Coronavirus

An Epidemiologist Confirms That the CDC Director Misrepresented Her Study of Outdoor COVID-19 Transmission

A co-author of the article that Rochelle Walensky cited says outdoor settings probably account for "substantially less than 1 percent" of infections.

|

After Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was criticized for grossly exaggerating the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, she said she was relying on a study published in "one of our top infectious disease journals." But as I noted a couple of weeks ago, Walensky misrepresented that study, which was published by The Journal of Infectious Diseases in February, in several significant ways. Today New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, who first called attention to Walensky's hyperbole, reports that a co-author of the study agrees the CDC director's gloss was misleading.

Walensky estimated that outdoor transmission accounted for "less than 10 percent" of COVID-19 cases, implying that its share is close to that number. The abstract of the article she cited said "five identified studies found a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors (<10%)." But the evidence described in the article is inconsistent with the idea that anything like 10 percent of infections happen outside. Nooshin Razani, a pediatrician and epidemiologist who co-authored the study, told Leonhardt the actual number is "probably substantially less than 1 percent."

Walensky's implication that close to 10 percent of infections can be traced to outdoor transmission—a figure that may be off by two orders of magnitude—never made sense. "Given that 90% of time is spent indoors in high- and middle-income countries," Razani and her co-authors noted, "it would be expected that 90% of transmission occurs indoors, all else being equal." If outdoor transmission's share were in the neighborhood of 10 percent, in other words, the outdoor risk would be nearly as high as the indoor risk. Yet Walensky herself said there is "almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting [compared to] the outdoor setting."

Instead of admitting she made a mistake, Walensky doubled down. During a May 11 Senate hearing, she said her estimate was based on the Journal of Infectious Diseases article. The "top line result" of that study, she told Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine), was that "less than 10 percent of cases were transmitted outdoors." But Walensky's description of the article suggested that neither she nor anyone on her staff had bothered to read the whole thing.

Walensky repeatedly described the article as a "meta-analysis." It was actually a systematic review, which searches and summarizes the relevant scientific literature, rather than a meta-analysis, which pools data from several studies to generate an overall result. The distinction matters because "meta-analysis" implies that the "less than 10 percent" estimate was calculated based on the underlying data from multiple studies. "We were very clear we were not making a summary number," Razani told Leonhardt.

Walensky also claimed "over 19 studies were included" in the systematic review. As the abstract noted, the review actually covered just five studies that looked specifically at COVID-19, only three of which generated data that could be used to estimate outdoor transmission's share of infections. One study found that outdoor settings accounted for 0.03 percent of infections; another put the share at less than 0.9 percent; and the third one found that "5% of work-related cases occurred outdoors."

That last estimate is probably biased upward because of misclassification. As Leonhardt has noted, infections among construction workers account for an outsized share of cases ascribed to outdoor settings. The likely explanation: Those infections were automatically treated as outdoor transmissions even though they may actually have happened indoors.

In any case, the data presented in Razani et al.'s article do not support the idea that the share of COVID-19 infections attributable to outdoor settings is anywhere near 10 percent. A more recent study that was not included in the systematic review found outdoor transmission accounted for 0.1 percent of infections in Ireland.

"The first sentence of our abstract states that a low proportion of reported global transmissions occur outdoors," Razani said on Twitter earlier this month. "Our review did not allow for us to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurring outdoors, nor did we state that 10% of transmissions occur outdoors." While "more research is needed to understand the risk outdoors versus indoors," she added, "our review suggests it is low (much lower than 10%)." Razani said that on May 11, after Walensky cited her study to back up the "less than 10 percent" estimate.

Razani also said "our main point" was that "people should spend time outdoors to enjoy nature and be active." She noted that "being outdoors is essentially the best ventilation one could ever imagine, as particles have the space to infinitely dilute, disperse, and eventually essentially disappear."

