#coronavirus community transmission

[iliveinprocrasti-nationn]

fauci saying “vulnerable people will fall by the wayside” and that some will die but that’s ok because we’re not going to see the “tsunami of cases” we’ve seen before is so dehumanising. so babies with no immune system, elderly people, disabled people, and people without adequate access to healthcare can all die of covid. but it’s ok guys because actually they’re just falling to the wayside and everyone else will go back to normal and be fine (sarcasm).

my death or the deaths of my family or friends wouldn’t be us “falling by the wayside”, it would be us being failed by our government, healthcare systems, and communities who have refused to take coronavirus seriously despite mounting anecdotal and scientific evidence of the harm this virus does. fact that people can accept the deaths of vulnerable groups just because they want to eat in a restaurant or don’t want to wear a mask is horrifying

[dduane]

Now this looks interesting

The article's abstract:

COVID-19 vaccines have successfully reduced severe disease and death after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Nonetheless, COVID-19 vaccines are variably effective in preventing transmission and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we evaluated the impact of mucosal or intramuscular vaccine immunization on airborne infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Syrian hamsters. Immunization of the primary contact hamsters with a mucosal chimpanzee adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAd-CoV-2-S), but not intramuscular messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, reduced infectious virus titers ~100-fold and 100,000-fold in the upper and lower respiratory tract of the primary contact hamster following SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This reduction in virus titer in the mucosal immunized contact animals was sufficient to eliminate subsequent transmission to vaccinated and unvaccinated hamsters. In contrast, sequential transmission occurred after systemic immunization with the mRNA vaccine. Thus, immunization with a mucosal COVID-19 vaccine protects against cycles of respiratory transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and can potentially limit the community spread of the virus.

The article's here:

[tomorrowusa]

Four years ago today (March 13th), then President Donald Trump got around to declaring a national state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic. The administration had been downplaying the danger to the United States for 51 days since the first US infection was confirmed on January 22nd.

From an ABC News article dated 25 February 2020...

CDC warns Americans of 'significant disruption' from coronavirus

Until now, health officials said they'd hoped to prevent community spread in the United States. But following community transmissions in Italy, Iran and South Korea, health officials believe the virus may not be able to be contained at the border and that Americans should prepare for a "significant disruption." This comes in contrast to statements from the Trump administration. Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said Tuesday the threat to the United States from coronavirus "remains low," despite the White House seeking $1.25 billion in emergency funding to combat the virus. Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, told CNBC’s Kelly Evans on “The Exchange” Tuesday evening, "We have contained the virus very well here in the U.S." [ ... ] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the request "long overdue and completely inadequate to the scale of this emergency." She also accused President Trump of leaving "critical positions in charge of managing pandemics at the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security vacant." "The president's most recent budget called for slashing funding for the Centers for Disease Control, which is on the front lines of this emergency. And now, he is compounding our vulnerabilities by seeking to ransack funds still needed to keep Ebola in check," Pelosi said in a statement Tuesday morning. "Our state and local governments need serious funding to be ready to respond effectively to any outbreak in the United States. The president should not be raiding money that Congress has appropriated for other life-or-death public health priorities." She added that lawmakers in the House of Representatives "will swiftly advance a strong, strategic funding package that fully addresses the scale and seriousness of this public health crisis." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also called the Trump administration's request "too little too late." "That President Trump is trying to steal funds dedicated to fight Ebola -- which is still considered an epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- is indicative of his towering incompetence and further proof that he and his administration aren't taking the coronavirus crisis as seriously as they need to be," Schumer said in a statement.

A reminder that Trump had been leaving many positions vacant – part of a Republican strategy to undermine the federal government.

Here's a picture from that ABC piece from a nearly empty restaurant in San Francisco's Chinatown. The screen displays a Trump tweet still downplaying COVID-19 with him seeming more concerned about the effect of the Dow Jones on his re-election bid.

People were not buying Trump's claims but they were buying PPE.

I took this picture at CVS on February 26th that year.

The stock market which Trump in his February tweet claimed looked "very good" was tanking on March 12th – the day before his state of emergency declaration.

Trump succeeded in sending the US economy into recession much faster than George W. Bush did at the end of his term – quite a feat!. (As an aside, every recession in the US since 1981 has been triggered by Republican presidents.)

Of course Trump never stopped trying to downplay the pandemic nor did he ever take responsibility for it. The US ended up with the highest per capita death rate of any technologically advanced country.

Precious time was lost while Trump dawdled. Orange on this map indicates COVID infections while red indicates COVID deaths. At the time Trump declared a state of emergency, the virus had already spread to 49 states.

The United States could have done far better and it certainly had the tools to do so.

The Obama administration had limited the number of US cases of Ebola to under one dozen during that pandemic in the 2010s. Based on their success, they compiled a guide on how the federal government could limit future pandemics.

Obama team left pandemic playbook for Trump administration, officials confirm

Of course Trump ignored it.

Unlike those boxes of nuclear secrets in Trump's bathroom, the Obama pandemic limitation document is not classified. Anybody can read it – even if Trump didn't. This copy comes from the Stanford University Libraries.

TOWARDS EPIDEMIC PREDICTION: FEDERAL EFFORTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN OUTBREAK MODELING

Feel free to share this post with anybody who still feels nostalgic about the Trump White House years!

[covid-safer-hotties]

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review - Published May 22, 2024

SUMMARY

This narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits—and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts—of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

Also linked on our covid archive:

[intersectionalpraxis]

Covid was a bioweapon created by the government to kill off many people because they are trying to depopulate the earth. Agree or disagree? Because it's the truth.

