#but at what cost (covid denialism)

[chappell-roans]

sometimes the queer girl to crunchy girl pipeline is so scary so unfortunate

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

From April 2024. Covid denial is a bipartisan platform.

By Julia Doubleday

Viruses are bad for kids' health. Public health is a collective effort. Liberals no longer believe either.

There are few groups so reviled in liberal circles as the anti-vaxxers. Seen as embarrassingly anti-science and anti-social to boot, the popular anti-vaxxer archetype is a shrill, loudly wrong grifter straight out of YouTube Medical School. They are not only uninformed, but dangerous. And their specific brand of ignorance invites a mocking condescension from those of us who self-identify as “educated” and “pro-science.”

There’s one big problem with liberal media outlets, individuals and institutions expressing this disdain today: they have, themselves, adopted many foundational beliefs of the anti-vax movement without even realizing it. While they express continued appreciation for vaccines, their underlying ideas about immune systems, illness, herd immunity, and the social value of public health have all aligned with anti-vaxxer ideology. I’ll unpack each of these foundational beliefs individually, but first I’d like to address why this has happened.

After the release and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines, world governments, rather than waiting to see what sort of immunity these vaccines would produce in the long-term (would it be durable? How quickly would the virus mutate? Would people get infected? How often would they get infected?) gambled on the so-called “vax and relax” strategy. They bet everything that the vaccines would significantly limit infection and exposure to the point that everyday life could resume without any long-term disruption to society. They unwound every other virus mitigation tactic on this poor assumption.

In 2020, the Republicans had wanted to pursue “herd immunity” at any cost- meaning a quick reopening, massive die off of “the weak”, followed by the resumption of business-as-usual once the public was exposed. In early 2021, the Democrats’ approach was also a “herd immunity” strategy- but one accomplished by vaccinating the public. The only problem is that we’ve since learned that we cannot achieve herd immunity to COVID- ever.

Herd immunity would mean long-term, durable protection from infection, like we have for viruses like measles, mumps, and rubella. This society-wide protection would then enable vulnerable people to rejoin society without constant risk of infection. But since reopening, COVID has circulated year-round at high levels and the population is continually getting reinfected. Both the Republican and Democratic strategies to achieve herd immunity were doomed from the start. There are a variety of biological reasons for this.

The problem is that we cannot achieve herd immunity to COVID- ever. Herd immunity would mean long-term, durable protection from infection, like we have for viruses like measles, mumps, and rubella. This society-wide protection would then enable vulnerable people to rejoin society without constant risk of infection. But since reopening, COVID has circulated year-round at high levels and the population is continually getting reinfected. Both the Republican and Democratic strategies to achieve herd immunity were doomed from the start.

Firstly, infection with COVID does not produce durable immunity. That means that the experts who claimed a single infection would mean immunity for life, or immunity for a significant period of time like a decade, were wrong. These experts- the overly optimistic ones- were the experts continually platformed by both our governments and our media. In fact, COVID immunity is measured in months, not a lifetime or decades or even years, for the average person.

Secondly, vaccination against COVID also does not produce durable immunity. The CDC’s own vaccine efficacy data shows how rapidly protection declines- yet this rapid waning has never been properly explained to the public. Studies have repeatedly found that COVID protection dwindles over the course of mere months. This VE (Vaccine Efficacy) study looking at hospitalization rates found that:

"During the first 7–59 days after vaccination, compared with no vaccination, VE for receipt of a bivalent vaccine dose among adults aged ≥18 years was 62% (95% CI = 57%–67%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions and 28% (95% CI = 10%–42%) among adults with immunocompromising conditions. Among adults without immunocompromising conditions, VE declined to 24% (95% CI = 12%–33%) among those aged ≥18 years by 120–179 days after vaccination. VE was generally lower for adults with immunocompromising conditions."

In other words, a mere four months after receiving their first booster (so their third shot overall in the series), immunocompetent people’s protection from hospitalization with COVID was 24%. With three shots, only months out from their booster, they were 24% less likely to be hospitalized than a fully unvaccinated person. This is a significant percentage, and surely worth receiving a vaccine for- but it’s nowhere near the public’s perceived vaccine efficacy, which would be much closer to 100%.

That perceived efficacy- the idea that we are all well protected from serious outcomes of COVID in the long-term- is a perception that was deliberately promoted and cultivated by institutions that do not want to see any additional attention on pandemic control or COVID mitigation. “Vax and relax” as a strategy is less appealing when people understand how temporary and weak that protection really is.

Thirdly, COVID mutates around vaccine protection quickly. For example, upon their release, the Moderna shots were 92% effective against infection with the ancestral strain, but only 48% effective against infection with Omicron BA.1. Last year, a study looking at data from 2022-2023 found that children under 5 who received the bivalent boosters had an 80% reduction in risk of ER visits, whereas those who received the original series Moderna shots had only a 29% reduction in risk of ER visits. Studies continually find that new subvariants “escape neutralizing antibodies induced by both vaccination and infection”.

The mRNA vaccines were a great leap forward in vaccine technology because they can be quickly updated with new strains of COVID as they emerge. But “quickly” is still a matter of months, not minutes. And COVID keeps outpacing our ability to update the vaccines. In the winter of ‘22-23, we were encouraged to get bivalent vaccines that included both the original strain and Omicron BA.1. By the time people could get the shots, the currently dominant variant was XBB.1.5- a recombinant descendent of BA.2.

Similarly, this past winter we finally got the XBB-specific booster shots. By the time they were released, JN.1 was the dominant variant, a descendent of BA.2.86. Again, there is still efficacy associated with updated vaccines; it makes sense that a vaccine formulated for a strain that is genetically closer to the dominant one would protect better than the original vaccine. But the virus is still outpacing us. Additionally, thanks to (purposefully) poor communication about boosters, variants, and strains, most people do not understand why they need a booster, nor do they seek them out.

When politicians lost their gamble that we would achieve herd immunity to COVID, they didn’t admit they were wrong or explain that, without any mitigation, our “new normal” would be continual reinfection with a blood vessel, organ, immune system and brain damaging virus. Instead, they doubled down and worked to normalize this continual reinfection- and all the negative downstream outcomes that come along with it, like overwhelmed hospitals, record student and teacher absences, constant illness, record rates of worker sickness and long-term illness, re-emergence of controlled pathogens, dropping test scores, high excess deaths, and increasing heart attacks and strokes among younger people.

This normalization process relies on a few tactics. One is burying data, like refusing to test for COVID and failing to report on excess deaths. Another is misinformation: promoting false, pseudo-scientific explanations for the clear results of uncontrolled transmission we see all around us. This is the juncture at which the goals of COVID normalizers intersect with the goals of anti-vaxxers; both want to manufacture broad consent to destroy collective belief in public health. And this is the point at which their tactics, explanations and justifications become nearly identical. Since 2021, our institutions, with the help of our media watchdogs, have mainstreamed nearly every foundational belief of anti-vaxxers and brought them into ascendence over scientific reality. I’m going to explore each one below.

Mainstreamed anti-vaxxer belief #1:

Viral and bacterial infections are good for the immune system

This has long been a foundational belief of anti-vaxxers. They claim that not only can vaccines harm the body, but that illness itself is a boon to health, training and building a hardy immune system. They insist that natural infection is important for the growth and development of children. Visit any anti-vaxxer facebook group; you’ll find parents boasting of their decisions to purposely expose their kids to chickenpox, tips on how to navigate measles, and collective back-patting for the “wisdom” of purposely sickening children.

The belief that illness makes us well is completely false and incredibly dangerous. It comes from the also-controversial Hygiene Hypothesis- the belief that exposure to certain microorganisms is an important part of the development of babies. Even were we to accept the hygiene hypothesis- which again, is itself debated, with a recent study finding lockdown-era babies have healthier microbiomes and fewer allergies - the microbes in question are healthy or neutral types of bacteria that occur in our environments and thrive in our guts; they do not equate to pathogenic viruses. There has never been any serious contention that a pathogen- meaning a microbe that is harmful to humans- would somehow be healthy for you. It is simply a complete fabrication.

However, liberal outlets adopted and adapted this anti-vaxxer belief in the glorious healthful effects of viral illness and laundered it to their audience of scientifically minded liberals. They did so because children became notably sicker after reopening. As parents began to question the levels of illness they were observing in their kids, media outlets and elected officials rushed to rebrand illness as a positive sign that kids’ immune systems are developing well. This brings us to:

Mainstreamed anti-vaxxer belief #2:

Public health measures and disease mitigation harms people

As part of their push to handwave away record childhood illnesses and absences, the press also embraced the completely fabricated “immunity debt” idea. This is the idea that, because children were kept at home and/or wore masks, their immune systems were harmed. Their weak immune systems therefore have more trouble fighting off common childhood diseases- a phenomenon that will surely abate with time (but hasn’t yet, three years on).