Walensky's persistent misrepresentation of the evidence concerning outdoor transmission is yet another example of how scientifically dubious statements and advice have undermined the CDC's credibility. More specifically, it informs absurdly cautious guidelines such as the CDC's recommendations for summer camps, which epidemiologists and infectious disease experts have criticized as "cruel," "irrational," and "unfairly draconian." Among other things, the CDC says campers and counselors should be required to wear face masks even during vigorous outdoor activities.

"There does not appear to be much scientific reason that campers and counselors, or most other people, should wear a mask outdoors all summer," Leonhardt notes. "Telling them to do so is an example of extreme caution—like staying out of the ocean to avoid sharks—that seems to have a greater cost than benefit."

In this case and others, Leonhardt observes, CDC officials "have acted as if extreme caution has no downsides." But "everything has downsides," he writes, "and it is the job of scientific experts and public-health officials to help the rest of us think clearly about the benefits and costs of our choices."

NEXT: Teen Cigarette Smoking Went Up Following Flavored Tobacco Ban 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. An Epidemiologist Confirms That the CDC Director Misrepresented Her Study of Outdoor COVID-19 Transmission

    Would it be more accurate to say she Claimed, Without Evidence, or that she was Pushing The Big Lie?

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are SD much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child DSFS can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      3. I get paid over $89 per hour working from h0me. l never thought l’d be able t0 d0 it but my best friend earns over 29k a month doing this and she c0nvinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. START HERE… http://rep10.com

  2. So Walensky lied. I’m shocked.

    1. Walensky and Fauci should be in front of Congress, under oath. If they refuse, they should be fired.

      1. They should be fired in any case. They are power hungry snakes.

        1. For all of dads and moms that love to stay home to take care of their loved ones,
          or rest of people on the search for an opportunity to pull in some extra income for their family
          month after month let me share a remarkable opportunity to explore.
          ====)>) JOBS APP

    2. No, only Trump lies. Our esteemed bureaucrats simply ‘misrepresent themselves’.

      1. It’s not lying, it’s “her truth”.

        1. No, it is her lived experience. I think that is the phrase they use these days.

          1. DARN, I was going to day that

      2. Thank you for that important clarification.
        D politicians only misspeak.

  3. It’s clear that both CDC and the NIH need to be seriously reformed. I recommend the use of precision guided munitions.

    1. Risk of unknown biological contaminants combined with the fact that the buildings and surrounding area are salvageable public assets and minimal resistance suggests a strike force or wetwork team would be more appropriate. Preferably completely covert or, otherwise, just an overt up front occupation. No matter which way, outbreak as the result of an internal attack will make the Chinese look exceptionally disciplined and civil.

      1. Considering their dissembling hurt black people most, why doesn’t BLM burn the place down? That would make up for part of their previous crimes.

  4. Deboonked!

  5. What about the feeling of impending DOOM?

    1. It will land her a role in the next Marvel movie. Dr. Doom reimagined as a heroine, fighting a deadly virus unleashed on the world by white supremacists.

      1. As long as she’s not reimagined as MF Doom (rip), I could give a shit.

  6. The truth has been unmasked.

  7. >>Walensky misrepresented that study

    did exactly what she was charged with doing. promotion forthcoming.

  8. BTW, has anyone come across this little-reported story:

    How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

    Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.

    From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

    For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

    Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

    Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

    But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

    Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

    That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

    From their website:

    As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.

    Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.

    The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

    1. Consider…

      Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a “covid case”.

      Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.

      Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.

      The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

      To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

      1. The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.
        Simply ‘misrepresenting’ the disease, I’m sure.

      2. It bullshit like this that makes me question my decision to get the vaccine since clearly most of it was fraud from the start and will continue to be a fraud to support what ever results they want.

        1. No offense, you should have questioned it sooner and more vigorously. Even if the assertions about COVID and vaccines are taken at face value or on good faith. The lines around habeas corpus, due process, gov’t spending, misdirection, and bureaucratic overreach were clearly crossed and, again even if taken at face value, the vaccine is token acceptance that it was all OK in order to reduce your risk of death from <1% to <0.1%. Moreover, to do so in perpetuity.