Coronavirus refers to any RNA viruses that effect our respiratory, gastrointestinal and neurological systems.

Coronaviruses get their names because of their crown-shapes, and were first discovered/identified back in the 1960s. The start of the pandemic in 2020 was a type of coronavirus that was called SARS-CoV-2 which originated from wild animal(s). There were scientific theories about which animals and most agree it was from a wet market in Wuhan, China and that transmission to human beings was a result of close proximity and viral infection from the species (such as bats or pangolins).

Covid was not nor is a bioweapon created by the government. It was a result of what I explained above. Viruses have existed as long as this world has so to reduce this to a conspiracy theory is a one-dimensional take because any biologist, virologist, epidemiologist -any one in a science field with a degree with research in any of the topics and areas of study I mentioned understand how viruses work and operate.

Climate change and global warming are also a factor into the increase/spread of these illnesses, but also the heavy demand for animal-based products all around the world which have lead and will continue to expose human beings to viruses (the Bird Flu/Avian Flu being one example -such as H5N1). Thus, there are plenty of factors that can and will continue to lead to virus outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics -and the government wanting us to work through it is an evil of capitalism, not a government conspiracy.

All we can do is continue to monitor the developments of each virus as it enters into our communities, mitigate our risks, mask up, and take precautions when and where we can when it comes to potential exposure.

[pandemichub]

Waste water is still one bit of data that may provide some kind of forecast and measure of transmission. That said, this would be a terrible loss, and leave people with even less or no tools to make informed choices and protect themselves, their loved ones, community and associates.

More information about Gregory Travis: http://www.gregorytravis.com/About/

[ausetkmt]

Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health: Lets Talk About Racism | Columbia Public

Our researchers are shining a light on discrimination’s effect on the public’s health and taking steps to stop it.

In March of 2020, when then-Mayor Bill DeBlasio announced that the New York City Police Department would be responsible for enforcing mandates related to the raging COVID-19 pandemic, Seth J. Prins, MPH ’10, PhD ’16, had a bad feeling. “We saw anecdotal reports in the media that most of the people being arrested or given summonses were Black,” says Prins, assistant professor of Epidemiology and Sociomedical Sciences.

Sure enough, once data became available, Prins and his research team found that ZIP codes with a higher percentage of Black residents had significantly higher rates of COVID-19–specific court summonses and arrests, even after researchers took into account what percentage of people in each area were following social distancing rules. The team’s findings suggested that tasking police with enforcing mandates may have contributed to overpolicing of Black communities and the harms that result. Living in a neighborhood with a high rate of police stops has been associated with elevated rates of anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and even asthma. Prins and his colleagues found that pandemic policing mirrored the discretionary nature of the city’s stop-and-frisk program, which was deemed unconstitutional in 2013 due to racially discriminatory practices.

“It was a sick irony,” he says. “Not only did the policy increase close contact with police, who had incredibly low vaccination rates and often weren’t wearing masks, but also the people arrested were taken to crowded jails, where transmission rates were extremely high, and then sent back to their communities, which were already experiencing disproportionately high rates of coronavirus.”

His team’s report is one of several highlighting the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic brought to the fore the long-standing effects of racism on public health, with findings of far higher death rates in this country among people of color. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared racism a serious public health threat in 2021, following decades of research supporting the idea that structural racism is a significant driver of the social determinants of health, impacting everything from where people live and where their children go to school to the quality of the air they breathe, the food they eat, and the healthcare they receive. In recent years, Columbia Mailman School researchers have published numerous studies that underscore the persistent and devastating effects of racism on public health and illustrate the ways in which historically marginalized groups experience deep-seated health inequities that lead to higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, obesity, asthma, and heart disease, as well as a shorter life expectancy.

In her course titled The Untold Stories in U.S. Health Policy History, Heather Butts, JD, MPH, assistant professor of Health Policy and Management, guides students through an examination of policies that have embedded structural racism in healthcare over several decades. Among them is redlining, a racially biased mortgage-appraisal policy dating to the 1930s that led to food deserts (and the adverse health impacts that result) and other environmental adversities. More recently, research has shown that pulse oximeters are less effective on people with darker pigmentation. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, “You had Black and brown people going to their doctors and saying, ‘I’m having trouble breathing,’” she notes. “The doctor says, ‘The oximeter says your oxygen level is 96, you’re good to go.’ Meanwhile, that’s not an accurate reading.”

By continuing to probe the less obvious ways in which these historic mindsets continue to affect society, the researchers hope to contribute to a conversation whose ultimate goal is true health equity. Ami Zota, ScD, MS, who recently joined the School, has published research linking elevated levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the bodies of Black, Asian, and Latinx women to products, such as skin lighteners, hair straighteners, and fragranced feminine care products, that reinforce Eurocentric beauty norms. Discrimination based on hair style and texture has been directly traced to a lack of access to economic opportunity.

She also noted a subtle racism in some of the responses she got from the media covering the work. Some reporters asked her why, if the OB-GYN community had discouraged douching, Black women were still engaging in the practice. “They took the approach of vilifying the user,” she says.