Implicit in the claim that kids’ immune systems were harmed by masks is the idea that masks and quarantines- basic mitigation measures, in other words, are bad for your health. In fact, if people need pathogenic infections to build up their immune systems, any form of disease mitigation at all could be construed as negative for public health. This claim was first promoted by anti-vaxxers in Spring of 2020 and beyond; at the time, outlets corrected the misinformation, asserting that no, masks and isolation measures could not harm people’s health.

But as 2022 dragged on and the effects of continual COVID spread became apparent, our governments and media had only two options: clearly, something had changed since 2019. People were sicker. The two possible culprits- the only things that had dramatically changed- were the spread of COVID, and the adoption of COVID mitigations. Our institutions chose to throw mitigations under the bus, rather than admit that continual COVID spread was a mistake, a bad decision, and a social catastrophe. On to:

Mainstreamed anti-vaxxer belief #3:

Public health shouldn’t pursue the elimination of pathogens

The fact that pathogens are harmful for humans underlies the entirety of modern public health. It is why mitigation has always been not only a goal, but in fact, the ultimate goal, of public health itself. The CDC itself was first founded as a malaria elimination project. HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB projects worldwide openly pursue the goal of elimination, and they are never seen as irrational or extremist for doing so. Elimination was the goal of vaccination campaigns that all-but-eradicated polio and other common infections like diphtheria, typhoid, measles, mumps, and rubella in developed countries.

In the age of COVID, elimination has become a dirty word. Absurd labels like “Zero COVID extremists” came from the far-right, but this attitude toward those of us still advocating mitigations has been adopted by the press, Democrats, and the liberal public. No press outlet would label people advocating for the elimination of a deadly disease as a “Zero HIV extremist” or a “Zero measles extremist” or a “Zero cholera extremist”. That’s because it’s well understood that elimination is the highest goal of public health; once elimination is achieved, all the resources devoted to mitigation can be repurposed. It’s ultimately far cheaper to eliminate a disease than it is to attempt to continually mitigate and manage it; however, neither goal is now being pursued by our public health institutions in regard to SARS-COV-2. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any public health goal at all in regard to the spread of a highly infectious, highly disabling, incredibly disruptive and widespread airborne virus.

Instead, completely abandoning its public health obligations, our institutions have embraced the ideologically extremist, libertarian “Let it Rip” approach to COVID. In other words, zero attempts to mitigate, zero attempts to halt, zero attempts to eliminate, just a complete disease free-for-all. Normalizing this non-approach to disease to a science-embracing liberal audience required a ton of ideological messaging. From there it’s a short leap to:

Mainstreamed anti-vaxxer belief #4:

Health is an individual choice, not a collective practice

Much has been made of anti-vaxxers refusal to understand that their choices impact others. Ok, yes, your kid may be fine if they contract measles- maybe. But even if your kid is fine, you’re contributing to community spread. Viral spread threatens herd immunity (to viruses like measles, where herd immunity is possible and was attained decades ago). Contributing to disease spread means that vulnerable people- people who cannot get vaccinated, do not mount an immune response to vaccination, and/or will die if infected, can no longer be safe and protected.

This reality is the crux of the criticism us pro-science folks lob at anti-vaxxers. You frame this decision as your individual choice, we point out, but your decision is affecting and harming the collective. It shouldn’t be your right to afflict harm on others because you think you will be okay.

Now that it’s clear COVID will require additional mitigations aside from vaccines alone, liberal institutions have adopted and mainstreamed the worldview that disease mitigation is a personal choice that must be left to the individual. If some people want to wear a mask, that’s fine, but I’m pretty sure I’m low risk for Long COVID- so why should I have to mask? This is exactly and precisely the same logic used by anti-vaxxers to justify their personal choices not to participate in protecting collective health. If other people want to mask- 24/7, amidst unmitigated COVID spread- that’s not any of my business! This bleeds directly into:

Mainstreamed anti-vaxxer belief #5:

If vulnerable people are so weak, they should simply hide forever or die

One of the major things people seem to have memory-holed about the early pandemic is that mitigation measures, from day one, were first and foremost about protecting the vulnerable. Even in the earliest, pre-vaccine days, COVID infection was never highly deadly to young, healthy people. It was dangerous for the elderly, new babies, immunocompromised folks, folks with underlying conditions, and our decisions to collectively adopt mitigation measures were explicitly done to care for our vulnerable populations.

Now, people have been persuaded to not only ignore, but even openly despise vulnerable people. Defenses of refusals to mask often expressly state that “only vulnerable people” are dying from COVID- even though vulnerable people were always the ones dying from COVID. Our public figures like former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky commented that she’s “encouraged” those dying have underlying conditions, while just this past winter, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that “the vulnerable will fall by the wayside”- framing this as an okay, or even positive thing.

Media outlets continue to push that narrative that “most” people won’t get Long COVID, while encouraging everyone to assume that the unfortunate outliers will be, simply, somebody else. Vulnerable people, left with zero public protection, have had to adopt extreme measures to protect themselves, including isolation, constant masking, avoiding medical care and abandoning professional careers. These measures are not only ignored by liberals; they are mocked and derided by liberals, and sometimes even leftists.

The message is loud and clear to disabled and immunocompromised people who cannot afford a COVID infection (or in the case of Long COVID patients, another COVID infection): shut up and/or disappear. It’s the message vulnerable folks have always received from anti-vaxxers, and an explicitly eugenicist one. This brings us to the end with:

Mainstreamed anti-vaxxer belief #6:

The strong will survive, the weak won’t, and that’s a good thing

The anti-vax movement has always been eugenicist. The logic goes that, if your kid is healthy, they will not only recover, but build strength from infectious disease exposure. The people who die- well sadly, they just weren’t built for survival. They’re the necessary sacrifices of a stronger collective, weeding out the weak and embracing a Darwinian, survival of the fittest model. It’s no surprise that anti-vaxxer beliefs overlap heavily with other fascist beliefs, like white nationalism, great replacement conspiracies, and fear of diversity and inclusion. Fundamentally, anti-vaxxers believe that some people should survive, and others should not. Some people should have rights and privileges, others should not. Some people are superior, others inferior.

This deeply fascist belief is the beating heart of COVID normalization. Without it, all the other beliefs listed above don’t gel together and form the poisonous worldview now adopted across the political spectrum: some people are going to die, and it’s not our job to prevent that or care.

Now, morally, this view is abhorrent. It’s also completely wrong on a practical level. As mentioned above, COVID infections are not harmless, but are directly harmful to anyone with a vascular system, a brain, an immune system, and organs (that’s you). You may feel okay after your COVID infection, and you may not. You may develop microclots in your blood, a new onset heart problem, and you may sustain cognitive damage, no matter how healthy you were prior to COVID. You may develop new onset autoimmune disorders, and/or become more vulnerable to other infections.

In other words, the “strong” who survive COVID are becoming slightly less strong all the time. They are not beating COVID and becoming a super-race of Übermenschen, destined to rule over a newly healthy population with an incredible life expectancy. Instead, they too are becoming sicker. They too are missing work and school at record rates. They too are becoming vulnerable. Different people may tolerate different numbers of infections, but one thing is certain; continue to get infected with SARS-COV-2, every year, over and over again, and you will eventually move into the category of disposable people. You will have become the vulnerable, who don’t deserve protection. Who don’t deserve mitigation. Who don’t deserve to live.

The story of COVID normalization is ultimately a story of breaking solidarity. We went from embracing a social model of public health that prioritized the safety of vulnerable people as the greatest priority, to one that explicitly denies them safety and promotes harming them. In essence, public health itself, the concept of collectively combatting disease for the collective benefit of all, is what we’ve lost. It’s been replaced by a cruel, sadistic, eugenicist program of deliberate elimination of the weak as a named and accepted cost of abandoning all attempts to control COVID.

This social normalization of the anti-vaxxer worldview, the mainstreaming of the idea that illness is good and the weak must die, has implications that will follow us well past the normalization of this virus. What does a society look like when parents believe making their children sick is good for them? Is that a society that effectively controls measles outbreaks? What does a society look like if the people in it believe lockdowns and masks can physically harm them? Is that a society that willingly adopts those measures again during an outbreak of a highly pathogenic disease like H5N1, now spreading uncontrolled among America’s dairy cows?

What does a society that no longer “believes the science” do when science is our greatest disease fighting weapon?

What does a society full of people who think disease elimination is stupid and silly do about other diseases?

What does a society trained to hate the vulnerable do to the vulnerable?

Anti-vaxxers are certainly a threat to the collective. So are the mainstream liberals who’ve adopted every one of their beliefs about viruses, disease mitigation, public health, and who deserves safety.

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

staged but i've never watched it and i'm drunk

hello mascot good omens mascot here okay so THE STAGED LIVESTREAAM IS ON SATURDAY BTW. That is a thing that is happening. So. You know. If you're above 18 because @thescholarlystrumpet (and I ig) are responaible adults come and like. Join us. Watch me react to staged and probably die. i'Ll probably share details when I'm not drunk and when it's not nearing midnight.