          1. I have no problem with vaccines and avoided them in the past but due to recent surgery, spleen removal, I need them and determined that even though I’m healthy I’d rather have a vaccine than end up in the hospital if i can avoid it. that said I only wear a mask where required. We all make choices. I have a relative who is a biologist and pro covid vaccine and another who is anti vaccine and believes there are chips in them what can i say its a crazy world

        2. The more I think about it the less I want it. I haven’t been worrying about getting the Rona for the past year + and I’m not about to start worrying about it now. If I get sick, I get sick. I don’t particularly want to be part of this huge, poorly designed medical experiment.

      3. This testing manipulation is occurring as needed and totally in broad daylight. Joe Dimebag Voter doesn’t have the education or attention span to understand it for what it is though. After all, how many people realize that the shot they’re getting isn’t a vaccine, but an experimental therapy that instructs their cells to manufacture portions of the COVID-19 virus?

        Learning the truth is not rocket science, but it requires:

        1. A mistrust of the official narrative
        2. A minimal understanding of scientific concepts, like mRNA and cycle thresholds
        3. The wherewithal to perform your own basic research outside of mainstream sources of news/infotainment

        1. It’s a vaccine that works as you describe. (So does the virus, any virus.). The Novavax, still yet to get EUA, instead consists of the spike protein, if the mRNA thing (for Moderna and BioNTech) or the DNA thing (for Oxford or Jannsen) is a concern (but for some reason, the virus programming your cells to produce the spike protein and all the rest of the virus isn’t).

          1. Note, however, that the spike protein created by the vaccine mechanism is not the exact same protein from the actual virus. It has been modified at its furin cleavage site so that it can’t fold as easily once it binds to the ACE2 receptor, by replacing certain amino acids with prolines (which are apparently “stiff” — a very technical term). Thus it won’t enter the cell and remains outside for the immune system to find (and then targeted for antibody development). Watch this starting at the 20 minute mark: https://www.bitchute.com/video/x5RCoA1juGGp/

      4. lie.

        No one tests for covid.

        covid is sars2 a immune system disorder.

        the test is for the virus, not covid

        1. the test is for the virus, not covid

          A distinction without a difference….idiot.

    2. Remember, the WHO and CDC both changed their cycle threshold recommendations on Biden’s inauguration day. It went from ~40 to ~25.

      1. No. They didn’t.

        The guidelines were changed in December and published online. A notice reminding labs of the change went out in December and again on inauguration day.

        But the change happened in December.

    3. 1) The thing with 28 cycles doesn’t mean that labs shouldn’t report the breakthrough case. It means that labs shouldn’t bother sending the sample to the CDC to determine which variant caused the illness. The case will still be counted as a COVID case, even without the sample, with the particular variant causing the case remaining undetermined. As the CDC wasn’t publicly reporting the variants that caused breakthrough cases to begin with, it doesn’t really matter.

      2) Vaccinated folks who test positive will still be told so and counted as COVID cases in the overall count. It is just that the CDC no longer cares to track whether people who test positive for COVID had been vaccinated (whereas they will continue to track by race, age, gender, and location). I find this to be an odd decision, but it doesn’t manipulate the overall COVID prevalence figures, as the article implies, nor is there a tiered diagnosis system.

      1. 1) The thing with 28 cycles doesn’t mean that labs shouldn’t report the breakthrough case. It means that labs shouldn’t bother sending the sample to the CDC to determine which variant caused the illness. The case will still be counted as a COVID case, even without the sample, with the particular variant causing the case remaining undetermined. As the CDC wasn’t publicly reporting the variants that caused breakthrough cases to begin with, it doesn’t really matter.

