Study Finds Teenage Boys Six Times More Likely To Suffer Heart Problems From Vaccine Than Be Hospitalized by COVID

Authors; Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Research conducted by the University of California has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems caused by the COVID-19 vaccine than to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 itself.

“A team led by Dr Tracy Hoeg at the University of California investigated the rate of cardiac myocarditis – heart inflammation – and chest pain in children aged 12-17 following their second dose of the vaccine,” reports the Telegraph.

“They then compared this with the likelihood of children needing hospital treatment owing to Covid-19, at times of low, moderate and high rates of hospitalisation.”

Researchers found that the risk of heart complications for boys aged 12-15 following the vaccine was 162.2 per million, which was the highest out of all the groups they looked at.

This compares to the risk of a healthy boy being hospitalized as a result of a COVID infection, which is around 26.7 per million, meaning the risk they face from the vaccine is 6.1 times higher.

Even during high risk rates of COVID, such as in January this year, the threat posed by the vaccine is 4.3 times higher, while during low risk rates, the risk of teenage boys suffering a “cardiac adverse event” from the vaccine is a whopping 22.8 times higher.

The research data was based on a study of adverse reactions suffered by teens between January and June this year.

In a sane world, such data should represent the nail in the coffin for the argument that teenagers and children should be mandated to take the coronavirus vaccine, but it obviously won’t.

In the UK, the government is pushing to vaccinate 12-15-year-olds, even without parental consent, despite the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advising against it.

Meanwhile, in America, Los Angeles County school officials voted unanimously to mandate COVID shots for all

4,811 recovered Israeli COVID patients got reinfected — TV

Authors: FROM THE LIVEBLOG OF THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 2021 7:56 pm  

Health Ministry data cited by Channel 13 suggests the Delta variant may be more effective at causing COVID reinfection among recovered patients than earlier strains of the coronavirus.

According to the data, 4,811 Israelis have been reinfected with coronavirus, accounting for 0.47 percent of the total recoveries. (The data provided refers to over 900,000 recovered Israelis, though the figure has since surpassed a million).

However, just 0.08% of the reinfection cases were recorded in 2020, while the number climbed to 0.71% in 2021 when the Delta variant became the dominant strain in Israel. In the past month, 2,702 recovered patients contracted the coronavirus again, or some 1.8%, the report says. It is unclear to what extent the Delta variant is more effective and to what extent the reinfections are the result of waning antibodies.

The majority of reinfections are among the young, according to the report.

The Bizarre Refusal to Apply Cost-Benefit Analysis to COVID Debates

Are those who oppose a ban on cars or a radical reduction in speed limits sociopaths, given the huge number of people they are knowingly consigning to death or maiming?

Authors: Glenn Greenwald 5 hr ago 285536

In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates — except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.

The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” Even with seat belts and airbags, a tragic number of life-years are lost given how many young people die or are left permanently and severely disabled by car accidents. Studies over the course of decades have demonstrated that even small reductions in speed limits save many lives, while radical reductions — supported by almost nobody — would eliminate most if not all deaths from car crashes.

Center for Disease Control, 2020

Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies — allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds — that will kill many children along with adults?

That may explain the motivation scheme for a few people, but in general, the reason is much simpler and less sinister. It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days). So foundational is the use of this cost-benefit analysis that it is embraced and touted by everyone from right-wing economists to the left-wing European environmental policy group CIVITAS, which defines it this way:

Social Cost Benefit Analysis [is] a decision support tool that measures and weighs various impacts of a project or policy. It compares project costs (capital and operating expenses) with a broad range of (social) impacts, e.g. travel time savings, travel costs, impacts on other modes, climate, safety, and the environment.

This framework, above all else, precludes an absolutist approach to rational policy-making. We never opt for a society-altering policy on the ground that “any lives saved make it imperative to embrace” precisely because such a primitive mindset ignores all the countervailing costs which this life-saving policy would generate (including, oftentimes, loss of life as well: banning planes, for instance, would save lives by preventing deaths from airplane crashes, but would also create its own new deaths by causing more people to drive cars).

While arguments are common about how this framework should be applied and which specific policies are ideal, the use of cost-benefit analysis as the primary formula we use is uncontroversial — at least it was until the COVID pandemic began. It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies. Thus, this mentality insists, we must keep schools closed to avoid the contracting by children of COVID regardless of the horrific costs which eighteen months or two years of school closures impose on all children.