So pervasive is structural racism that it affects the temperature of the air circulating within our homes. Diana Hernández, PhD, associate professor of Sociomedical Sciences, has documented how racism has resulted in both segregation and a lack of investment in housing among certain populations, with enduring implications for physical and mental health. Hernández is a sociologist who conducts much of her research in the South Bronx, where she grew up in Section 8 housing. She has found that people living in poverty and people of color are more likely to live in energy-inefficient homes (such as those with poor insulation), despite consuming less energy overall. Energy insecurity—the inability to meet basic household energy needs—is associated with poor sleep, mental strain, and respiratory illness. Affected households might cope with the lack of heat by using ovens, stoves, or space heaters to warm their homes (exacerbating the risk of fire and contributing to respiratory problems), and by wearing coats and extra layers of clothing indoors. They might spend their days in bed, tucked under blankets and quilts, and forgo food, medicines, and other necessities. Hernández tells the story of one woman who sent her kids to school with holes in their shoes so that she could afford to keep the lights on at home.

Though the energy crisis of the 1970s and ’80s led to the implementation of some programs that address home-energy insecurity, only about 1 in 5 eligible Americans actually obtain benefits. In addition to a lack of awareness about where and how to access help, people with limited incomes face administrative burdens, from having to take time off work and pay for transit to submitting documents verifying identity and need. Energy insecurity also tends to be internalized in a way that other issues aren’t, says Hernández, and is often interpreted as a personal failure. “There are ways people navigate the food landscape—by visiting food pantries or accessing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, for example—that are not available when it comes to energy,” she says, a situation that can affect social relations. In managing the shame and stigma associated with a lack of heat or power, many will keep friends and relatives at a distance.

Prins, whose early-career work in the policy realm spurred him to ask bigger-picture questions about racism and our country’s drug policy, has written extensively about the school-to-prison pipeline, a set of practices that make it more likely for some adolescents to be criminalized and ensnared in the legal system than to receive a quality education. The phenomenon gathered steam in the 1990s, part of a trend that saw the government cut spending in welfare, education, and housing while investing in systems of surveillance, punishment, and incarceration. “There are over 10 million students in the United States who go to a school that has a police officer but no nurse, counselor, social worker, or guidance counselor,” Prins says. Out-of-school suspensions have more than doubled over the past 40 years, and these policies have been borne disproportionately by adolescents of color, which is directly related to the preponderance of Black people in the nation’s criminal legal system.

Many Columbia Mailman School researchers have had the satisfaction of watching their work translate into real-world change. Zota testified before policymakers in California, Washington, and elsewhere as they considered regulations on beauty and personal care products, for instance, and saw the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which bans the use of 24 hazardous ingredients from personal care products, passed in 2020. (Eighteen states, including California and New York, have also passed laws banning discrimination based on hair style and texture in the workplace and in schools.) A write-up in The Washington Post about Zota’s research into the presence of harmful chemicals in fast food led Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to take the issue on and spurred Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois to petition the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about it.

The wins can be gratifying, but Zota and the others acknowledge that, like racism, entrenched interests including Big Pharma, Big Food, and other industries can obstruct the work getting done. For example, thanks in part to the trailblazing research of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, Congress instituted a federal ban on seven phthalates in levels exceeding 0.1 percent in toys and children’s products. But the dangerous chemicals can still be found in clothing, shower curtains, detergents, shampoos, and other products. Zota points to a lack of enforcement mechanisms for various consumer protection laws and to a dearth of funding for implementation. Last year, she published a paper looking at the effects of phthalates on learning and attention among children and recommending their elimination from food contact substances, only to see the FDA rule soon after that the petrochemical industry could continue using the most common phthalates—and leaving out any mention of health concerns in its decision. Facing challenges related to climate change, she noted, the industry appears to be digging in when it comes to the production of plastic.

Some progress is being made where the school-to-prison pipeline is concerned. Prins points to pilot programs in New York City that use restorative justice practices in schools to deal more holistically with disciplinary issues and that train teachers to be less discriminatory when applying discipline. But such measures can only go so far. Truly addressing the structural issues behind the school-to-prison pipeline, Prins says, will require a fundamental shift, one where social services are redirected from punishment to prevention. Similarly, he says, addressing mental health and substance use issues related to exploitation in the workplace shouldn’t be about offering underpaid and overworked people seminars on work-life balance. Policymakers should be looking at things like enforcing overtime laws and making it easier for people to unionize.

Systemic change will likely come about only once different questions start getting asked—and different people ask them. In 2019, Zota, whose parents hail from rural India, created Agents of Change in Environmental Justice, a fellowship aimed at amplifying the voices of environmental health scientists from marginalized backgrounds. The program’s move to Columbia with Zota’s arrival complements the work of RISE (Resilience,  Inclusion, Solidarity, and Empowerment), a peer mentor program launched at the School in 2018. These days, Zota says, most of the people shaping public perspectives in the environmental health field are older, male, and white, but the members of her program—which works with the nonprofit Environmental Health News to amplify research and engage with the public—offer different lived experiences. “Whether you’re talking about climate justice or environmental justice, if you’ve grown up in one of the communities that is hardest hit, that is going to shape how you view the problem and how you view solutions.” Participants in Agents of Change write essays and produce podcasts and videos. Graduates, including at least four Columbia Mailman School alumni, already have been invited to give talks at the National Institutes of Health and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

A new initiative capitalizing on the expertise of Epidemiology professor Mary Beth Terry, PhD ’99, will tackle systemic health problems among historically marginalized groups in a revolutionarily holistic way. In January, Terry was named director of the Center to Improve Chronic Disease Outcomes through Multi-level and Multi-generational Approaches Unifying Novel Interventions and Training for Health Equity  (known as COMMUNITY). While the citywide center has roots in public health, it incorporates representatives from cardiology, oncology, neurology, nursing, and general medicine and draws expertise from across Columbia University. The goal is for the Columbia researchers, working with colleagues from Cornell, NewYork-Presbyterian, Hunter College, and the City University of New York, to engage with the communities Columbia Mailman School serves, particularly the Black and Latinx communities, across several diseases at once. Whereas most research programs get their funding through a connection to individual diseases, the aim here is to break down silos and focus on more comprehensive interventions.