        This is a bit of a bullshit dodge that still contravenes large swaths of the narrative. First, supposedly if there is to be a breakthrough among the vaccinated, it would be a variant. The CDC (if it were actually interested in preventing deaths from the virus) would want to be more sensitive to these cases, not less. Second, regardless of the motivation, the change in reporting still spoils the numbers and makes room for a Governor to kill some 15,000 people by locking them in their homes on (not so) vague statistical grounds. Third, still pretty astounding that after 7 decades and billions of malaria infections the CDC doesn’t have all the data on HCQ but after 7 mos. of vaccines to a novel coronavirus they’ve got all the data/samples they need. Are they running out of freezer space? Disk space on the servers? Maybe they could finally close the books on HCQ to make room rather than turning down/ignoring data that they, apparently, required until 4 weeks ago.

        1. Nobody is denying that it would be valuable to know which variant is breaking through. However, if you have a sample where PCR needs more than 28 cycles to detect the virus, then there simply does not exist enough genetic material in that sample to sequence it into something useful. As many people have pointed out, if PCR needs 28+ cycles, that means that there is hardly any virus in the sample at all. That the CDC says “tell us about the result, but don’t bother mailing us a sample our equipment can’t extract any additional information from” isn’t exactly a shock.

          If some variant broke through and it started making vaccinated folks quite sick, there will be plenty of samples with cycle <28 that the CDC can use to see what variant is causing the problem.

          I am not following what mean about governors locking people in their homes based on the data.

          We know that HCQ is safe. Plenty of evidence of that, and the one study that showed otherwise turned out to be completely fraudulent. However, what the CDC has not found is the evidence that HCQ helps against COVID. The double blind trials keep coming back without a statistically significant difference in outcomes. Either the effect of HCQ is very minor, or it only helps a small portion of the population and we haven't yet figured out that population. The vaccines on the other hand had a very visible benefit in the first double blind trial they were subject to.

          1. c19hcq.com

            1. Ivermectin seems to be the best low cost therapeutic.

          2. However, if you have a sample where PCR needs more than 28 cycles to detect the virus, then there simply does not exist enough genetic material in that sample to sequence it into something useful.

            Still hemmed in by the narrative and it’s as Diane Reynolds (Paul) indicates. If the sample is so degraded as to be unable to sequence COVID from it you, by definition, can’t say it’s a confirmed case of COVID. You’re trying to pull off the epistemological parlor trick of saying definitively positive without conclusive proof. Confirmed COVID based on a sample that can’t be used to confirm COVID.

            1. You just don’t want to accept the facts and you actually show minimal understanding of the underlying science or even the concept of metrology.

    4. “Imagine my shock.” – Paul Joseph Watson

  9. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    Learn more about it here..

    ……………………… http://www.Cash44.club

  10. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that Trump and his admin were liars, the Biden admin takes the fucking prize for outright lying to your face and not giving a shit, while the media looks away and pretends to sneeze.

    1. While the blue anon crowd here lap it up. If I were them, I’d be very nervous which conspiracy theory of yesterday will become the facts of tomorrow.

  11. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> http://cash44.club/

  12. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after l0t of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cash44.club/

  13. Science is not policy, science informs policy. Many of those who claim to “follow the science” do not understand this.

    In terms of COVIDE-19 transmission, the science gives us some risk numbers. But a risk number is NOT policy. The problem here is that the people making the policy are abnormally risk averse. I know people like this in real life. I have a friend who literally did not leave his apartment for around nine months. He also has genuine mental health issues. He is a Karen. And our current mode of government is to appease the Karens.

    The Karens are why kids can’t walk to school alone or take the subway. Karens are also the reason the tennis courts in my local park require players to wear masks. And of course, the Karens are running the CDC.

    The problem is not the science, the problem is the attitude that 0% risk is both achievable and desirable.

    1. I’m personally bugged by how the FDA got out of the way on this vaccine… in the worst possible way. It’s pushing a vaccine for age groups whose risk profile is nearly 0, using emergency provisions which were never meant for this situation.

