization and death: "Increases with the Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death." That study also found that "individuals with N501Y-positive variants and probable Delta infection were significantly younger and less likely to have comorbidities than individuals with non-VOC infections."

Those studies are mentioned in the article I linked in another thread, and IIRC, in NYT. 
 

The tweets are by the authors of the articles, explaining the article and including quotes and charts for those who cannot read them because of paywalls. That is the reason I included the tweet threads. The NYT article has multiple quotes from experts. 

i was sharing because as we discussed in the other thread days ago, the experts are saying that those couple of studies don’t establish increased virulence, and then I had these articles pop up in my email. 
 

There are multiple other sources with epidemiologists and virologists over the past couple of weeks saying the same. JHU Public Health, Angela Rasmussen, all of the TwiV people, etc. They are just saying the evidence isn’t there. It also isn’t easy to determine. Just like the true R0 is no longer easy to determine when there is so much vaccination, natural immunity, mitigation’s, etc. 

Edited by Penelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TCB said:

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but I don’t think the mask threads are very active now so putting this link here about a previous study about kids and masks and CO2 concentrations that has been retracted.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782288?fbclid=IwAR0CohQPu6VD4mzgeXMyml0gEZSE1gbqCLzC2s4G5SwyhNjDzf2vnU6DUZI

What stinks is that even when these things get retracted, the original continues to stick in people’s minds even after corrected, so we will continue to forever hear people claiming that masks have been shown to be harmful 🙄

4 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

So I went and looked it up. The people at the footy  at the MCG were in the opened, they did not know each other and were not sitting near each other. 

Yikes. Maybe the bathrooms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Those studies are mentioned in the article I linked in another thread, and IIRC, in NYT. 
 

The tweets are by the authors of the articles, explaining the article and including quotes and charts for those who cannot read them because of paywalls. That is the reason I included the tweet threads. The NYT article has multiple quotes from experts. 

i was sharing because as we discussed in the other thread days ago, the experts are saying that those couple of studies don’t establish increased virulence, and then I had these articles pop up in my email. 
 

There are multiple other sources with epidemiologists and virologists over the past couple of weeks saying the same. JHU Public Health, Angela Rasmussen, all of the TwiV people, etc. 

I can't read the WSJ article, but the NYT article doesn't mention those studies at all, it just quotes a bunch people saying they haven't seen any evidence. The article's claim that Delta isn't more severe is based on a false premise: that if it was more severe than variants [that were circulating when far fewer people were vaccinated] then you would see hospitalizations and deaths rising [despite the fact that far more people are now vaccinated], and since hospitalizations and deaths are not rising, that proves Delta is not more virulent. In fact, what those graphs show is that vaccines provide decent protection against hospitalization and death, and as the percentage of people who are vaccinated increases, the percentage of people who are at risk for hospitalization and death also decreases. It doesn't show that hospitalizations and deaths are lower in unvaxxed people with Delta than in unvaxxed people with the original strain. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

What stinks is that even when these things get retracted, the original continues to stick in people’s minds even after corrected, so we will continue to forever hear people claiming that masks have been shown to be harmful 🙄

They'll just turn it upside down and use the retraction itself as proof that Big Pharma and the New World Order continue to bully and/or bribe people to hide the truth about ivermectin so they can force everyone to get vaxxed (and then control us with their magnetic microchips).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Don't quote me, because I was only glancing at my phone during lunch break, but I'm pretty sure at the press conference yesterday (NSW) they said they hadn't seen outdoor transmission events. 

I think, though, they mean just walking past other people outdoors, not like, an outdoor concert, sports game etc. 

 

 

 

 

yeah, a sports game where you are using shared bathrooms, standing in line in concession stands, etc seems riskier than a playground where you have more space. But..maybe that's wishful thinking. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I can't read the WSJ article, but the NYT article doesn't mention those studies at all, it just quotes a bunch people saying they haven't seen any evidence. The article's claim that Delta isn't more severe is based on a false premise: that if it was more severe than variants [that were circulating when far fewer people were vaccinated] then you would see hospitalizations and deaths rising [despite the fact that far more people are now vaccinated], and since hospitalizations and deaths are not rising, that proves Delta is not more virulent. In fact, what those graphs show is that vaccines provide decent protection against hospitalization and death, and as the percentage of people who are vaccinated increases, the percentage of people who are at risk for hospitalization and death also decreases. It doesn't show that hospitalizations and deaths are lower in unvaxxed people with Delta than in unvaxxed people with the original strain. 