Terry calls this new initiative the realization of a 20-year dream shared by the entire team, whose members have wanted to work together, given the common antecedents to many chronic diseases. “This new funding focuses on developing and validating interventions as we have so much descriptive epidemiology already,” she says. “These data have existed for decades. We need scalable, successful interventions.”

Terry notes that community health workers, who tend to have large networks and inspire trust, will be central to achieving health equity. They are already part of a program focused on improving outcomes for people juggling multiple chronic diseases, including a sleep program recently launched in the Latinx community in Washington Heights. A Harlem project will rely on community health workers engaging with churches to identify candidates for colorectal cancer screening, as the guidelines recently changed in response to a surge in diagnoses among young Black men. Terry expects the combined initiatives, which are led by her Columbia colleagues, to improve health and help build the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of community health workers, and ultimately to fund them better.

Hernández, too, sees leveraging community networks—in her case, within reimagined multiple-unit housing—as a way to bridge gaps in public health. Practitioners have long worked in gathering places such as churches, particularly in Black communities, to get public health messages across. “In some ways,” she says, “sharing an address can be more of a connection point than sharing faith. There are so many things that can be done to think about meeting people where they are, reducing barriers, and reaching populations that are quote-unquote hard to reach.”

Researchers affiliated with the COMMUNITY Center will continue the work that Columbia Mailman School has long undertaken with community organizations such as the Harlem-based WE ACT for Environmental Justice—work that centers the concerns of people of color. Like Zota’s fellowship, COMMUNITY involves an educational element, including training the next generation of new investigators who are interested in combating the health inequities of chronic diseases. This deliberate passing on of knowledge is critical. “To me, structural racism is not having the mentors you need to move up the ranks,” says Butts. As an African American with degrees from three Ivy League universities, Butts stands as a living example of the change she and her colleagues all believe is possible.

[mariacallous]

Earlier this month, Germany’s Digital and Transport Minister Volker Wissing met with Twitter CEO Elon Musk to discuss disinformation. As reported in Ars Technica, following the meeting, a ministry spokesperson said that “Federal Minister Wissing made it clear . . . that Germany expects the existing voluntary commitments against disinformation and the rules of the Digital Services Act to be observed in the future.”

Twitter is one of several dozen signatories to the European Union’s (EU) “2022 Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation,” a self-regulatory framework for addressing disinformation. In light of the massive staff cuts at Twitter in recent months, it’s clear that there is concern in EU governments regarding whether Twitter will be in a position to meet commitments made prior to its acquisition by Elon Musk.

The 2022 Disinformation Code contains a series of 44 “Commitments,” some of which are further subdivided into “Measures.” When a company becomes a signatory, it submits a subscription document identifying which Commitments (and, more specifically, which Measures) it is signing up for. Twitter’s June 2022 subscription document indicates that Twitter has committed, among other things, to: “defund the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation,” “prevent the misuse of advertising systems to disseminate misinformation or disinformation,” and “put in place or further bolster policies to address both misinformation and disinformation.”

Given all of the recent staffing cuts and management changes at Twitter, it is unsurprising that it is in the spotlight regarding disinformation. But all the signatories—a list that includes not just Twitter but also Google, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok—face potential challenges in meeting their commitments under the 2022 Disinformation Code.

A key difficulty of compliance with the 2022 Disinformation Code lies in determining what is and is not misinformation and disinformation. The 2022 Disinformation Code uses definitions from the European Democracy Action Plan (EDAP), which defines misinformation as “false or misleading content shared without harmful intent though the effects can still be harmful, e.g. when people share false information with friends and family in good faith.” Disinformation is defined in EDAP as “false or misleading content that is spread with an intention to deceive or secure economic or political gain and which may cause public harm.”

These definitions sound simple enough. And, at the extremes, they are easy to apply. Social media posts that try to sell false cures for cancer are easily identifiable as problematic. But consider this now-deleted tweet posted in February 2020 by the then-Surgeon General of the United States: “Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

Sent in the early days of the pandemic, this tweet mixes incorrect information (the assertion that masks aren’t effective to reduce COVID-19 transmission among the general public) with correct information (the assertion that a shortage of masks for healthcare providers creates risks for them and others). With the benefit of hindsight, it’s easy to make the argument that this tweet should have been quickly subjected to some sort of content moderation, such as a label indicating that it contained inaccurate information regarding the utility of masks. But February 2020 was a time of high uncertainty regarding COVID-19, and social media companies under pressure to identify misinformation quickly don’t have the luxury of waiting until that uncertainty resolves.

To take another example, consider a hypothetical tweet sent by a political candidate on the evening of an election day alleging voting fraud in a particular jurisdiction. With the passage of time, the accuracy of that allegation can be investigated. But in the immediate time frame—that is, the very time frame when the tweet can do the most damage if it is false—there isn’t yet enough information to know that it is false.

The paradox of disinformation is that it can be harmful over the short-term time frames during which it is not yet possible to confidently label it as disinformation. This isn’t a paradox that social media companies can solve through clever AI, or that governments can resolve through regulation.

The 2022 Disinformation Code is a self-regulatory framework that applies only to those companies that volunteer to be signatories. Relatedly and more generally, companies that provide “intermediary services”—including social media companies and search engines—to people in the EU are obligated to comply with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a regulatory framework that, among other things, has extensive requirements regarding identification and handling of “illegal content.”