      1. For many years I’ve wondered how I’d react if FDA, EPA, and DEA were to be switched to laissez-faire policies administratively, i.e. without any change in their enabling legislation regarding licensure of foods, drugs, medical devices, pesticides, etc., given that people have gotten used to the agencies’ serving an informational as well as prohibitory function. Now I see what’s happened with these vaccines (or sort-of-vaccines), and it’s not pretty. On one hand, a great increase in freedom; on the other, a distortion in people’s conclusions.

        You’re right, it was an emergency, but it’s clear the emergency ended once adults were taken care of. It was never an emergency involving children, either as sufferers or carriers of this virus. Know any other vaccine that people routinely take these days that routinely causes an Arthus reaction along with systemic symptoms? That’s the way flu vaccines used to be, back when they were recommended only for a narrow segment of the population. They’ve gotten a lot better and now are widely administered. We’ve gotten swept up by the momentum of this “Covid movement”. Of course the vaccine makers are happy about it.

        1. Well they are now but ya gotta admit it was a heck of a job to get something out this quick and effective and then ramp up production and distribution. Moderna has been burning money for 10 years working on this technology. This is the first time they made a profit.

          1. Well they are now but ya gotta admit it was a heck of a job to get something out this quick and effective and then ramp up production and distribution. Moderna has been burning money for 10 years working on this technology. This is the first time they made a profit.

            IDK. Much of the lag in getting vaccines out prior wasn’t due to any manpower shortages and a significant reason why they’re solvent is because the government bought everyone two doses, up front, whether they wanted it or not.

            A bit like being impressed that the Emperor’s tailor was able to come up with such beautiful new clothes on such short order and for so little money.

          2. Well they are now but ya gotta admit it was a heck of a job to get something out this quick and effective and then ramp up production and distribution. Moderna has been burning money for 10 years working on this technology. This is the first time they made a profit.
            But it was THEIR turn! I don’t disagree with what you said but I don’t like the preference the gov’t agencies seemingly gave to mRNA vaccines. Specifically, I think viral-vector vaccines could’ve been developed and deployed much quicker and effectively. Requiring two mRNA shots to get the effectiveness >90% was probably overkill for this virus but should give Moderna and Pfizer very good clinical data. From what I’ve seen, about 50% of acquaintances that got the mRNA shots got their asses kicked by it. I think the fact there were significant side effects to (typically) the second shot, prevented many people from getting vaccinated. The u.k. strategy seemed to be more effective.

      2. The reason to give the vaccine to younger age groups is to reduce viral load in the population and hence transmission. Children get it too they just don’t get as sick.

        We still have a lot of people who cannot or will not get vaccinated. Also there are breakthrough infections. It is still rampaging through much of the world. So it is advantageous to get as high of a level of population immunity as we can.

        1. Hey

          So basically I’m just gonna not take the vaccine

          I know….. UGH I know…. I’m sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          It’s just that I’m not gonna take it is all

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHAAHA

        2. This is correct. My friend’s ten year old daughter caught it. The whole family caught it. No one knows who caught it first. The parents could very well have gotten it from the daughter. But the daughter did not suffer much. She was pretty hunky dory about the whole affair. It was the parents who were absolutely miserable, the mother even needing a brief trip to the hospital.

          Children can indeed catch it and transmit it. They just don’t get as sick. As such they’re less likely to catch it from other kids. But they can get it from adults, and they can subsequently pass it on.

          So of course vaccinations for the young are very important.

          1. When that happens around here it is a big deal. School and contacts have to be notified. All of that.

          2. The parents should have been vaccinated. If the parents had been vaccinated, they would have been just as hunky dory as their daughter. Getting adults vaccinated is an emergency. The kids? Not so much.

            1. This was before people in their age group were allowed to be vaccinated. Duh.

              1. Then that anecdote is no longer relevant. Now that families like your friends have the adults vaccinated, they won’t have the same problem.