But until then I'm drinking battery acid (this red wine cost like the equivalent of 2.5 USD) and I am here to summarise staged.

It's about David Tennant and Michael Sheen, who, until barely a month ago, I had no idea existed (we don't talk about Michael sneakily being in Twilight and Passengers I'm actually pretending the Twilight thing didn't happen pklease respect my denial)

It started over Zoom and it's about them rehearsing a play during COVID but like it's scripted so it's a show about rehearsing a play and it stars the actors as themselves very meta very fourth wall

David has hair extensions and Michael does not

David keeps switching locations because he has to quote Michael "twenty children" and they're everywhere. Because of this hellsite that's obsessed with David to an unhealthy level I know that this is not true, he has five children and I can probably give you details and how is this my life

Michael stays in the kitcehn and some watchers think this is a poetic choice it's not David just has to shift because humans are everywhere in his house

Georgia who is David's wife and Anna who is Michael's wife which I also know because of this hellsite both also star in it

They're all neighbours now by the way which this really creepy hellsite was DETERMINED that I know about okay thank you tumblr I'm uh that's knowledge for sure I'm sure they're having fun

Judi Dench is involved and I'm not sure who she is but she's a Dame and she's a very good actress and she's kinda intimoidating and also for some weird reason I associate her with that Cats nightmare fuel even though I didn't watch it but yeah she probably had nothing to do with it

There are three seasons and FOR SOME REAOSN EVERYONE IS CRYING AT THE END. WHY ARE YOU ALL ALWAYS CRYING WHY HAVE YOU DRAGGED ME INTO THE CRYING TOO I'M STILL CRYING OVER GOOD OMENS WHAT IS THIS NOW.

it's uh it's a comedy but I've realised now that in Britain comedy = will make you sob harder than a tragedy but will be more subtle and sneaky about it

god this wine tastes like shit i really need to make money so i can afford better alcohol. any suggestions, maggots? wait this is a summary not a life update

uhhhh the silhouette of one of david's kids appears in one of the episodes

that's all i've got i'm sorry time to go make more bad decisions I love you all byebyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee stay rotten

[liminalweirdo]

[video transcript]

"So I want to talk about burnout and cognitive dissonance very briefly.

So, this is my night last night. It was the second show in a row, entirely sold out, entirely masked for LaFreak, and it felt so good to be among 200 and something all masked people in an audience, having a very lovely time.

And part of the reason it felt so good is really obvious, it's just— it's nice to be safe at work, you know, in an industry that does not always protect artists.

It feels really good to have an audience showing how much they care by masking up and keeping us safe at work.

The other reason why it feels so good — and that's what I want to talk about here — is, it feels really good to be in a room full of people facing reality in a world that, otherwise, is pretty committed to denial at the moment.

And the thing that I feel like we don't necessarily acknowledge enough, culturally, is that, like, denial, and the cognitive dissonance that comes with it is exhausting.

We talk about the work that activism takes, and the work that, you know, facing off with the horrors of the world, the toll that that can take on you, but I don't think we really acknowledge the fact that turning away also takes a toll. It's not a neutral act, it doesn't come without a cost, it chips away at your soul in a very different way, but the toll is there.

And so, sometimes, when I try and have conversations about COVID, I get met by people who are kind of very burnt out, very kind of at the end of their tether with everything that's happening in the world at the moment. Who don't feel like they have room, psychologically, for more bad news.

But this is the thing that I think gets missed, is that it's not just bad news that you're taking on when you choose to face reality, like, yes it is uncomfortable looking at the state of healthcare, looking at the fact that, like, profit has once again been prioritized over peoples' lives. That does not feel good. However, by acknowledging the reality that we're in, we're also opening ourselves up to, like, profound solidarity, and community, and safety, and joy. And meeting in that space, you get to, like, release the part of you that is quashing your own instincts that are saying "something is not right."

Because we can all look around at the moment and see that things aren't quite right. Right? So, I don't know, I guess I just wanted to share this, because I think that, like, for very understandable reasons, everyone feels a bit overwhelmed at the moment, and so I think it can be temping to try and like hunker down, isolate, just, like, put on your [oxygen] mask before you put on anybody else's, that kind of individualized acts of trying to take care of ourselves through what feels like a very scary situation.

However, it is becoming clearer every single day that surviving has always been, and always will be, a group assignment.

So, yeah, I guess I just wanted to share this. If you're feeling that pull of conflicts between your values and your overwhelm, that, like, it's not just exhaustion that you get from acknowledging the world that we're in, there's a lot of room for joy on the other side, too, so. Dive on in, the water's warm, I love you. *kiss kiss kiss*"

[end transcript]

-themme_fatale

[lotus-tower]

it’s not that there aren’t very real challenges and difficulties that come with covid mitigation

but at the core of it even the measures that require no imagination would be highly effective in driving down transmission, which would in return make other activities that are more difficult to mitigate infection risk for less risky

like we’re sitting here pretending we don’t understand the concept of ventilation or filtration, or that the idea of staying home when sick is weird and alien, or that it’s inconceivable that putting something on your face that filters air will reduce sickness. and we’re pretending that it’s normal for people to get sick at the hospital because hospitals are overflowing and have so many outbreaks happen in them. we’re acting like doing things outdoors or opening the windows is a concept that has never been seen before.

there are many ways we could transform society into one that respects disabled people and that values health and well-being over profit, but that’s honestly not even on the table at the moment. what we’re talking about is rejecting the use of ordinary tools and technologies that have literally been used for decades. I’ve heard about teachers and healthcare workers who purposefully go out of their way to turn off air filters that have been bought for them. repeatedly, every day. I’ve watched a video where a farmer wore an N95 to clean the chicken coop due to particles, but took it off to go to the store.

what’s happening right now isn’t just “people did the calculation and decided money is more important than people’s lives” in a pure rational way. because that’s not how capitalism works anyway. we all know by now that happy workers are more productive, some companies saw good results when going remote for the first time under lockdown, etc. but the goal is to control workers as a class, and to preserve the status quo.

obviously, long covid will cost more to the economy than updating ventilation will. obviously, children who are sick all the time won’t perform as well at school. obviously, reducing infection would reduce the burden on collapsing hospitals. prevention is always cheaper than attempted treatment. but these facts don’t mean anything. people are ideologically committed to covid denialism to such a degree that it’s pushed them to do utterly absurd things. they’re overcorrecting like crazy in order to try to get to the 2019 “normal” state.

people are trying to gaslight us into believing that we were always sick all the time, that measles is a normal winter illness like the flu, that PPE measures were like this before the pandemic. scientific research and facts aren’t going to convince these people.

and it’s just ridiculous because the situation at hand is literally one where improving air quality, a multipurpose measure with no downsides whatsoever, is a no-go specifically because it could reduce covid, whether that’s the stated goal or not, and they balk at the idea of accidentally reducing covid transmission.

meanwhile, private bioscience firms are trying to invent ridiculously complex long covid treatments with hundreds of millions of funds from rich sponsors. and that’s okay, because that’s a Thing. rich genius saviors are always okay. but opening the windows for free? for prevention? to prevent getting the untreatable illness to begin with? that’s weird and unfathomable

[thatonebirdwrites]

*KNOCKS ON WOOD*

I just got on disability. It is literally saving my life as it was backdated far enough so that I can go on Medicare next month. The backpay I used for an accessible bathroom. It pays my housing, utilities, healthcare bills, pet costs, and food/amenities. Without it I'm kind of fucked and won't be able to afford the meds I need. I fear the worst. But then, it's not like I haven't faced off with Death and Pain before. Those two play a long game with me, and so far I'm winning. But why do I fear the worst?

Project 2025's changes are fairly lethal and damaging to the survival of most marginalized populations, and especially disabled people. Trumpocalypse filled his advisors with Project 2025 assholes. If not Project 2025, they'll try to destroy as much of the government's social programs to harm the most vulnerable people because they're cruel. They tried that last time and judges stopped them, but they packed the courts last time. So we'll see who is left to act as obstructions. Seems they're starting with a major spectacle of ICE raids. WEird TikTok shenanigans. And stopping all NIH grant funding. This means the research on my chronic illnesses no longer has funding. Whether they can continue any current research is unknown. Whether I'll ever see treatments or cures in my lifetime is unknown. Whether research on my chronic illness will continue or whether Trumpocalypse decides it should be cut is unknown. The treatment I have currently is not great but it's keeping me alive. I had high hopes on the research finding better treatments, and maybe even getting in on a LongCovid study. That hope is dashed as Trumpocalypse mentioned wanting to cease/defund research on infectious diseases (including Covid and LongCovid and Sars and bird flu). We already don't have a pandemic response team because Biden failed to rebuild that. Instead, he doubled down on Trumpocalypse-like policies of denial and obfuscation and defunding. Friends died because of these shitty policies. And now, just as disabled folks predicted, Trumpocalypse is tearing down what they can to cause the most harm. This is a Death Administration, who are okay with us dying as long as billionaires profit. it'll be a miracle if I survive these four years. But then I've survived: Falling off a 500 foot bluff, drowning in Gulf of Mexico, SA, death threats, knocked unconscious due to falling face-first into concrete, transphobic attack, lost in the wilderness for a day with no water, hospitalized due to suicide attempt, hospitalized due to temporary paralyzation of right side... Death and I got this deal, you see. We play tag. I've been winning so far, but I'm not sure how much longer that'll last. You see, Death sneaked in a cheat -- LongCovid and my other nasty chronic illnesses -- so we'll see who wins this next few rounds. Since I need to finish my fics, I'm determined to win. Got a few tricks up my sleeve.