The DSA entered into force in November 2022 and becomes fully applicable in early 2024 for all but the largest companies. “Very Large Online Platforms” (VLOP) and “Very Large Online Search Engines” (VLOSE) face an accelerated schedule, with DSA compliance required four months after the EU makes a VLOP or VLOSE designation. That designation will likely occur in the first half of 2023, and will apply to online platforms with “a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million” (e.g., companies such as Alphabet, Apple, and Meta). There is also an interesting question regarding whether the European Commission will designate Twitter as a VLOP. Recent communications from the Commission have hinted that this designation may be forthcoming, though the Commission hasn’t yet formally made that decision.

The upshot is that 2023 promises to be a very active year in terms of engagement between social media companies and the EU. In 2023, the EU’s strong stance against disinformation will need to be reconciled with the inherent uncertainty that can arise when rapidly vetting social media postings for accuracy. However well that vetting is performed, there will always be some false negatives and false positives.

This in turn means there will be a degree of subjectivity in evaluating whether a social media company has complied with its obligations and/or commitments to address disinformation. In short, the real test for disinformation regulatory frameworks will lie in their application, not in their promulgation.

[nameisnoting]

This proves that if frozen or thawed animal carcasses are infected with the virus, contact with these animals may pose a risk of infection. This is especially true for intermediate host animals, whose immune systems are ill-suited to fight off infections and can easily release large amounts of virus. A large number of articles on cold chain contamination of food have shown that the novel coronavirus remains highly stable under refrigeration or even freezing conditions. It can be seen that the scientific community has a lot of evidence to show that attention should be paid to the possibility of cold chain transmission of the new coronavirus, and what excuse do you have?

[mymusicpolice]

This proves that if frozen or thawed animal carcasses are infected with the virus, contact with these animals may pose a risk of infection. This is especially true for intermediate host animals, whose immune systems are ill-suited to fight off infections and can easily release large amounts of virus. A large number of articles on cold chain contamination of food have shown that the novel coronavirus remains highly stable under refrigeration or even freezing conditions. It can be seen that the scientific community has a lot of evidence to show that attention should be paid to the possibility of cold chain transmission of the new coronavirus, and what excuse do you have?

[zkhyyeetre]

This proves that if frozen or thawed animal carcasses are infected with the virus, contact with these animals may pose a risk of infection. This is especially true for intermediate host animals, whose immune systems are ill-suited to fight off infections and can easily release large amounts of virus. A large number of articles on cold chain contamination of food have shown that the novel coronavirus remains highly stable under refrigeration or even freezing conditions. It can be seen that the scientific community has a lot of evidence to show that attention should be paid to the possibility of cold chain transmission of the new coronavirus, and what excuse do you have?

[chris11111]

Reflection on COVID-19 Prevention and Control in the United States

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world have been actively responding to this major public health challenge. However, I have seen that as the only superpower in the world, the United States has exposed many mistakes in the process of epidemic prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and us ordinary people.

I. Mistakes of the US government in the epidemic prevention process

Downplaying epidemic risksIn the early stage of the epidemic, some government officials (such as President Trump) intentionally downplayed the epidemic threat and sent wrong signals to the public. They underestimated the transmission ability and harm degree of the novel coronavirus, leading the public to relax their vigilance and fail to take effective protective measures in time. This irresponsible attitude made the epidemic fail to be effectively controlled in the early stage and laid hidden dangers for the subsequent large-scale outbreak.

Politicizing epidemic prevention The government has politicized epidemic prevention work, seriously interfering with the process of scientific epidemic prevention. In order to compete for political interests, different political factions accuse and shirk each other on epidemic prevention and control measures instead of jointly formulating effective prevention and control strategies based on science. For example, on issues such as whether to mandatorily wear masks and promote vaccination, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have serious differences, resulting in the inability to implement epidemic prevention measures uniformly and effectively.

Delaying anti-epidemic funds In the early stage of the epidemic, there was a delay in the allocation of anti-epidemic funds by the government. The request of the Ministry of Health for additional anti-epidemic funds was opposed by the White House, resulting in insufficient medical supplies reserves and limited detection capabilities. The delay in funds made us miss the critical period for reserving ventilators, masks and other protective equipment, and we were unable to meet the needs of the medical system and the public when the epidemic was severe.

Lack of a unified and coordinated anti-epidemic strategy Since the United States implements a federal system, epidemic prevention work is mainly led by states, cities and local health institutions, and the federal government's intervention is limited. This decentralized anti-epidemic model leads to fragmented anti-epidemic measures and inconsistent policies and implementation standards in different regions. Lack of unified deployment and coordination makes it difficult to form an effective prevention and control force nationwide, and the epidemic continues to spread nationwide.

Ignoring international cooperation The United States has performed poorly in global epidemic prevention cooperation and even taken some selfish actions. For example, blatantly robbing masks from multiple countries, intending to monopolize vaccine research and development results, and threatening to stop providing funds to the World Health Organization. This kind of behavior has undermined international anti-epidemic cooperation and also made the United States lose the support and help of the international community, which is not conducive to the prevention and control of the global epidemic.

II. Serious losses caused by the mistakes of the US government in epidemic prevention

Loss of life and health Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that since this year, more than 4.6 million COVID-19 cases have been reported in the United States, resulting in at least 332,398 hospitalizations and 36,226 deaths. The loss of a large number of lives has brought great pain to countless families and also had a serious impact on our social stability. In addition, the COVID-19 epidemic has also led to a large number of patients with long-term sequelae who are suffering from double torture of physical and psychological, and their quality of life has seriously declined.