Are they saying that they aren’t rising anywhere, or just when you take the USA as a whole? I don’t see how we can think that a high vaccination rate area, with low delta spread, is the same as a low vax area with high delta spread. How can you draw conclusions about delta from one of the former areas, or even from combining numbers from both types of areas.

I will be very interested to find out the truth once they can really, accurately assess it. It really does seem worse in real life, but, of course, it’s not necessarily really possible to say for sure from personal experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TCB said:

Are they saying that they aren’t rising anywhere, or just when you take the USA as a whole? I don’t see how we can think that a high vaccination rate area, with low delta spread, is the same as a low vax area with high delta spread. How can you draw conclusions about delta from one of the former areas, or even from combining numbers from both types of areas.

I will be very interested to find out the truth once they can really, accurately assess it. It really does seem worse in real life, but, of course, it’s not necessarily really possible to say for sure from personal experience.

The bar graph groups US states into 10 different regions, but it doesn't say which states are in which regions or how they were assigned. And then the bars are a ratio of the number of people currently in the hospital to the number of daily cases, compared to an estimate of the current % of Delta cases in those regions. But the case totals include vaccinated people who are very unlikely to hospitalized, and the people in the hospital may have been there for weeks, and they're using the current % of Delta, which has been doubling very quickly and may have been much lower when many of those people were hospitalized. They are not comparing the number of hospitalized people who actually HAVE Delta to hospitalized people who have Alpha, they're just using rough estimates of Delta prevalence in each of the "regions" they designated. It's just a bunch of random data artificially squashed into a "graph" to make it look meaningful.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melissa in Australia said:

So I went and looked it up. The people at the footy  at the MCG were in the opened, they did not know each other and were not sitting near each other. 

Aaah, crud 😞 . I mean, I did always figure that things spread outdoors more than we know, but I didn't want that confirmed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, I think the regions are the CDC grouping: 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions

So one region combines Missouri, which we know is having huge Delta-driven outbreaks, with Nebraska, which so far has not spiked at all and presumably has low Delta, and they're combining Arkansas and Louisiana, which are having big Delta spikes, with New Mexico, which has super low cases and presumably very little Delta. Averaging together states with such disparate case and Delta rates just disguises the very real differences.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So one region combines Missouri, which we know is having huge Delta-driven outbreaks, with Nebraska, which so far has not spiked at all and presumably has low Delta, and they're combining Arkansas and Louisiana, which are having big Delta spikes, with New Mexico, which has super low cases and presumably very little Delta. Averaging together states with such disparate case and Delta rates just disguises the very real differences.

And do you think mid-East must be the region with Florida?? There isn't a Southeast region... 

Or do you think it's something else? I'm having trouble mapping them to the picture, lol. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm just wondering about mid-East because it's basically the only thing in that graph that even gives it any kind of pattern. Everything else just looks like noise. 

I don't know, but if the bar chart was compiled with data from the page you linked, the percentages of Delta are way outdated — those numbers are from June 19th, and the pull-down menu to change the data range doesn't offer anything more current. Combining current case rates, hospitalized patients (who may have been there for weeks), and percentages of Delta from a month ago, is worse than useless.

Screen Shot 2021-07-16 at 4.46.26 PM.png

Edited by Corraleno
add graphic
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I don't know, but if the bar chart was compiled with data from the page you linked, the percentages of Delta are way outdated — those numbers are from June 19th, and the pull-down menu to change the data range doesn't offer anything more current. Combining current case rates, hospitalized patients (who may have been there for weeks), and percentages of Delta from a month ago, is worse than useless.