[meandmybigmouth]

WILL REPUBLICAN CLIMATE DENIAL END UP COSTING AS MANY LIVES AS REPUBLICAN COVID DENIAL? WHAT'S THE VEGAS BET? OVER OR UNDER?

[transmutationisms]

also I am not trying to convince the other side to mask, I am trying to convince other leftists to do any kind of pandemic advocacy, but I've largely been met with resistance and pandemic denialism, and I may be wrong but I can't help but attribute it to guilt surrounding a refusal to even consider any kind of accommodations for disabled people in their spaces, covid or otherwise. this usually comes in the form of masking, ventilation, and/or remote options. I understand it's not feasible to Always have accommodations but it feels like people could at least consider it, and that frustration often does come out in the form of "why can't you just do the bare minimum that costs nothing and mask for a half hour". that's not perfect optics, I admit, but it is exhausting to have to be looking for the correct combination of words to tell someone who claims to be an ally to get them to not immediately shut me out. perhaps your point is that all of that is wasted effort, anyway, and maybe that does count as "the other side" in this case

hey, i really do sympathise with your frustration here. like i said: i <3 masks. i <3 other pandemic interventions. and i agree that a lot of resistance to these things comes down to ableism, whether overt (actively exterminatory mindsets toward disabled people) or more 'subtle' (just not giving a fuck). my point was just that i have observed a tendency, including among those nominally on the left, to shift any conversation about pandemic safety to technical interventions that they believe obviate the need for political action, and that among a certain subset of those who do take covid seriously, masks can sometimes serve this rhetorical function. if that's not you then great. again i repeat that the point here is not to reduce mask usage but the opposite. in fact i would say pushing for accommodations to be offered as a matter of course and not a 'special exception' is exactly the sort of political action that the technical-intervention crowd doesn't want to think about or deal with, because that points to a way in which masks (although great) do not 100% solve a social and political issue (the fact that large groups of people gathering together in person is inherently inaccessible for some people and always will be). like, this is precisely the sort of larger political issue i'm pointing to—capitalist valuation of disabled people, social designs that are exclusionary, and the way that the covid pandemic ought to be prompting us to think, "hey, even if we masked up and got vaccinated and dealt with This specific illness, don't we also have ongoing issues with eg accessibility as a result of living in a society designed around capitalist notions of productivity rather than the social responsibility we all have toward one another?"

in a more narrow conversation about public health communication strategies i would maybe say that assuming a guilty conscience on the part of your interlocutors is understandable but probably not helping you much (i'm not accusing you of something here. i would also not communicate to the public in the exact manner i do on this tumblr blog lol) and, although this is not my complete or definitive account of pandemic denialism, i do think a certain amount of it is fuelled by the sort of techno-optimism i'm talking about: the belief that we just need to get the right medical-technology intervention, and then that obviates our need to change our behaviour in any meaningful way. among those who are resistant to masks, often the vaccine is the technology of choice here, but this attitude is (i think) somewhat malleable in terms of what actual technical intervention it invokes. again: not a comprehensive theory of pandemic denialism but i do think this is part of the puzzle and is happily encouraged by a lot of mainstream news coverage & general attitudes toward science and technology as quasi-magical Forces For Good that will simply Solve Society (at its most concentrated this is simply technocracy). my position is that we need to be watchful for this sort of attitude, and resist it, whilst also using and encouraging those technical interventions that are useful for public health (masks, vaccines, ventilation, &c) or other reasons.

[andarthas-web]

Are humans evil?

I wouldn't say that humans are predisposed to evil. It's just that evolution has equipped us with a few common traits that helped us survive and thrive, but which can also lead to evil, monstrous outcomes. Humanity has existed for about 200.000 years (according to a 2017 discovery, it might even be over 300.000 years). First forms of civilization (behavioural modernity), with art, abstract thinking and symbolism and planning ahead, probably emerged between 150.000 and 75.000 years ago. And for most of our history, resources were very scarce and obtaining them was very work-intensive and required cooperation, periods where hunger reigned were common, and dangers large and small, from natural catastrophes to predatory animals and illnesses were very common.

Human beings survived because they banded together in groups and cooperated, so groups mean safety to us. It also meant that being kicked out was a terrifying danger. So those who prioritized the will of the group had better chances to survive and get ahead. And to this day, we very, very easily bend to group pressure and are afraid to say or do things that might upset the group and which might get us kicked out, and that instinct is far greater than out need to do what's right and just and true.

We also crave stability, since that too feels like saftety, so humans absolutely HATE change. So we put change off, even if it's necessary and sensible. (See resistance to climate change mitigation measures.)

We also want simplicity, since most people's brains do NOT deal well with complexity, so we crave simple solutions and black-and-white answers. We also don't do that well with diversity for that same reason, because for all the advantages diversity brings in the long run, like having more information and input, which allows us to find more creative and better solutions to complex problems and respond more flexible to new challenges, it also comes with more complexity, which, again, can feel very overwhelming to people and which we do not deal well with.

We're also short-sighted, since for most of our evolution, we had to think ahead a few days, maybe a full turn of the seasons or two at most. Anything that might have an impact ten, twenty, fourty years down the road? (Hello smokers!) Just doesn't really compute. It just doesn't feel real to us (btw, dito to most things we can't see, hear or touch. Hello covid denial.)

We also hate taking risks and maybe being wrong (because for most of history, being wrong often meant being hurt or being dead, for us and for our group), so we LOVE when someone leads us and takes that responsibility from us. Thing is, giving someone that kind of power also risks them abusing that power, and many do, since it means more resources and safety for their close family group. And they can use that very power we gave them to ward off criticism and negative consequences of their failure. And because being wrong carries risks and dangers, we also absolutely LOATHE taking responsibility for our mistakes and taking accountability for them and making amends (with the latter also usually costing precious and scarce resources, and maybe requiring to go against the group, so we prefer to victim blame instead).

Facing painful truths and building a better future requires overcoming these very human and very powerful instincts and traits, and that's really, REALLY hard to do for most people.

[theculturedmarxist]

Although many Canadians act as though the pandemic has ended, the airborne virus that causes COVID-19 continues to evolve at an amazing pace with devastating consequences for both individuals and the public at large.

The pandemic may no longer be a major conflagration but it still kills about 140 Canadians a week while morphing into a steady viral blaze sustained by dirty air, waning immunity and overt political indifference.

What was once a giant wave of acute illness has become a series of often unpredictable wavelets driven by ever-changing variants that can cause chronic illness. Long COVID, a disabling health event that can affect multiple organs and destabilize the immune system, now affects millions and continues to claim new victims.

A 2023 Danish study recently confirmed that about 50 per cent of those diagnosed with long COVID fail to improve 18 months after infection regardless of the variant.

Long COVID has taken a huge toll among health-care workers. Anywhere from six to 10 per cent of Quebec’s health-care workforce, for example, has been derailed by long COVID.

Seventy-one per cent of health-care workers impaired by long COVID reported that their state of health now interferes with their ability to function. Another 16 per cent said that they are often unable to work. Multiply this data across the country and then ask: How sustainable is this trend?

The cost of living in a ‘viral soup’

While the media focus concern on the potential next big nasty viral wave, evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory says that threat seems less likely than before, but the current reality is nothing like normal.

“We are not dealing with Omicron-like waves but a viral soup,” Gregory told The Tyee. “We are seeing a near-constant high level of hospitalizations that falls just below overwhelming them but is nonetheless unsustainable. More health-care workers are getting sick and that just adds to the strain on the whole system.”

What worries Gregory, an expert on the evolution of COVID variants at the University of Guelph, “are the long-term effects of multiple infections and the sustained pressure on the health-care system and well-being.”

Yet the current impact of COVID — measurably higher than at some previous points during the pandemic — remains largely ignored or poorly reported.