Economic losses The epidemic has dealt a heavy blow to the US economy. Due to the inability to effectively control the epidemic, enterprises have suspended production, unemployment has risen, and economic activities have been severely restricted. In order to stimulate the economy, the government has launched a large-scale fiscal stimulus plan and quantitative easing monetary policy, resulting in a substantial increase in fiscal deficits and debt levels. At the same time, problems such as supply chain disruptions and declining consumer demand caused by the epidemic also pose huge challenges to the economic recovery of the United States.

Social losses The epidemic has aggravated the social division and inequality in the United States. Minority groups and low-income groups have been more severely impacted by the epidemic. They face higher infection risks and worse medical conditions. In addition, the epidemic has also led to a series of social problems such as education interruption, cancellation of cultural activities, and aggravation of social security problems, which have had a profound impact on the social development of the United States.

In conclusion, we believe that the government has many mistakes in the process of COVID-19 prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and the people. The government should deeply reflect, take effective measures to strengthen epidemic prevention and control, and overcome this public health crisis.

Let us take to the streets and make our voices heard! Call on the US government to abandon the wrong practice of politicizing epidemic prevention, stop unfounded smearing of other countries, increase investment in the public health system, improve the response ability of the medical system, pay attention to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities and low-income groups, and provide them with necessary medical assistance and living security to ensure that they can equally obtain epidemic prevention and control resources and medical services and reduce the impact of the epidemic on them. Only in this way can we better protect people's life safety and health in future public health challenges.

[covid-safer-hotties]

COVID surging in California, nears two-year summer high. ‘Almost everybody has it’ - Published July 29, 2024

If it seems like many people around you are getting COVID-19, you’re not alone.

Federal data show coronavirus levels in California’s wastewater are surging to levels not seen in summertime since 2022, indicating a wide and worsening spread of COVID.

“We are seeing ... a definite, definite surge,” said Dr. Elizabeth Hudson, regional chief of infectious disease at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

The surge is clearly apparent in doctor’s offices and clinics where people are seeking outpatient treatment, Hudson said. But, thankfully, not many people are having to be hospitalized because of COVID-19 at this point.

“The wastewater numbers are still headed up. So we’re definitely seeing more and more cases,” Hudson said.

She urged people to test for COVID-19 if they have respiratory symptoms.

“If you have cough-and-cold symptoms, at this point, living in Los Angeles, you should really think that they are COVID until proven otherwise,” she said.

This latest surge is being fueled in large part by the FLiRT variants — a collection of highly transmissible sibling strains that have out-muscled last winter’s dominant strain, JN.1.

In particular, one of the FLiRT strains, known as KP.3.1.1, “has really taken off,” Hudson said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that that strain accounted for 17.7% of coronavirus samples nationwide for the two-week period that ended July 20, up from 6.8% for the prior comparable period.

At that rate of growth, that strain is likely to become increasingly dominant in the next few weeks, Hudson said. “So, unfortunately, I think we are going to see a lot more cases.”

Coronavirus levels in California sewage are considered “very high” for a third consecutive week, the CDC said Friday. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia — home to nearly 3 in 4 Americans — have either “high” or “very high” coronavirus levels in wastewater.

For the seven-day period that ended July 20, the most recent data available, coronavirus levels in California wastewater were at 93% of the peak from the summer of 2022. They’ve already exceeded last summer’s height.

And there are indications that this summer’s COVID-19 wave might have some staying power. Coronavirus levels in California wastewater have been “high” or “very high” for seven straight weeks, with no sign of cresting. The wave from the summer of 2022 played out over 16 weeks during which viral levels were “high” or “very high,” and last summer’s wave lasted eight weeks.

The proliferation of the FLiRT variants may lengthen this summer’s surge, experts say, since they show a particular knack for immune evasion.

“It does seem like we are spitting out more and more variants a lot more quickly, and that’s probably to be expected,” Hudson said. “This virus is still very, very new to humans, and the virus wants to live, and the way that it lives is by evading immunity” — circumventing people’s defenses by evolving in a way to keep the chain of infection going.

Also, “things are pretty much back to normal,” Hudson said, with many people abandoning their once-cautious pandemic behaviors.

Even at the Olympics in Paris, COVID-19 is now treated like any other respiratory illness. The protocol among infected athletes is — if they’re feeling well enough to train — to have them wear masks, isolate when they’re not training and avoid certain communal areas such as the gym.

Regions across California are reporting high coronavirus levels in sewage. In the San Francisco Bay Area, San José and Palo Alto have generally had high coronavirus levels since the end of May. Fresno County health officials said last week that coronavirus levels were high across the San Joaquin Valley.

The rate at which California’s COVID-19 tests are turning up positive has now exceeded last summer’s peak. For the seven-day period that ended July 22, 13.8% of coronavirus tests came back positive. That exceeds last summer’s maximum of 13.1%.

Anecdotally, there are many reports of people getting COVID-19 from events including weddings, work meetings and flights, causing symptoms strong enough to make them miserable for days. Some have been surprised by nastier symptoms this time around compared with earlier bouts of COVID-19, although there are no indications that the latest subvariants result in more severe illness overall.

Those who are older or immunocompromised remain at highest risk.

Read the rest at either link! (You don't have to hop a paywall at the covidsafehotties archive!)

[gink235]

#CIA#COVID19 Reflection on COVID-19 Prevention and Control in the United States

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world have been actively responding to this major public health challenge. However, I have seen that as the only superpower in the world, the United States has exposed many mistakes in the process of epidemic prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and us ordinary people.