                As I said: getting the adults vaccinated was an emergency. And we should urgently try to reach the rest of adults who are willing to get it, but won’t go out of their way. However, vaccinating children gives them virtually no benefit, distracts public health from encouraging further adult vaccinations, and deprives the world of a vaccine that could be put to far better use. And in absolutely no way justifies an emergency exception to normal procedures. At some point a year or so in the future, when the world has plenty of vaccine, we have an approved vaccine, and we have a good sense for how long the protection will last, then it makes sense to vaccinate children. But there is literally no reason to hurry.

                1. LIAR
                  vax is not an emergency

                  CDC data 1/5/21

                  5% US population got sick ( hospital)

                  0.0997% death rate

                  IN 4 CALENDAR YEARS

                  NOT. a mass crisis

          3. Children are not expendable guinea pigs and they shouldn’t have to offer up their bodies to be used in experimental trials so that old, fat, narcissists can feel slightly safer.

            1. They did 3 phase placebo controlled trials.

              The trial enrolled 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age in the United States. In the trial, 18 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group (n=1,129) versus none in the vaccinated group (n=1,131). Vaccination with BNT162b2 elicited SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) of 1,239.5, demonstrating strong immunogenicity in a subset of adolescents one month after the second dose. This compares well (was non-inferior) to GMTs elicited by participants aged 16 to 25 years old (705.1 GMTs) in an earlier analysis. Further, BNT162b2 administration was well tolerated, with side effects generally consistent with those observed in participants 16 to 25 years of age.

              Of course it is up to parents to choose. Adolescents generally have a say in that. Never met one who didn’t have something to say about everything.

              There is a good chance that this will give them long term immunity given the immune responses in children and young people. So there are good reasons to consider this.

              1. There is a good chance that this will give them long term immunity given the immune responses in children and young people. So there are good reasons to consider this.

                Again, bullshit. Your argument rests on a premise you yourself can’t even verify. What exactly is the ‘population viral load’ at any given moment? How does that bullshit number correlate to actual hospitalizations and deaths?

                Fuck you for even pretending to know.

                1. Indeed. Recombinant vaccines (where only a part of the virus is used to elicit an immune response) do not necessarily provide long-term immunity, unlike other vaccine types (such as live-attenuated versions). Hence the talk, already, of requiring booster shots (variants aside). This is from the HHS (https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/types/index.html):

                  “Subunit, recombinant, polysaccharide, and conjugate vaccines use specific pieces of the germ—like its protein, sugar, or capsid (a casing around the germ)…One limitation of these vaccines is that you may need booster shots to get ongoing protection against diseases.” They of course list the COVID vaccine under the mRNA section, but it is, in fact, a recombinant vaccine given that it is designed to produce antibodies to a specific piece of the virus, not the virus in its entirety. So I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say there’s a “good chance that this will give them long term immunity”.

              2. Llots of liars here..

                vax is temporary not long tetm.

            2. Not an experimental trial, bud. Those were completed a while ago and the vaccines were shown to be safe.

              Stop your misinformed fear mongering

              1. liar

                without mass testing.

        3. The reason to give the vaccine to younger age groups is to reduce viral load in the population and hence transmission.

          Unmitigated, speculative, retconning bullshit. Fuck your deliberate pro-oppression pseudo-science. Might as well say give all the kids all the vaccines at once because it *might* lower the total viral load in the population and that *might* prevent someone from dying of COVID.

          1. That viral load argument might as well include the amount of fairy dust required to stave off the vapors.

            In reality, the risk numbers just don’t make sense for kids to get the vaccine. Especially considering the growing number of myocarditis cases.

            1. That viral load argument might as well include the amount of fairy dust required to stave off the vapors.

              Slight disagreement, *does* or *will* include. It already includes a generous heaping of it without PCR. The viral load conjecture would require sensitivity and monitoring on time resolution that we don’t have, can’t support, and, as indicated above, the CDC is rather actively avoiding knowing. Without those abilities, it would be actively used to reinforce the known amounts of pixie dust already contained in the system.