Tara Moriarty, a University of Toronto infectious disease expert and co-founder of COVID 19 Resources Canada, recently tallied the imperfect data, and it is bracing. She calculates that about one in every 23 Canadians is now infected with COVID. We are not at the low point of the pandemic in Canada. To the contrary, compared with a previous time during the pandemic, infections are 25 times higher and the rate of long COVID is 19 times higher. Meanwhile the hospitalization rate is 13 times higher and deaths are 25 times higher.

In the middle of October, Moriarty calculated that COVID patients occupied about nine per cent of intensive care beds and 21 per cent of hospital beds across the country. (The average hospitalization rate during the pandemic has been seven per cent.) The estimated cost of this sustained viral assault is $274 million a week.

Governments peddling denial

Most governments seem intent on diminishing or hiding these realities. They avoid any talk about the effectiveness of masking in public places or the value of improved ventilation and filtration in schools and workplaces. It’s a demonstrated fact that the virus travels through the air in tiny smoke-like aerosols that can infect people at much greater distances than six feet, but the natural responses to this reality are not encouraged by our leaders.

Alberta, for example, now pretends that COVID is just another mild respiratory disease and reports its doings along with influenza and RSV activity.

Despite this push for “normalization,” only one disease stands out as a routine killer and dominant occupant of hospital beds on the province’s “respiratory virus dashboard.” And that’s COVID. COVID also dominates outbreaks in Alberta’s hospitals and long-term care facilities where masking and attention to ventilation have become haphazard practices.

Lumping COVID in with other respiratory diseases is also patently misleading. A recent Swiss study compared hospitalized patients infected with COVID and those infected with the flu. Those with COVID had a 1.5-fold higher risk of dying in hospital up to 30 days after infection than patients infected by influenza A. The death rate was even higher for unvaccinated people.

A 2023 Swedish study also found the death rate from Omicron greatly surpassed that of influenza patients.

And next comes the increased risk of cardiovascular problems. Medical researchers have long observed strokes and acute myocardial infarctions in patients after respiratory infections, such as influenza. But COVID breaks the mould here. Compared with patients with the flu, the risk of stroke is more than sevenfold higher in COVID-19 patients.

This is likely tied to the fact that COVID can inflame the vascular system through which the body’s blood travels. New non-peer-reviewed evidence suggests that even a mild infection can temporarily damage endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels.

COVID may begin with the symptoms of a cold or flu for most people, but it often ends as thrombotic or vascular disease in a small percentage for reasons researchers don’t clearly understand. The virus can therefore infect multiple organs from the brain to the kidneys.

Immune systems and long COVID

COVID can also unsettle the immune system by damaging T-cell response, as recent studies have illustrated.

These findings make all the more illogical the current, widespread blasé attitude towards the ever-evolving virus.

Let’s begin with diabetes, which itself stresses the immune system and makes it less effective.

Early in the pandemic, researchers suspected there might be a connection between having COVID and later developing diabetes. Now it’s confirmed. Earlier this year the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai organization in Los Angeles found that a COVID infection dramatically increases the risk for developing Type 2 diabetes and that this risk continues with Omicron variants.

“The trends and patterns that we see in the data suggest that COVID-19 infection could be acting in certain settings like a disease accelerator, amplifying risk for a diagnosis that individuals might have otherwise received later in life,” noted Susan Cheng, a senior author of the study and a professor of cardiology.

Another study found that the incidence of diabetes in Black and Hispanic youth has increased by 62 per cent since the pandemic. The authors noted that COVID can bind to receptors in the pancreas, resulting in damaged cells.

A Canadian study also found steep increases in diabetes after COVID infections. University of British Columbia researchers examined a large population of British Columbians (more than 600,000) and discovered that people infected with COVID had a 17 to 22 per cent higher risk of developing diabetes within a year compared with uninfected people.

Concluded the researchers: “SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher risk of diabetes and may have contributed to a three per cent to five per cent excess burden of diabetes at a population level.”

Related research has also demonstrated that COVID infection can trigger or lead to a variety of autoimmune disorders.

One recent Lancet study that looked at nearly a million people who were unvaccinated between 2020 and 2021 found that COVID cases experienced much higher incidence of autoimmune disease than non-infected people.

These autoimmune conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, vasculitis (inflamed and swollen blood vessels), inflammatory bowel disease and Type 1 diabetes mellitus.

A similar German study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, evaluated a cohort of 640,701 unvaccinated individuals with PCR-confirmed COVID infection during 2020 for the risk of autoimmune conditions. The researchers identified “a 42.6 per cent higher likelihood of acquiring an autoimmune condition three to 15 months after infection” compared with a group of 1,560,357 individuals who weren’t infected.

The researchers also found that a COVID infection “increased the risk of developing another autoimmune disease by 23 per cent” in individuals with pre-existing immune conditions.

The autoimmune studies confirm that COVID can be a significant immune deregulator. The Yale University immunologist Akiko Iwasaki, who has dedicated her lab to studying long COVID, notes that “there's misfiring of the immune response happening in the severe COVID patients that lead to pathology and lethality.” Even a mild infection can lead to this misfiring and long COVID, and this group tends to be women between the ages of 30 and 50.

Reinfection is no trifle

The autoimmune studies, of course, don’t tell us anything about the current crop of variants and what autoimmune or cardiovascular diseases they might trigger in the future. But the precautionary principle would suggest avoiding infection.

The highly regarded U.S. epidemiologist Ziyad Al-Aly, who also studies long COVID, has been very clear about the hazardous consequences of reinfection in terms of chronic disease such as diabetes, brain inflammation and heart disease: “Two infections are worse than one and three are worse than two.”

His most recent research shows that people with mild infections are still at risk for chronic disease two years after the fact. Patients who were hospitalized with COVID were at even greater risk for chronic complications.

“The concern here is that this pandemic will generate a wave of chronic disease that we did not have before the pandemic,” Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, recently told Euronews Next.

“Even when the pandemic abates and is in the rear-view mirror, we will be left with it after the fact in the form of a chronic disease that for some people may last for a long time or even a lifetime,” added Al-Aly.

The Tyee has repeatedly reported evidence that immunity to COVID from natural infection or vaccination is not long-lasting because of the nature of the virus.

The research now confirms that infections can even leave some people more vulnerable to reinfection. A startling Canadian study published this year looked at 750 vaccinated elders at long-term care facilities where COVID deaths continue to be high. They found infection with Omicron in its first wave actually made these inmates more susceptible to reinfection in subsequent waves. Counterintuitively, these people were more prone to reinfection than patients who had never experienced COVID.

“Our current vaccine schedules are based on the assumption that having had an infection provides some level of protection to future infections, but our study shows that may not be true for all variants in all people,” noted Dawn Bowdish, an immunologist and one of the study’s authors.

What our health leaders should be saying

The implications of these findings are plain enough. The pandemic has a long tail, and it can be found in a growing population of people experiencing chronic disease. Therefore, limiting transmission is still the most important public health goal.

We know how to do that but are reluctant to employ the tools. Masking in crowded public spaces or poorly ventilated buildings during periods of high infection is a proven viral risk reducer. Cleaning dirty air in workplaces and schools removes the virus and other pollutants such as wildfire smoke and should be an urgent public health crusade.

We might all take inspiration from what happened at one Australian school. Concerned parents studied airflow and then installed HEPA filters with the result that improved air circulation stopped COVID transmission dead.

Rigorous surveillance testing is also essential to inform citizens of the advancing or retreating COVID risks.

Vaccinations play a role because they can significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization, death and long COVID. But current vaccines will not stop transmission. Or end the pandemic.

In a recent study a group of U.S. researchers modelled a variety of paths that COVID might take in the future.

If repeat infections and vaccinations actually work to improve immunity and dent the pandemic over time, then models suggest infections and the incidence of long COVID should decline too.

But as Omicron demonstrated, community immunity is unlikely to be achieved via existing vaccines and especially at a time when vaccine hesitancy is rising.

In one pessimistic scenario the researchers posited that “a first infection may provide partial protection against a second infection” but the combination of new variants and complexities surrounding immune responses “could then increase the susceptibility to tertiary and quaternary infections.”

That means a good proportion of the population could end up with long COVID in the absence of effective public health measures and the development of a durable, transmission-blocking vaccine.

“More pessimistic assumptions on host adaptive immune responses illustrate that the longer-term burden of COVID-19 may be elevated for years to come,” added the researchers.

[eaglesnick]

“They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition” - Paul the Apostle

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned. And I will earn yours." 

These were the words of Rishi Sunak to the nation when he entered Downing Street October 2022. What we were unaware of then was that multi-millionaire Sunak had already forfeited that trust by valuing money more than  human life.

At the Covid Inquiry yesterday, Patrick Vallance revealed the moral bankruptcy of Sunak. Trust Mr Sunak requires people to tell the truth and it seems you have been as guilty as Johnson in trying to hide your role in the thousands of unnecessary deaths caused by Covid.