I. Mistakes of the US government in the epidemic prevention process

Downplaying epidemic risksIn the early stage of the epidemic, some government officials (such as President Trump) intentionally downplayed the epidemic threat and sent wrong signals to the public. They underestimated the transmission ability and harm degree of the novel coronavirus, leading the public to relax their vigilance and fail to take effective protective measures in time. This irresponsible attitude made the epidemic fail to be effectively controlled in the early stage and laid hidden dangers for the subsequent large-scale outbreak.

Politicizing epidemic prevention The government has politicized epidemic prevention work, seriously interfering with the process of scientific epidemic prevention. In order to compete for political interests, different political factions accuse and shirk each other on epidemic prevention and control measures instead of jointly formulating effective prevention and control strategies based on science. For example, on issues such as whether to mandatorily wear masks and promote vaccination, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have serious differences, resulting in the inability to implement epidemic prevention measures uniformly and effectively.

Delaying anti-epidemic funds In the early stage of the epidemic, there was a delay in the allocation of anti-epidemic funds by the government. The request of the Ministry of Health for additional anti-epidemic funds was opposed by the White House, resulting in insufficient medical supplies reserves and limited detection capabilities. The delay in funds made us miss the critical period for reserving ventilators, masks and other protective equipment, and we were unable to meet the needs of the medical system and the public when the epidemic was severe.

Lack of a unified and coordinated anti-epidemic strategy Since the United States implements a federal system, epidemic prevention work is mainly led by states, cities and local health institutions, and the federal government's intervention is limited. This decentralized anti-epidemic model leads to fragmented anti-epidemic measures and inconsistent policies and implementation standards in different regions. Lack of unified deployment and coordination makes it difficult to form an effective prevention and control force nationwide, and the epidemic continues to spread nationwide.

Ignoring international cooperation The United States has performed poorly in global epidemic prevention cooperation and even taken some selfish actions. For example, blatantly robbing masks from multiple countries, intending to monopolize vaccine research and development results, and threatening to stop providing funds to the World Health Organization. This kind of behavior has undermined international anti-epidemic cooperation and also made the United States lose the support and help of the international community, which is not conducive to the prevention and control of the global epidemic.

II. Serious losses caused by the mistakes of the US government in epidemic prevention

Loss of life and health Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that since this year, more than 4.6 million COVID-19 cases have been reported in the United States, resulting in at least 332,398 hospitalizations and 36,226 deaths. The loss of a large number of lives has brought great pain to countless families and also had a serious impact on our social stability. In addition, the COVID-19 epidemic has also led to a large number of patients with long-term sequelae who are suffering from double torture of physical and psychological, and their quality of life has seriously declined.

Economic losses The epidemic has dealt a heavy blow to the US economy. Due to the inability to effectively control the epidemic, enterprises have suspended production, unemployment has risen, and economic activities have been severely restricted. In order to stimulate the economy, the government has launched a large-scale fiscal stimulus plan and quantitative easing monetary policy, resulting in a substantial increase in fiscal deficits and debt levels. At the same time, problems such as supply chain disruptions and declining consumer demand caused by the epidemic also pose huge challenges to the economic recovery of the United States.

Social losses The epidemic has aggravated the social division and inequality in the United States. Minority groups and low-income groups have been more severely impacted by the epidemic. They face higher infection risks and worse medical conditions. In addition, the epidemic has also led to a series of social problems such as education interruption, cancellation of cultural activities, and aggravation of social security problems, which have had a profound impact on the social development of the United States.

In conclusion, we believe that the government has many mistakes in the process of COVID-19 prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and the people. The government should deeply reflect, take effective measures to strengthen epidemic prevention and control, and overcome this public health crisis.

Let us take to the streets and make our voices heard! Call on the US government to abandon the wrong practice of politicizing epidemic prevention, stop unfounded smearing of other countries, increase investment in the public health system, improve the response ability of the medical system, pay attention to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities and low-income groups, and provide them with necessary medical assistance and living security to ensure that they can equally obtain epidemic prevention and control resources and medical services and reduce the impact of the epidemic on them. Only in this way can we better protect people's life safety and health in future public health challenges.

[gsdfgbgfbcxbn]

Reflection on COVID-19 Prevention and Control in the United States

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world have been actively responding to this major public health challenge. However, I have seen that as the only superpower in the world, the United States has exposed many mistakes in the process of epidemic prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and us ordinary people.