              I spent more than a decade doing single-copy detection with PCR. It can be done. The idea that it can be done iteratively in anything resembling real time and at scale is not even retarded. It’s like asserting that because you’ve wired together the backplanes of two VAX-11s you’ve got the potential to run Amazon’s AWS services.

      3. Covid vaccination of healthy teens and children is medical abuse.

        Licenses should be revoked for pharmacies and clinics carrying it out.

    2. people are still driving in their cars wearing mask and some people are walking outdoors alone with a mask on. the fear has been set in stone

      1. Not just walking outdoors alone with a mask, but standing in the far corner of a municipal playfield, alone, without another human soul within 200 yards of them, wearing two masks.

        1. It’s literally insanity, fear is a mind killer.

        2. Only two? The truly risk averse wear three. You don’t see them though as they never leave home.

          A friend of a friend would quarantine her deliveries for three days. Would not even open the boxes. She was pretty frustrated at the lack of a second fridge to quarantine her fresh fruits and vegetable deliveries as well. As you can tell, she was one of the affluent and didn’t have to work for a living.

          And… she caught COVID-19. One would think a lesson could be learned from that. But no. My other friend, the one with the mental health issues, used that as an excuse to be even more risk averse. One reason he never left his place for nine months.

      2. I don’t know about the alone walkers but some people wear them in the car because it is easier when you are out running errands.

        1. Easier to sit alone in a car with a mask on than off? No, it’s really not. That fabric face diaper is constantly reminding you it’s there.

          1. I have hearing aids. It is a hassle to take off the mask if I am just going a few minutes from the post office to the grocery because the darn straps get tangled up in them.

            Some people are more comfortable in them than others. I take it off every chance I get but it doesn’t bother me as much as some others. Some people are obviously more concerned than others.

            We will be seeing people making their own choices for some time.

            1. We will be seeing people making their own choices fools of themselves for some time.

            2. Try the in the ear type, Echospinner, if you can. I use one and it is ‘Ok’. I hated the over the ear models as a kid.

            3. Says the psychotic gas lighting pussy whilst wearing his coward signaling device.

        2. How is returning home when you forgot a mask or foregoing the rest of your errands when your mask gets damaged or contaminated easier than running errands without a mask?

          Again, false presumptions to support a false dichotomy.

          1. Those people have a glovebox full of masks.

            1. Regardless,
              Step 1 – Put on mask.
              Step 2 – Go shopping.
              can’t be simpler/easier/more convenient than
              Step 1 – Go shopping.

              1. Going shopping is easier than putting on a shirt plus going shopping, but that’s totally irrelevant.

        3. hearing aids makes it more difficult to remove but only a second more. I remove mine the second i’m out the door even if i’m walking 20 feet to the next store

          1. Great. I thought libertarians supported personal choice? If people find it easier to keep their mask on in between errands, then your obligation is to shut the fuck up and say nothing. Nobody wants to hear your whining about other peoples choices that have zero impact on you.

            1. I’d say it’s your obligation to fuck off and die, lefty shit.

      3. Roy Batty from Blade Runner put it best: https://youtu.be/0zXajYDnprQ

    3. CDC does not make policy. Some states and local governments did not follow the recommendations.

      1. Again, must be nice not to own rental property.

        1. The CDC has no power to make law. Talk to your governor.

          1. You don’t remember the eviction moratorium?

            1. *Federal* eviction moratorium.

              The idea that the CDC has no power to make law is stupid. It’s like saying the FCC, SEC, FDA, etc., etc. has no power to make law. At best it’s the suggestion that they don’t draft legislation and, even then, it’s a fig leaf to hide the naked truth of them issuing orders, rendering judgement, and invoking more militant arms of the government to impose punishment.