It is impossible to overstate the costs imposed on children of all ages from the sustained, enduring and severe disruptions to their lives justified in the name of COVID. Entire books could be written, and almost certainly will be, on the multiple levels of damage children are sustaining, some of which — particularly the longer-term ones — are unknowable (long-term harms from virtually every aspect of COVID policies — including COVID itself, the vaccines, and isolation measures, are, by definition, unknown). But what we know for certain is that the harms to children from anti-COVID measures are severe and multi-pronged. One of the best mainstream news accounts documenting those costs was a January, 2021 BBC article headlined “Covid: The devastating toll of the pandemic on children.”

The “devastating toll” referenced by the article is not the death count from COVID for children, which, even in the world of the Delta variant, remains vanishingly small. The latest CDC data reveals that the grand total of children under 18 who have died in the U.S. from COVID since the start of the pandemic sixteen months ago is 361 — in a country of 330 million people, including 74.2 million people under 18. Instead, the “devastating toll” refers to multi-layered harm to children from the various lockdowns, isolation measures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, economic suffering and various other harms that have come from policies enacted to prevent the spread of the virus:

From increasing rates of mental health problems to concerns about rising levels of abuse and neglect and the potential harm being done to the development of babies, the pandemic is threatening to have a devastating legacy on the nation’s young. . . .

The closure of schools is, of course, damaging to children’s education. But schools are not just a place for learning. They are places where kids socialize, develop emotionally and, for some, a refuge from troubled family life.

Prof Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, perhaps put it most clearly when he told MPs on the Education Select Committee earlier this month: “When we close schools we close their lives.”

For More Information: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-refusal-to-apply-cost

Covid-19: UK studies find gastrointestinal symptoms are common in children

Authors: Susan Mayor BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3484 (Published 07 September 2020)Cite this as: BMJ 2020;370:m3484

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and should trigger tests for the virus, researchers have said.

A prospective study of 992 healthy children (median age 10.1 years) of healthcare workers from across the UK found that 68 (6.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.1 Half of the children testing positive reported no symptoms, but for those that did the commonest were fever (21 of 68, 31%); gastrointestinal symptoms, including diarrhoea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps (13 of 68, 19%); and headache (12 of 68, 18%).

Latest findings from the Covid-19 Symptom Study app,2 which was launched in late March to track people’s symptoms, also show that gastrointestinal symptoms occur frequently in children with positive swab tests.3

Tom Waterfield, lead author of the antibodies study, told The BMJ, “Based on our findings I think that gastrointestinal symptoms should be added to the current list—high temperature, cough, and loss or change in sense of smell or taste—that trigger testing for coronavirus.” He added, “Diarrhoea and vomiting in children should trigger a test.”

Modelling showed that gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly associated with the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in addition to known household contact with confirmed SARS-CoV-2, fatigue, and changes in sense of smell or taste.

“Although diarrhoea and vomiting may not be on the official covid-19 testing strategy, we need to be cautious in children with these symptoms,” said Waterfield, senior lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast and paediatric emergency medicine physician at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. “They need to have had 48 hours clear of gastrointestinal symptoms before they go back to school to help reduce the potential spread of the virus.”

Tim Spector, the study lead and professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, said, “Looking at data from 250 000 children we found those with a positive swab test have a different range of symptoms to adults. Cough and shortness of breath are much less frequent and gastrointestinal problems, especially loss of appetite, more frequent. Fever is still a feature, as in adults.”

He said that the study confirmed the need to add a wider range of symptoms to those listed for covid-19. “Around 50% of children did not have the three core adult symptoms (high temperature, cough, and loss or change in sense of smell or taste) and may present with a wide range of non-specific symptoms, such as malaise and loss of appetite, although skin rash affected one in six,” he said. “The key is for parents to keep children at home with these non-specific signs until they feel better, until tests get more rapid and accessible.”

Spector is asking parents to start logging information for their children on the app, which invites users to report regularly on their health. He added that the team is adding school specific features to help provide data on infection rates related to schools.