“Patrick Vallance contradicts Rishi Sunak’s evidence to Covid inquiry.” (Guardian: 20/11/23)

Writing to the inquiry, Sunak had claimed  he did “not recall any concerns about the scheme” Eat Out To Help Out, being raised at any meetings despite the fear that his scheme would boost the spread of the deadly virus.

According to Vallance, Sunak would have almost certainly have known of the scientific objections to his scheme, and was “very surprised” Sunak was in denial of this fact.

We already knew that Boris Johnson was prepared to “let the bodies pile high”, and now it seems so was Sunak.

“Rishi Sunak 'thought it was OK to just let people die' instead of imposing an economy-crippling second lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic, the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard.” (itvX: 20/11/23)

Sunak’s ‘Eat Out To Help Out ‘ scheme was NOT run past scientists for approval and no scientific advisors knew about the scheme until AFTER it had been announced. More concerned with the financial cost of the pandemic than human life:

“Rishi Sunak was overheard saying the Government should focus on handling its scientific advisers rather than the spread of Covid-19…"  (The Irish News: 20/11/23) 

Patrick Vallance has stated that the Eat Out To Help Out scheme is “highly likely" to have led to increased Covid deaths in the UK.

So much for trust! We have an unelected Prime Minister who actively and deliberately introduced a scheme that he knew would lead to an increase in Covid fatalities. For rich-boy Sunak it was “OK to just let people die" because to multi-millionaire Sunak money is more important than the lives of ordinary people.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * * *

The climate crisis requires a wartime footing

Camilla Cavendish: “I wish,” a longstanding US Democrat and environmentalist said to me recently, “that we’d never politicised global warming.” Even as extreme heat is demonstrating that no country will be immune from climate change, the politics are becoming more treacherous. Parts of the right are mobilising to slow down the path to net zero, as inflation bites and the fossil fuel industry comes under pressure. In the US, Ron DeSantis has rejected “the politicisation of the weather” — despite having had to grapple with the effects of its extremes in Florida — and House Republicans are lobbying to overturn a tax on methane pollution within the Inflation Reduction Act. In Britain, Conservatives who fear annihilation at the next election have decided to use green policies as a wedge against Labour. Even Canada’s premier, Justin Trudeau, is struggling to deliver what was a radical plan on decarbonisation.

I have the eerie sense that some of the old tunes of the 1990s are being replayed. Although outright climate denial is now patently delusional, rightist politicians are quick to claim that the west has already done enough, or that new technology will save us. There have also been some bizarre attempts to distract from the main issue. When the skies in New York State turned orange in June, Rudy Giuliani tweeted “Is it due to wildfires, climate change or something more sinister?”. In Britain, the former Tory minister Lord David Frost recently declared that we shouldn’t worry because more people die of cold than heat. Meanwhile the hard end of the oil industry continues to lobby for projects that would be stranded assets under net zero.

The dilemma is how to balance climate action with the preservation of livelihoods. This can feel frustrating to those of us who fear we may soon reach planet tipping points which will wreak their own economic havoc. Extreme weather has already made some US homes uninsurable. Canada has lost more land to wildfires this year than any other on record, and its Climate Institute estimates that extreme heat will threaten half a million jobs by 2050. Meanwhile Greece, Italy and Spain, which are sweltering in 40C heat, must fear for the future of their tourist industries. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask which solutions will be most cost-effective, and where the costs should fall. The path to net zero demands that governments pull off the equivalent of a new Industrial Revolution in only three decades. Politicians are reluctant to move ahead of where they think public opinion is — and the public dislike blank cheques. The answer is surely to invoke a wartime spirit, and make the fight against climate change a joint endeavour against a common enemy. If the public and political will is there, human ingenuity can prevail, with remarkable speed. In the second world war, America transformed its manufacturing base to produce tanks and ammunition. The Covid pandemic resulted in the discovery and development of vaccines at scale, saving millions of lives. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has finally prompted Germany to free itself from its dependence on Russian gas.

What do all these cases have in common? A determined focus on a single objective, a sense of national unity and leadership by the private sector. For this to happen with climate, the political conversation has to mature. The left is correct in believing that getting to net zero will require a bigger state to mobilise resources and frame objectives. But the right is also correct that only markets are nimble and innovative enough to deliver. In Britain, some Tories are disingenuously trying to elide an unpopular tax on polluting vehicles in London with entirely separate climate policy. But many Green parties have committed similar sins, merging ‘green’ policies with ‘red’ ones — like wealth taxes, shrinking the military or, disastrously for Germany’s carbon footprint, opposing nuclear power. The story that voters need to hear from political leaders cannot be ideological. Long before Al Gore spoke so eloquently about the Inconvenient Truth, Margaret Thatcher warned of the growing peril of carbon emissions, and called for a framework convention on climate change in her speech to the 1989 UN General Assembly. Some modern Conservatives who consider themselves Thatcher’s disciples hate being reminded of her words that “we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort” — but she was right.

In two decades of writing about climate change I have learnt that it provokes deeply emotional reactions. People are quick to dispute any suggestion that they should change their lifestyle, or that the world they inhabit might change. They are understandably concerned about who is going to bear the costs of decarbonisation, and whether it is fair. Many would rather not think about it too much. Individual political leaders are navigating a very complex situation, a global tragedy of the commons in which no one population wants to lose out to any other. My American Democrat friend was right: the issue is too important to be held hostage by any one group. If we are to tackle the warming climate, we must take the heat out of the politics.

[thanks Robert Scott Horton]

[covid-safer-hotties]

On the first night of the DNC, Georgia Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock took to the stage to give a rousing call for disease control and community care:

"The pandemic taught us how. A contagious airborne disease means that I have a personal stake in the health of my neighbor. If she’s sick, I may get sick also. Her healthcare is good for my health… we are as close in humanity as a cough!"

He made this declaration about contagious airborne disease in a sea of contagious airborne disease. With nearly 1 million new COVID-19 cases in the US each day as of August 16, approximately 1/34 Americans are currently infectious with COVID-19, a quarter of them fully asymptomatic

The DNC, though it easily might’ve, implemented no COVID safety mitigations; no test requirement, no mask requirement nor even mask distribution, no air quality information, zero of the vaunted “tools” we supposedly now have to “keep us safe” from COVID infections. Long COVID has not been mentioned. While bragging about their unprecedented “accessibility” measures, the DNC ensured that no immunocompromised person would be safe to enter the United Center this week.

Without apparent irony or cognitive dissonance, Warnock seemed to make the case for public health measures controlling the SARS-COV-2 virus while celebrating an administration that oversaw the utter destruction of public health as we once knew it, in a building this is, objectively, full of the SARS-COV-2 virus.

As kids return to school amidst record-breaking August COVID levels, multiple schools have already shut down simply because infection levels were too high for them to continue operating. Meanwhile, the CDC issued guidance encouraging students to stay in class if they have lice or “mild” diarrhea, as the absence crisis “mysteriously” continues to worsen.

The event comes just weeks after a sprawling Nature Medicine review determined the global burden of Long COVID to be about 400 million individuals less than 5 years into the crisis, already costing economies a staggering $1 trillion annually. As quoted in Fortune, lead author Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly observed that:

"I think they (government agencies) are itching to pretend that COVID is over and that long COVID does not exist."

Pretend is certainly an apt word for what has been on display in Chicago this week.

A massive collection of close-packed delegates, electeds, lobbyists, influencers, celebrities and rich people cheered the idea of protecting each other’s health while participating in pandemic denial, refusing to use any mitigations, and purposely spreading COVID.

It was, frankly, bizarre.

The explicitly false nature of Senator Warnock’s statement- along with other Democrats’ varyingly inaccurate statements about beating the pandemic- begs several questions about exactly how far these delusions go.

Does Senator Warnock know we are in a massive COVID surge?

Does Senator Warnock know over a thousand Americans died of COVID-19 last week?

Does Senator Warnock believe that immunocompromised people deserve access to public spaces and representation in a setting like say, the DNC?

Does Senator Warnock know that millions of Americans have already been disabled by COVID-19 infections?

Does Senator Warnock understand that COVID did not literally, actually disappear when Biden took office?

Does anyone in that room?

For some time, it’s been clear that Democrats, like the Republicans before them, are now married to the COVID-is-mild-because-I-got-it-and-survived narrative and that nothing can pry it from their hot little 102-degree hands.

But his particular words struck me because they seemed a leap forward, a new frontier in the competitive field of pandemic denial. He stated not just that COVID is mild and safe for everyone to repeatedly catch forever - something that no public health body has ever claimed, and no scientific study supports - but that Democrats embrace disease control measures and believe in not coughing on one another, in a room full of people actively refusing to utilize disease control measures and instead coughing on one another.

And the crowd, an estimated 3% of it currently COVID+, cheered.

The Democrats perhaps first diverged from reality on COVID during Delta, when emerging evidence indicated that the vaccine-only approach would not work to control the virus. Vaccine protection waned rapidly, the virus proved capable of mutating to evade immunity from both vaccines and infections, and early days of plummeting transmission rebounded with a vengeance.