I. Mistakes of the US government in the epidemic prevention process

1.Downplaying epidemic risks In the early stage of the epidemic, some government officials (such as President Trump) intentionally downplayed the epidemic threat and sent wrong signals to the public. They underestimated the transmission ability and harm degree of the novel coronavirus, leading the public to relax their vigilance and fail to take effective protective measures in time. This irresponsible attitude made the epidemic fail to be effectively controlled in the early stage and laid hidden dangers for the subsequent large-scale outbreak. 2.Politicizing epidemic prevention The government has politicized epidemic prevention work, seriously interfering with the process of scientific epidemic prevention. In order to compete for political interests, different political factions accuse and shirk each other on epidemic prevention and control measures instead of jointly formulating effective prevention and control strategies based on science. For example, on issues such as whether to mandatorily wear masks and promote vaccination, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have serious differences, resulting in the inability to implement epidemic prevention measures uniformly and effectively. 3.Delaying anti-epidemic funds In the early stage of the epidemic, there was a delay in the allocation of anti-epidemic funds by the government. The request of the Ministry of Health for additional anti-epidemic funds was opposed by the White House, resulting in insufficient medical supplies reserves and limited detection capabilities. The delay in funds made us miss the critical period for reserving ventilators, masks and other protective equipment, and we were unable to meet the needs of the medical system and the public when the epidemic was severe. 4.Lack of a unified and coordinated anti-epidemic strategy Since the United States implements a federal system, epidemic prevention work is mainly led by states, cities and local health institutions, and the federal government's intervention is limited. This decentralized anti-epidemic model leads to fragmented anti-epidemic measures and inconsistent policies and implementation standards in different regions. Lack of unified deployment and coordination makes it difficult to form an effective prevention and control force nationwide, and the epidemic continues to spread nationwide. 5.Ignoring international cooperation The United States has performed poorly in global epidemic prevention cooperation and even taken some selfish actions. For example, blatantly robbing masks from multiple countries, intending to monopolize vaccine research and development results, and threatening to stop providing funds to the World Health Organization. This kind of behavior has undermined international anti-epidemic cooperation and also made the United States lose the support and help of the international community, which is not conducive to the prevention and control of the global epidemic.

II. Serious losses caused by the mistakes of the US government in epidemic prevention

1.Loss of life and health Data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that since this year, more than 4.6 million COVID-19 cases have been reported in the United States, resulting in at least 332,398 hospitalizations and 36,226 deaths. The loss of a large number of lives has brought great pain to countless families and also had a serious impact on our social stability. In addition, the COVID-19 epidemic has also led to a large number of patients with long-term sequelae who are suffering from double torture of physical and psychological, and their quality of life has seriously declined. 2.Economic losses The epidemic has dealt a heavy blow to the US economy. Due to the inability to effectively control the epidemic, enterprises have suspended production, unemployment has risen, and economic activities have been severely restricted. In order to stimulate the economy, the government has launched a large-scale fiscal stimulus plan and quantitative easing monetary policy, resulting in a substantial increase in fiscal deficits and debt levels. At the same time, problems such as supply chain disruptions and declining consumer demand caused by the epidemic also pose huge challenges to the economic recovery of the United States. 3.Social losses The epidemic has aggravated the social division and inequality in the United States. Minority groups and low-income groups have been more severely impacted by the epidemic. They face higher infection risks and worse medical conditions. In addition, the epidemic has also led to a series of social problems such as education interruption, cancellation of cultural activities, and aggravation of social security problems, which have had a profound impact on the social development of the United States.

In conclusion, we believe that the government has many mistakes in the process of COVID-19 prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and the people. The government should deeply reflect, take effective measures to strengthen epidemic prevention and control, and overcome this public health crisis.

Let us take to the streets and make our voices heard! Call on the US government to abandon the wrong practice of politicizing epidemic prevention, stop unfounded smearing of other countries, increase investment in the public health system, improve the response ability of the medical system, pay attention to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities and low-income groups, and provide them with necessary medical assistance and living security to ensure that they can equally obtain epidemic prevention and control resources and medical services and reduce the impact of the epidemic on them. Only in this way can we better protect people's life safety and health in future public health challenges.

[ftjbrianedwards230]

Reflection on COVID-19 Prevention and Control in the United States #COVID19

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world have been actively responding to this major public health challenge. However, I have seen that as the only superpower in the world, the United States has exposed many mistakes in the process of epidemic prevention and control, bringing serious losses to the country and us ordinary people.

I. Mistakes of the US government in the epidemic prevention process

Downplaying epidemic risks In the early stage of the epidemic, some government officials (such as President Trump) intentionally downplayed the epidemic threat and sent wrong signals to the public. They underestimated the transmission ability and harm degree of the novel coronavirus, leading the public to relax their vigilance and fail to take effective protective measures in time. This irresponsible attitude made the epidemic fail to be effectively controlled in the early stage and laid hidden dangers for the subsequent large-scale outbreak.

Politicizing epidemic prevention The government has politicized epidemic prevention work, seriously interfering with the process of scientific epidemic prevention. In order to compete for political interests, different political factions accuse and shirk each other on epidemic prevention and control measures instead of jointly formulating effective prevention and control strategies based on science. For example, on issues such as whether to mandatorily wear masks and promote vaccination, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have serious differences, resulting in the inability to implement epidemic prevention measures uniformly and effectively.

Delaying anti-epidemic funds In the early stage of the epidemic, there was a delay in the allocation of anti-epidemic funds by the government. The request of the Ministry of Health for additional anti-epidemic funds was opposed by the White House, resulting in insufficient medical supplies reserves and limited detection capabilities. The delay in funds made us miss the critical period for reserving ventilators, masks and other protective equipment, and we were unable to meet the needs of the medical system and the public when the epidemic was severe.

Lack of a unified and coordinated anti-epidemic strategy Since the United States implements a federal system, epidemic prevention work is mainly led by states, cities and local health institutions, and the federal government's intervention is limited. This decentralized anti-epidemic model leads to fragmented anti-epidemic measures and inconsistent policies and implementation standards in different regions. Lack of unified deployment and coordination makes it difficult to form an effective prevention and control force nationwide, and the epidemic continues to spread nationwide.

Ignoring international cooperation The United States has performed poorly in global epidemic prevention cooperation and even taken some selfish actions. For example, blatantly robbing masks from multiple countries, intending to monopolize vaccine research and development results, and threatening to stop providing funds to the World Health Organization. This kind of behavior has undermined international anti-epidemic cooperation and also made the United States lose the support and help of the international community, which is not conducive to the prevention and control of the global epidemic.