References

  1. Waterfield T, Watson C, Moore R, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children: a prospective multicentre cohort study. medRxiv 2020.08.31.20183095 [Preprint]. 2 September 2020. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.31.20183095v1.
    1. Covid Symptom Study
    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data.Google Scholar
    1. Mayor S
    . Covid-19: Researchers launch app to track spread of symptoms in the UK. BMJ2020;368:m1263. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1263 pmid:32220898FREE Full Text

Delta variant: What is happening with transmission, hospital admissions, and restrictions?

Authors: Elisabeth Mahase BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1513 (Published 15 June 2021)Cite this as: BMJ 2021;373:n1513

Are covid-19 hospital admissions increasing?

Yes. The number of new cases of covid-19 has been rising in the UK for the past few weeks, and admissions of patients to hospital are following suit. As of 9 June the number of people in hospital each day with covid-19 exceeded 1000, after having fallen to the hundreds in the middle of May after the previous wave.1

Is this because of the delta variant?

Cases were expected to rise at least a little as restrictions eased, but the new delta variant seems to have complicated matters.2 Public Health England figures show that the variant now accounts for 90% of UK cases, with the total number exceeding 42 000. Research indicates that delta is associated with an estimated 60% higher risk of household transmission than the alpha variant, which was already much more transmissible than the original version of the virus. There are also suggestions that delta could carry a much higher risk of hospital admission.

Speaking to the BBC on 13 June, Andrew Hayward, an adviser to the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and professor of infectious disease epidemiology at University College London, said, “I think it’s now very clear that we will have a substantial third wave of covid infections. The really big question is how much that wave of infections is going to translate into hospitalisations. The fact that we’ve got 55% of the adult population double vaccinated means that this will be substantially less bad than it could have been, but we still don’t know exactly how bad it could be.

“Sixty per cent more infectious is extremely worrying—that’s the main thing that will drive the speed with which the next wave comes along. And the fact that the level of hospitalisations from this infection appear to be maybe up to double those of the previous infection is of course also extremely concerning.”

Another concern is that the covid vaccines seem to be less effective against the delta variant, especially after one dose. A PHE preprint found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 88% effective and the Oxford-AstraZeneca 60% effective against the delta variant two weeks after the second dose, but both vaccines were only 33% effective against symptomatic disease from delta three weeks after the first dose.3 However, the most recent PHE analysis of 14 019 delta cases (14 June) indicates that two doses of either vaccine are still highly effective against hospital admission: 96% for Pfizer-BioNTech and 92% for Oxford-AstraZeneca.4

Speaking at a Science Media Centre briefing on 9 June, Neil Ferguson, director of the Medical Research Council’s Centre for Global Infectious at Imperial College London, said, “There’s still quite a lot of uncertainty about what the vaccine efficacy against the delta will be for those more severe forms of disease. It’s well within the possibility that we could see another third wave, at least comparable in terms of hospitalisations, maybe not as severe as the second wave.

“Almost certainly I think that deaths probably will be lower. The vaccines are having a highly protective effect, and cases in hospital are milder, but still it could be quite worrying. There is a lot of uncertainty.”

What is different about the delta variant?

In some ways the delta variant is an “improved” version of the alpha variant, making it more easily transmissible and more of a concern.

Speaking at the Science Media Centre briefing, Wendy Barclay, professor of virology and head of infectious disease at Imperial College London, explained, “The delta variant has got two important mutations in its spike protein, or sets of mutations. One is at the furin cleavage site, which we think is quite important for the fitness of the virus in the airway. The virus that emerged in Wuhan was suboptimal in that respect, so it transmitted, but perhaps not as well as it might. The alpha variant took one step towards improving that with a certain mutation, and the delta variant has built on that and taken a second step now, a bigger step, towards improving that feature.”

Why is delta able to transmit more easily?

Barclay said that the current data indicated that the virus was “fitter in human airway cells,” meaning an increased amount of the virus in the infected person, and so they may expel more virus out into the air to pass on to the next person. This is supported by the testing data, which show that the CT value (cycle threshold)—the number of amplification cycles needed for the virus to be detected—seems to be lower in samples from delta infected people, meaning they contain more virus.

Another suggestion is that if this variant is better at infecting human airway cells, people may become infected after a lower exposure.

Does delaying the easing of covid-19 restrictions make a difference?