              Some people, when you point out that they’ve stepped in dog shit, say thanks. Others quietly ignore you and sort themselves out. It’s the rare breed that chooses to stick their foot in their mouth.

    4. Feminization of culture involves inculcating risk aversion.

  14. But the overall evidence was never good for masks of the types most people would wear (how they would wear them) as being protective against coronaviruses, regardless of the circumstances. The best I saw was an odds ratio of 1.2 with statistical significance — which usually is taken as meaning the difference actually isn’t significant.

  15. Yawn. The Biden Administration is lying to achieve federal control of every life in the USA.
    Hardly news, is it?

  16. The country is in the best of hands.

  17. Walensky also claimed “over 19 studies were included” in the systematic review.

    Perhaps she said “COVID-19 studies were included”. Hard to tell, what with the double mask and feelings of doom.

    1. So it was 12 that met the inclusion criteria. Still don’t see what the big deal is.

      1. Just a compulsive liar, like the rest of the administration.

        1. Nah she probably just read through the article quickly and disremembered the number. It makes no difference if it was 12 or 19.

          1. Did you stick up for Trump like this?

            1. Trump told us the virus would disappear in a few weeks when he knew it was spreading via airborne transmission ( see his interview with Woodward).

              Pretty immensely different thing than whether some bureaucrat thought a study reviewed 12 or 19 studies.

              Give me a break

  18. If the co author is contradicting her she is contradicting the wording of her own study.

    “Five identified studies found a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% confidence interval, 6.0–57.9).”

    Doesn’t matter to me anymore. We have something now proven highly effective. The more people who get the vaccine the less virus there will be.

    I hate this virus and I hate what it has done to our lives and world. We have the tools to fight it now. Did we back down when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No! We built a bigger bomb and bombed them right back. Let’s go!

    1. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

      1. I was hijacking a famous movie line. Surely you know that one.

        1. Forget it. He’s on a roll.

          1. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

            1. And you’re just the guy to do that.

              1. And until the Lord of all striketh me down may it ever be so.

                1. Consult the Book of Armaments!

        2. Having to mansplain a joke makes it less funny. Just ignore the culturally impaired.

        3. Don’t call me Shirley.

          1. hahaha. That’s an entirely different kind of movie altogether.

            1. It’s an entirely different kind of movie.

          2. I think Echospinner set that up on purpose. Frank doesn’t know his late 70s/early 80s comedies.

    2. The more people who get the vaccine the less virus there will be.

      You mean like the other four coronaviruses endemic to humans? You. dumb. fuck.

  19. Gotta keep ’em scared, or they won’t obey.

  20. Some other whoppers as told by the CDC:

    -Vaping is more dangerous than smoking
    -Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than smoking
    -BLM protests are more important than preventing COVID. Especially if there’s a 10% risk of outdoor transmission.

    1. -Evictions spread disease.

    2. They did not say any of those things.

      1. They are trying to ban vaping when it is a known harm reducer wrt smoking.

        1. Vaping is not “a known harm reducer wrt to smoking.”

          Vape all you want “bro” but quit spreading lies.

  21. Less than 90% of politicians tell the truth.

  22. Without real consequences there’s no reason not to keep doing this. I’m speaking of all of this. Everything. I don’t know how these people sleep at night.

  23. in a just world she’d be told her lies and bullshit were simply unacceptable. regrettably the debasement of the language, and the refusal of the populace to call bullshit on bullshitters, let’s her peddle her twaddle. her shit is common grade half truths and hysterical female bullshit. using her reasoning the infection rate is also less than 50% and 44% and every other percent above 2%.

    i have no hope for the republic. NONE!

  24. Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

    But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

    Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”. https://wapexclusive.com ,That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

  25. “everything has downsides,”

    No, that cannot be possible. Progressives are full of perfect solutions to every problem, with no downsides whatsoever. They never even have to think about them or consider them or discuss them. Their ideas about problems are always perfect.

  26. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily A .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  27. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily AS .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

Please to post comments