Instead of acknowledging reality, the party, with assistance from the slobbering media, doubled down on claims that only the unvaccinated would be harmed and killed by continuing mass infection policies. It wasn’t until after Omicron wave one that data emerged showing nearly 40% of those dead in the brutal winter ‘21-’22 reopening wave had been vaccinated. That summer, 60% of the dead were vaccinated. But by that time, the Democratic Party was happy on Earth 2.

No one called them out on their alternate universe fanfic where the virus had been vanquished; people kept dying, the public was sicker than ever, it became clear that Long COVID was a serious disease. But the call of the Disneyfied Pandemic Free Future was too strong. People bought the lies because the truth was just no fun.

In the three years since Delta, we’ve been on an unending roller coaster of massive waves followed by short-lived lulls, lulls during which 1/200 Americans are still testing COVID+. No sooner had we made it through JN.1 than KP.2 was surging; no sooner is KP.2 subsiding than KP.3.1.1 is right behind. New variants are emerging before the current wave is spent, with endless mass infection giving SARS-COV-2 the ultimate playground to experiment with genetic mutations and maximize its immune evasiveness.

Vaccines are updated but fail to keep up with the virus; the current booster is for XBB, the variant that was predominant in the winter of 2022-2023. The JN.1/KP.2 boosters still await FDA approval as the KP.3 surge crests.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ Earth 2 fantasy persists. It goes a little something like this: In January 2021, the COVID-19 vaccines debuted. We all got the shots, a year later COVID also became mild somehow, everything went back to normal, and everyone lived happily ever after. There’s no Long COVID, there are no record student absences, there are no record disability numbers, hospitals aren’t overwhelmed, people aren’t sick all the time, disabled people aren’t unsafe in all public spaces, there are no worker shortages, there is no scads of scientific evidence showing long-term damage to all major organ systems following even mild infections.

None of that exists!

The Earth 2 story has even begun retroactively assigning Biden era deaths and outcomes to the Trump administration. Multiple times in recent months, both the Biden and Harris campaigns have referred to “a million people” dying under Trump. 400,000 Americans had died of COVID when Trump left office. The Biden administration even held a memorial event for those first 400,000 dead, the night before it took power and ceased to care about COVID deaths.

1.2 million Americans are dead of COVID today.

But those 800,000 dead bodies conflict with the Earth 2 story. How could hundreds of thousands of people died after COVID became mild and everything went back to normal? Maybe that somehow also happened under Trump! It doesn’t have to be true, it just has to feel true, and it sure feels like Joe Biden wouldn’t kill 800,000 people with negligence and scientific misinformation.

Just like it feels like we learned how to protect each other from airborne contagious diseases when Senator Reverand Warnock says it in a booming, inspiring, church-ready voice that invites us to relish our social justice credentials and love for our neighbors.

And doesn’t it feel like the DNC, an indoor event with hundreds of COVID+ attendees not wearing masks, is the most inclusive and accessible convention ever?

These delusions are so powerful, have been so propped up by the media, are so appealing to the public who wishes them real, that they have become indistinguishable from reality. Now, we all have to live on Earth 2, where the COVID infections never end but the pandemic is over.

“COVID no longer controls our lives,” declared outgoing President Joe Biden, who recently announced he would not seek re-election via twitter during his third COVID reinfection. It’s a favorite line of his, one that probably came to his comms people by process of elimination when they realized they couldn’t say:

“COVID is no longer a leading cause of death”

“COVID is no longer killing people”

“COVID is no longer disabling people”

“We no longer have to fear getting sick every time we leave home”

“Schools aren’t closing”

“Workplaces aren’t understaffed”

“Millions of people aren’t currently infected”

No, they settled on the most vague, subjective criteria for COVID victory, namely, “we don’t think about it anymore.” Sometimes they brag that people “aren’t wearing masks anymore.” And it’s certainly true. At the DNC, it’s quite clear, people are surely not thinking about COVID, nor wearing masks. Like Republicans in 2020, they aren’t letting some stupid old virus control their lives. Masks? More like face diapers! If a few disabled people can’t be exposed, those people should really stay home!

The Democratic National Convention is taking place on what sounds like a very nice planet. One where the oligarchs are working to solve climate change, which can be fixed with carbon credits and fracking. One where there’s no genocide in Palestine, and there aren’t any protestors outside either. Fascism is going to be defeated at the ballot box in November, and we’re all going to move forward together. COVID-19 was a virus that existed in 2020-2021 (RIP) and killed a million people under President Donald Trump (RIP), not because public services have been hollowed out over the course of decades of neoliberalism, but because one man is a rude Cheeto. We all went through something scary back then, during the pandemic. But now we know how to take care of our neighbors.

Now we know, if they get sick, I may get sick too.

Now we know, we’re as close in humanity as a cough.

But none of us are sick anymore, and none of us are coughing. Not on the planet where the Democrats live.

[yetisidelblog]

H5N1 bird flu is spreading globally, devastating wildlife and poultry populations. Experts warn it’s only a matter of time before it mutates to infect humans, with a staggering 50% mortality rate. The Biden administration must act now to prevent a pandemic worse than COVID-19.

With Trump poised to return to the White House and RFK Jr. likely leading Health and Human Services, public health protections could crumble. Denial of science and chaotic leadership would turn a preventable crisis into a catastrophe. We can’t wait for that nightmare to become reality.

The Biden administration must immediately release a comprehensive bird flu plan. This means stockpiling vaccines, expanding surveillance, and preparing the public before the virus jumps to humans. Acting now could save millions of lives and prevent disaster.

We know the cost of inaction. Delays during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unnecessary loss of life and economic devastation. This time, we have the knowledge and tools to stop the next crisis—if we act quickly.

Demand the Biden administration prepare for bird flu now. The future of our nation’s health depends on immediate, science-driven leadership.

Time sensitive! Please add your name now!

@upontheshelfreviews

@greenwingspino

@one-time-i-dreamt

@tenaflyviper

@akron-squirrel

@ifihadaworldofmyown

@justice-for-jacob-marley

@voicetalentbrendan

@thebigdeepcheatsy

@what-is-my-aesthetic

@ravenlynclemens

@writerofweird

@bogleech

[medical-billingandcoding]

Elevate Your Ambulance Billing to New Heights with Medi Claim Management's Specialized Services

In the fast-paced world of emergency medical services, efficient ambulance billing is crucial for the financial health of your organization. From remote medical billing and coding to entry-level medical billing support, Medi Claim Management offers a comprehensive suite of specialized ambulance billing services to optimize your revenue cycle and maximize reimbursements.

Remote Medical Billing and Coding: Elevating Ambulance Billing Efficiency

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the demand for remote medical billing and coding solutions, and Medi Claim Management has risen to the challenge. Their team of certified coders and billing experts leverage cutting-edge technology to provide secure, off-site ambulance billing services, allowing your in-house staff to focus on delivering critical emergency care.

By outsourcing your remote medical billing and coding to Medi Claim Management, you can:

● Ensure accurate and timely claims submission

● Streamline your revenue cycle with efficient, centralized billing processes

● Reduce overhead costs associated with maintaining an in-house billing department

● Benefit from the expertise of seasoned professionals who stay up-to-date with the latest regulations and best practices

Entry-Level Medical Billing: Building a Solid Foundation for Ambulance Providers

For small or newly established ambulance service providers, the prospect of building an in-house medical billing department can be overwhelming. Medi Claim Management's entry-level medical billing services offer a cost-effective solution, providing comprehensive support from the ground up.

Their experts handle the entire billing process, from patient registration and claim submission to denial management and collections. By outsourcing your entry-level medical billing, you can:

● Free up your staff to focus on patient care and operations

● Leverage the expertise of certified billing specialists who ensure compliance with industry standards

● Benefit from reduced overhead costs associated with hiring and training in-house billing personnel

● Enjoy peace of mind knowing your revenue cycle is in the hands of trusted professionals

Medical Billing Support: Elevating Your Ambulance Billing Capabilities             Even well-established ambulance service providers can benefit from the expertise of Medi Claim Management's medical billing support services. Their team of seasoned professionals can integrate with your existing billing processes, providing tailored solutions to address pain points, optimize workflows, and enhance overall financial performance.

With Medi Claim Management's medical billing support, you can:

● Improve claim accuracy and reduce denials

● Streamline billing and collections processes

● Implement best-in-class revenue cycle management practices

● Gain valuable insights through advanced data analytics and reporting

Medical Billing Solutions for Clinics: Empowering Ambulance Providers

Medi Claim Management's comprehensive medical billing solutions for clinics are designed to address the unique challenges faced by ambulance service providers. From specialty-specific coding and compliance to advanced analytics and reporting, their services are customized to meet the needs of your organization, ensuring a seamless and efficient revenue cycle.