Yes, because it allows more people to receive two doses of the vaccine. Barclay said, “Any delays, just from a purely scientific basis, will help, because they will allow more time for people to get the second dose. And also just having the second dose is not quite enough. You need to get around seven days after the second dose for the vaccine to really boost the immune response up to the levels that you’d like it to be.”

The final stage of lockdown easing in England, which had been expected to be on 21 June, has now been delayed to 19 July.

Even if the death rate with delta is lower, could the healthcare system still be overwhelmed?

Absolutely. Rising hospital admission rates would increase pressure on the already exhausted health system and could overwhelm it. Writing in BMJ Opinion, the chief executive of NHS Providers, Chris Hopson, said, “Given current NHS pressures, any increase in covid-19 admissions will set back progress on tackling the care backlog. Are we ready to accept this trade off?”5

This message has been echoed by other health leaders, including NHS Confederation deputy chief executive Danny Mortimer, who told the media the current situation was “extremely precarious.”

He said, “Health leaders are all too aware that rising infections, and especially at such a rapid rate, can easily lead to major rises in hospital admissions. Even a slight increase in admissions will affect capacity and could put recovery efforts at risk. Covid-19 hospital admissions are already going up, and that will put capacity under strain, especially as the latest performance figures showed 5.1 million people are waiting to start treatment.”

Are more children becoming ill?

There are no official figures on this, although leaders in the area of child health have refuted suggestions made by members of the Scottish government that children were now more at risk from covid-19 and that many had been admitted to hospital.

Steve Turner, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health registrar and consultant paediatrician at Royal Aberdeen Children’s hospital, said, “As it stands there are very few children in hospital in Scotland and across the whole of the UK due to covid. We’re not seeing any evidence of an increase in paediatric admissions with covid. A very small number of admissions who test positive for covid is what we’d expect.

“Our experience over the last 15 months is that many children who test positive have come into hospital for something else, like broken bones. At the moment the situation in the UK is stable. The number of children in hospital with covid remains very low.”6

Coronavirus (Covid-19)

A collection of articles and other resources on the Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, including clinical reports, management guidelines, and commentary.

CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19)     VACCINE RESOURCES     VACCINE FAQ https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus

All Journal content related to the Covid-19 pandemic is freely available.

For More Information: https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus

Long covid: Damage to multiple organs presents in young, low risk patients

Authors: Gareth Iacobucci BMJ 2020; 371 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4470 (Published 17 November 2020)Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4470

Young, low risk patients with ongoing symptoms of covid-19 had signs of damage to multiple organs four months after initially being infected, a preprint study has suggested.1

Initial data from 201 patients suggest that almost 70% had impairments in one or more organs four months after their initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The results emerged as the NHS announced plans to establish a network of more than 40 long covid specialist clinics across England this month to help patients with long term symptoms of infection.

The prospective Coverscan study examined the impact of long covid (persistent symptoms three months post infection) across multiple organs in low risk people who are relatively young and had no major underlying health problems. Assessment was done using results from magnetic resonance image scans, blood tests, and online questionnaires.

The research has not yet been peer reviewed and could not establish a causal link between organ impairment and infection. But the authors said the results had “implications not only for [the] burden of long covid but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities.”

The study enrolled participants at two UK sites in Oxford and London between April and August 2020. Two hundred and one individuals (mean age 44 (standard deviation 11.0) years) completed assessments after SARS-CoV-2 infection a median of 140 days after initial symptoms.

Participants were eligible if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by random polymerase chain reaction swab (n=62), a positive antibody test (n=63), or had typical symptoms and were determined to have covid-19 by two independent clinicians (n=73).

The prevalence of pre-existing conditions was low (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%, diabetes: 2%, heart disease: 4%), and less than a fifth (18%) of individuals had been hospitalised with covid-19.

The most commonly reported ongoing symptoms—regardless of hospitalization status—were fatigue (98%), muscle ache (88%), shortness of breath (87%), and headache (83%). There was evidence of mild organ impairment in the heart (32% of patients), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%).

For More Information: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470

Study Finds Children Born During Lockdown Have Lost IQ Points, Impaired Cognitive Functioning

Authors: by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A new study has found that mean IQ scores of young children born during the pandemic have tumbled by as much as 22 points while verbal, motor and cognitive performance have all suffered as a result of lockdown.