Screen Shot 2021-07-16 at 4.46.26 PM.png

It's possible there's more current data somewhere? I have no idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TCB said:

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but I don’t think the mask threads are very active now so putting this link here about a previous study about kids and masks and CO2 concentrations that has been retracted.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782288?fbclid=IwAR0CohQPu6VD4mzgeXMyml0gEZSE1gbqCLzC2s4G5SwyhNjDzf2vnU6DUZI

In light of this retraction and the falsified ivermectin study that was just withdrawn, I thought these two links on evaluating data sources and studies were timely:

Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media

(The other in attached graphic)

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

They'll just turn it upside down and use the retraction itself as proof that Big Pharma and the New World Order continue to bully and/or bribe people to hide the truth about ivermectin so they can force everyone to get vaxxed (and then control us with their magnetic microchips).

You’re right, of course. 

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

Re outdoors:

I checked - no transmissions in park or beach settings. 

I saw today a cluster of 11 people who caught it at an outdoor Vegas pool party. But like most all of these outdoor cases, we really don’t have enough data about what exactly they all were doing during the pool party. Eight of them were vaccinated, but we don’t know which vaccine, but we do know the symptoms were mild.

7BDF7A51-6722-43D3-96C5-67B12B738DCD.jpeg

340121CE-A09A-45A1-B077-58C78E598EB6.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

It's possible there's more current data somewhere? I have no idea. 

At the bottom of the goofy bar chart it says the data came from that CDC Tracker as of 7/13, and that is the "update" date on the CDC map (you can see in the lower right corner of the map I linked that it says "updated July 13. 2021"). But it appears that the 7/13 update was for data collected up to June 19th. And they are using case and hospitalization rates from the NYT not CDC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Aaah, crud 😞 . I mean, I did always figure that things spread outdoors more than we know, but I didn't want that confirmed. 

https://www.bigfooty.com/2021/07/covid-tracing-carlton-v-geelong-game-mcc-members-reserve/
 

From reading this it seems like the bar and the lifts are more likely to have been the areas of concern.  But the info is pretty sparse.  I think contact tracers in NSW are close to snowed under.

edited to add obviously the Daily Mail for what it’s worth but the pics give you more of a feel for the environment which is somewhat reassuring in terms of open air spread I think. It’s not exactly true open air. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793621/Inside-exclusive-MCC-members-bar-plunged-Victoria-lockdown.html

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New tighter restrictions fro parts of Sydney. 

4 suburbs people are only allowed to leave home if they work in health or emergency 

Only critical retail allowed to be opened in Sydney 

Non urgent building and repairs not allowed. No cleaners or workers into homes

Edited by Melissa in Australia
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

111 cases for NSW and 1 death

Looks like further restrictions on non-critical retail so moving to a higher level of lockdown which probably should have happened a week ago. Seems to me like cases have been basically stable for the last week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

It's possible there's more current data somewhere? I have no idea. 

It's also worth noting that the CDC only lists variant percentages for 19 states — the others aren't sequencing enough cases to be relevant, so there are states in each "region" that aren't listing any % of Delta, which further skews the results.

If you look at individual states, like Nevada, where 44% of cases are Delta, over the last 2 weeks they have seen a 44% increase in cases and an 85% increase in hospitalization. Mississippi has a 95% increase in cases and 79% increase in hospitalizations, and Missouri has a 93% increase in cases and 44% increases in hospitalizations.

Yet when you look at some of the states with the highest vax rates, hospitalizations are either decreasing or only increasing a little despite large jumps in cases, e.g.:
Massachusetts (63% vaxxed), Cases +208%,  hospitalizations -13%
Connecticut (62% vaxxed) Cases +87%, hospitalizations -18%
Rhode Island (60% vaxxed) Cases +97, hospitalizations +4% 
NY (55% vaxxed) Cases +121%, hospitalizations -3%
D.C. (54% vaxxed) Cases +101%, hospitalizations -26%
Washington (56% vaxxed) Cases +62%, hospitalizations flat
Oregon (55% vaxxed) Cases +26%, hospitalizations -21%

There are some states with higher vax rates seeing moderate hospitalization increases and a couple of states with lower vax rates and lower hospitalizations, but overall it's obvious that vax rate makes a much larger difference in hospitalizations than the percentage of Delta does, so the only way to accurately compare the virulence of Delta to other variants is to have a way to subtract the effect of vaccines, which doesn't happen when you're just using raw case and hospitalization numbers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...