Key features of Medi Claim Management's medical billing solutions for clinics include:

● Dedicated coding and billing experts with deep expertise in emergency medical services

● Comprehensive claim management, from submission to follow-up

● Denial management and appeals support

● Compliance monitoring and auditing to mitigate regulatory risks

● Customized reporting and analytics to drive informed decision-making

The Medi Claim Management Advantage: Expertise, Technology, and Exceptional Service

What sets Medi Claim Management apart in the world of ambulance billing services? It's their unwavering commitment to excellence, innovative approach, and focus on delivering tangible results for their clients.

Expertise and Experience With over two decades of industry experience, Medi Claim Management has honed its expertise in the complex world of ambulance billing and coding. Their team of certified coders, billing specialists, and compliance experts are well-versed in the latest regulations, guidelines, and best practices, ensuring your organization remains compliant and maximizes reimbursements.

Cutting-Edge Technology Medi Claim Management embraces the power of technology to streamline and enhance their ambulance billing services. From cloud-based platforms to advanced data analytics, their solutions are designed to improve efficiency, increase transparency, and provide real-time insights into your revenue cycle.

Exceptional Customer Service At the heart of Medi Claim Management's success is their unwavering commitment to customer service. Their dedicated account managers and support staff work tirelessly to ensure a seamless experience, providing responsive communication and personalized attention to every client.

The Impact of Specialized Ambulance Billing Services

By partnering with Medi Claim Management, ambulance service providers can unlock a host of benefits that positively impact their financial well-being and operational efficiency.

Improved Revenue Capture Medi Claim Management's specialized billing services help ambulance providers maximize their reimbursements by reducing denials, optimizing coding, and ensuring timely claim submission. Their clients have reported an average 30% increase in collections.

Enhanced Compliance Staying up-to-date with the ever-changing healthcare regulations can be a daunting task. Medi Claim Management's compliance monitoring and auditing services ensure your organization remains compliant, safeguarding you from costly penalties and fines.

Streamlined Workflows By outsourcing your medical billing and coding to Medi Claim Management, your in-house staff can focus on providing exceptional emergency care, rather than getting bogged down by administrative tasks. This increased efficiency translates to improved patient satisfaction and reduced staff burnout.

Data-Driven Insights Medi Claim Management's advanced analytics and reporting capabilities provide your organization with valuable insights into your revenue cycle performance. This data-driven approach enables you to identify areas for improvement, make informed decisions, and drive sustained financial growth.

Unlock the Future of Ambulance Billing with Medi Claim Management

In the ever-evolving landscape of emergency medical services, ambulance providers that partner with Medi Claim Management gain a competitive edge. By leveraging their specialized billing services, you can streamline your revenue cycle, enhance compliance, and drive sustainable financial growth – all while allowing your in-house team to focus on delivering critical care to the community. Ready to take the next step? Contact Medi Claim Management today and discover how their tailored solutions can transform your ambulance billing operations.

[velanhcs]

Outsourcing Healthcare Billing for Telehealth: A Game-Changer for US Providers

The healthcare landscape has been dramatically reshaped by the rapid adoption of telehealth services, particularly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As telehealth becomes integral to patient care, providers face different challenges, with healthcare billing being one of the most critical. Given the complex nature of telehealth billing, many healthcare organizations are turning to outsourcing as a strategic move to enhance their revenue cycles and optimize operations.

Understanding Telehealth Billing Challenges

Before discussing the advantages of outsourcing healthcare billing, it's crucial to understand the specific challenges associated with billing for telehealth services:

Varied Coding Requirements: Telehealth services often require different modifiers and codes compared to in-person visits. Providers must navigate an extensive array of CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes specific to telemedicine, which can differ between payers.

Regulatory Compliance: The rules governing telehealth reimbursement can frequently change, making it difficult for providers to keep up. Compliance with Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance regulations, along with state-specific laws, is essential to avoid costly mistakes.

Reimbursement Discrepancies: Different insurers have varying policies on telehealth reimbursement. Some may offer equal reimbursement for telehealth visits, while others may not, leading to potential revenue loss if not managed correctly.

Claim Denials and Appeals: The rate of claim denials tends to be higher for telehealth services, often due to coding errors or misinterpretations of coverage policies. This increases the need for effective follow-up and appeals processes, placing further strain on healthcare providers.

Patient Communication: Ensuring patients understand their billing and coverage for telehealth services can be challenging. A lack of clarity can lead to confusion, dissatisfaction, or delayed payments.

Why Outsourcing Healthcare Billing is Transformative

Outsourcing healthcare billing, particularly for telehealth services, has several transformative advantages:

Expert Knowledge and Compliance: Outsourcing billing allows providers to partner with firms that specialize specifically in telehealth billing. These professionals stay updated on the newest regulations, payer requirements, and coding changes, significantly reducing the risk of compliance issues and ensuring accurate claims submission.

Efficient Revenue Cycle Management: Specialized billing companies employ advanced technology and skilled staff trained in medical billing best practices. This expertise can lead to quicker claim submissions, reduced denial rates, and streamlined appeals processes. By improving the efficiency of their revenue cycle management, providers can ensure a steady cash flow.

Cost Savings and Financial Flexibility: For many healthcare organizations, especially smaller practices, maintaining an in-house billing department can incur considerable costs. By outsourcing, providers can convert fixed labor costs into variable costs, paying only for services rendered. This approach often results in significant savings on salaries, benefits, technology investments, and ongoing training.

Increased Focus on Patient Care: Healthcare professionals are primarily dedicated to providing patient care. Outsourcing billing and administrative tasks allows them to concentrate on what they do best—serving their patients effectively. This focus can enhance patient satisfaction and ensure that telehealth services are delivered more efficiently.

Scalability and Adaptability: The nature of telehealth can lead to fluctuations in patient volume. Outsourcing provides the scalability needed to handle these variations effectively without the complications of hiring or laying off staff. Providers can adjust their billing operations in response to demand easily.

Choosing the Right Partner for Outsourcing

When considering outsourcing healthcare billing for telehealth, it’s vital to choose a partner that aligns with your organization’s needs. Here are key features to look for in a billing service provider:

Industry Specialization: Ensure the billing company has a strong track record in telehealth billing specifically. Their understanding of the nuances in coding, compliance, and reimbursement policies will be invaluable.

Technological Capabilities: A good billing service should utilize modern technology for billing processes. This includes automated claims submission, comprehensive tracking, and reporting capabilities that provide valuable insights into your revenue cycle.

Transparent Communication: Look for a billing partner that emphasizes clear communication. Regular updates, detailed reporting on billing performance, and direct lines of communication can significantly enhance your understanding of the financial health of your practice.

Customizable Solutions: Each healthcare provider has unique needs. A billing partner should offer customizable solutions that adapt to your specific operational model and service offerings in telehealth.

Proven Track Record: Seek testimonials or case studies that demonstrate the billing company’s effectiveness in improving revenue cycles for telehealth providers. Reliable partners will have a history of success and satisfied clients.

Why Velan is the Ideal Partner for Telehealth Billing

Velan stands out as a premier choice for healthcare providers looking to outsource telehealth billing for several reasons:

Expertise in Telehealth Billing: Velan’s team specializes in the intricacies of telehealth billing, ensuring that all processes align with the latest regulations and payer policies. They provide guidance on proper coding and documentation, reducing the likelihood of denials.

Advanced Technology Integration: Utilizing cutting-edge billing software allows Velan to automate routine functions, track claims, and report performance metrics effectively. This technological advantage ensures that claims are processed promptly and accurately.

Custom Solutions Tailored to Providers: Velan takes a consultative approach, working closely with healthcare organizations to understand their specific needs and tailoring billing solutions accordingly. This customization guarantees that the adopted processes align with the provider’s operational workflow.

Commitment to Client Success: Velan prioritizes the long-term success of its clients, providing ongoing support and consulting services to help healthcare providers maximize their billing efficiencies.

Transparent Pricing Structures: Velan offers clear and flexible pricing models that provide excellent value without hidden costs, allowing healthcare providers to plan their budgets effectively.

Conclusion

The shift toward telehealth has necessitated a rethinking of many administrative processes, particularly billing. Outsourcing healthcare billing presents a significant opportunity for providers to enhance their efficiency, compliance, and revenue cycle management. By partnering with a specialized billing service like Velan, healthcare organizations can not only improve their bottom line but also focus on delivering high-quality patient care in the era of telehealth.

As the landscape continues to evolve, outsourcing healthcare billing may prove to be the key to thriving in this new frontier of healthcare.

Additional Resources

American Telemedicine Association (ATA) - ATA Website - Comprehensive resources for telehealth practices and guidelines.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Telehealth Services - CMS Telehealth - Key regulations, reimbursement policies, and coding guidelines for telehealth services.

Telehealth.HHS.gov - Telehealth Resources - Important information for patients and providers regarding telehealth services and access.