“With limited stimulation at home and less interaction with the world outside, pandemic-era children appear to have scored shockingly low on tests designed to assess cognitive development,” reports the Guardian.

The study was conducted by researchers at Brown University and included 672 children born both before and after the pandemic began in March 2020.

“In the decade preceding the pandemic, the mean IQ score on standardised tests for children aged between three months and three years of age hovered around 100, but for children born during the pandemic that number tumbled to 78,” the study found.

Researchers concluded that the primary reason for the impairment on cognitive functioning was lack of stimulation and interaction at home.

According to lead study author Sean Deoni, “The ability to course-correct becomes smaller, the older that child gets,” meaning that this inferior foundation is likely to impact the child throughout adolescence and into adulthood.

For More Information: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771111

Masking school children is abuse

No scientific studies support the CDC guidance

Authors: PrintBy Jenny Beth MartinSaturday, August 14, 2021

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

When it comes to imposing mask mandates – especially for school children – Democrats simply don’t get it. If President Joe Biden and his cronies don’t pay more attention to parents and the health care professionals who care for their children, they’re going to set themselves up for an even worse shellacking than the one they suffered in 2010, when they lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives and brought an end to their short-lived era of one-party rule.

Mr. Biden said last week his administration is “checking” to see whether or not he has the legal authority to order a nationwide mask mandate for school children. “I don’t believe I do [have that power], thus far,” he told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. “We’re checking that.”

That sounds suspiciously similar to what he said two weeks ago regarding the CDC-promulgated eviction moratorium – right before his administration had the CDC issue a “new” eviction moratorium.

But what’s a Supreme Court ruling when you’re a radical Democrat convinced you know best? Certainly, nothing to worry about, at least not enough to prevent you from doing something you don’t believe you have the legal authority to do. After all, to paraphrase (a most likely apocryphal quote) from Joseph Stalin, how many divisions does John Roberts have at his disposal?

First things first: Despite the latest guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, parents know that school children should not be forced to wear masks as a condition of attending class in person. The CDC’s new guidance isn’t based on any scientific study proving that wearing masks reduces Covid transmission in children, as Drs. Marty Makary and H. Cody Meissner pointed out in a recent op-ed, there has been no scientific study with data to prove the point.

Further, explain Drs. Makary and Meissner, not only is there not any proof that forcing children to wear masks will help them; there actually is proof that forcing children to wear masks will hurt them: “[Children] who have myopia can have difficulty seeing because the mask fogs their glasses … Masks can cause severe acne and other skin problems. The discomfort of a mask distracts some children from learning. By increasing airway resistance during exhalation, masks can lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood. In March, Ireland’s Department of Health announced it won’t require masks in schools because they ‘may exacerbate anxiety or breathing difficulties for some students.’ Some children compensate for such difficulties by breathing through their mouths. Chronic and prolonged mouth breathing can alter facial development. It is well-documented that children who mouth-breathe because adenoids blocks their nasal airways can develop a mouth deformity and elongated face.”

For More Information: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/14/masking-school-children-is-abuse/

COVID-19 pandemic causing babies to develop differently – study

In infants, overall cognitive scores are significantly lower since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic with young infants showing lower performance than infants born before January 2019.

Authors: By EVE YOUNG   AUGUST 14, 2021 19:09

Children born during the coronavirus pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance compared to children born before the pandemic, and this discrepancy is particularly pronounced in males, as well as in children in lower socioeconomic families, according to a new study. Researchers believe that this highlights that even in the absence of infection and illness, the pandemic has had a significant, negative impact on infant and child development.In the study, not yet-peer reviewed and uploaded as preprint in medRxiv on Wednesday, researchers examined data from an ongoing longitudinal study of child neurodevelopment, comparing scores in 2020 and 2021 to scores from 2011 to 2019. The researchers found that verbal, non-verbal, and overall cognitive scores are significantly lower since the beginning of the pandemic, with young infants showing significantly lower performance than infants born before January 2019.Researchers stated that “it is clear […] that young infants and children are developing differently than pre-pandemic, and that addressing this now while their brain is at its most plastic and responsive, is imperative,” also saying that it is unclear from the data if observed declines are temporary.

For More Information: https://www.jpost.com/health-science/babies-born-in-covid-pandemic-show-reduced-cognitive-performance-study-676715