Since covid-19 emerged over four years ago in the central city of Wuhan, the Communist Party has made life miserable for those seeking to study the disease and share their findings with the world. Take Zhang Yongzhen, a Chinese virologist whose team sequenced the genome of the virus that causes covid in early 2020. Days later he granted permission for a British scientist to publish the groundbreaking work. This allowed the world to design covid tests and begin developing vaccines. But to party officials, hell-bent on deflecting blame for their missteps in managing the outbreak, it was a betrayal. Dr Zhangs lab was investigated for wrongdoing.
Today China remains ill-prepared for a covid-like outbreakand the party continues to torment scientists whose work might expose its shortcomings. In late April Dr Zhang was informed that his lab in Shanghai, which was examining the origins of covid, would be shut down. In a post on Weibo, a Chinese social-media platform,he said he had been barred by guards from entering the facility. So on April 28th he and some colleagues began a sit-in protest at the labs doors. I wont leave or quit, he wrote. I am pursuing science and the truth! Photos circulating online appear to show Dr Zhang sitting defiantly in a wicker chair or sleeping on the ground outside the lab, as guards watch over him in the background (pictured).
FLiRT, a group of new Covid-19 variants belonging to Omicron's JN.1 lineage is spreading fast in US, raising concern about a new wave of infections in summer. With new mutations, the variants KP.2 and KP 1.1 are considered to more infectious than previous Omicron variants, but experts say the symptoms remain more or less the same. KP.2 has reported to have taken over JN.1 variant in US although cases of hospitalization there remains low, as per media reports. KP.1.1, another FLirt variant is also detected in the US, but seems to be less in circulation than KP.2. The nickname 'FLiRT" is based on the technical names for their mutations, according to the Infectious Disease Society of America. (Also read: Heart attack cases not rising due to Covid vaccine, but stress and other traditional factors, says cardiologist)
"During last two weeks, a small surge has been seen in United States and there are fears that during summer there, the surge would increase. KP.2 and KP 1.1 make for FLiRT that have been identified as the new variants. As per researcher Dr Eric, this new lineage will probably evade the vaccine and bypass the immunity," says Dr M Wali, Senior Consultant, Department of Medicine, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
"FLiRT is a very interesting nickname for a group of Covid variant that have been identified in the US. These are descendants of the JN. 1 variant that came in last December. They carry some fresh mutations that seem to be allowing it to spread easily. Its symptoms are not significantly different from the previously known Covid variants. Flu like symptoms, body ache, fever and in some cases digestive issues. As such based on these symptoms, it would be hard to determine whether you have contracted this variant. A specific genomic taste need to be performed for this purpose, says Dr. Pavithra Venkatagopalan, a microbiologist, coronavirus expert, and Covid Awareness Specialist, Rotary Club of Madras Next Gen.
"FLiRT refers to a group of new SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged from the Omicron JN.1 lineage and are rapidly spreading across the U.S. The most prominent FLiRT variant is KP.2, which has become the dominant strain in the U.S and accounting for around 25% of new COVID-19 cases as of April 2024," says Dr Nikhil Modi, Senior Consultant at the Department of Respiratory, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
"The FLiRT variants, especially KP.2, appear to have increased transmissibility compared to previous Omicron sub variants. They also show ability to evade immunity from prior infection and vaccines, though the extent is still under study. The symptoms associated with FLiRT infection mirror those of other Omicron subvariants, including sore throat, cough, fatigue, nasal congestion, runny nose, headache, muscle aches, fever, and potential loss of taste or smell," adds Dr Modi.
Dr Wali says that considering people in India were not exposed to mRNA vaccines and have gained immunity widely through infections, there is less reason to panic about a fresh wave.
"mRNA vaccines were given routinely in US and these were associated with impairing the immune function. There were large group of people who did not take the vaccine and therefore they now need to be alert for new variants. In India, that's not the problem. Because the immunity that we acquired was through infections and a large number of people were infected. Our vaccination programme was also huge," he adds.
"While FLiRT has not yet been detected in India, the potential spread of these variants is a significant concern given the country's high population density and varying levels of vaccination and immunity from previous waves," says Dr Modi.
"New variants will keep coming and we have to keep alert and follow universal precautions like use of mask, keeping social distancing, not coughing inappropriately and also have influenza vaccination or flu shot. People above 45 years old and children also can be given flu shots. We have to prepare ourselves with influenza like illnesses and Covid," says Dr Wali.
Stressing on updating vaccines, Dr Wali says future vaccination formulation should be as per WHO and should be considered keeping in view emerging variants like KP 1.1 and so on.
Catch your daily dose of Fashion, Taylor Swift, Health, Festivals, Travel, Relationship, Recipe and all the other Latest Lifestyle News on Hindustan Times Website and APPs.
Peter Daszak, who leads a nonprofit that funneled money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus experiments, testified in Congress on May 1.
One of the main characters in the COVID origins saga spent hours on Wednesday under withering questioning from Congress about his organizations involvement in controversial experimentation on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China, where the COVID virus was first detected. For about a year-and-a-half, a Republican-led House subcommittee has been conducting an inquiry into the origins of the COVID pandemic, holding hearings that often split along party lines. Republicans have advocated for the idea the outbreak began with a leak from a Chinese biosafety laboratory. Many Democrats and scientists have hewed toward the other leading pandemic origin theory, which holds that the coronavirus that sparked the outbreak jumped naturally from infected animals to humans.
On Wednesday, however, members of both US political parties came armed with blistering criticism for Peter Daszak, the head of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, questioning his honesty in dealing with federal agencies and skewering his alleged conflicts of interests as he attempted to assume the role of a leading scientific voice on the pandemics origins. Beginning in 2014, EcoHealth ran a US-funded, multimillion-dollar project to identify hotspots where patterns of interaction between humans and animals could spark disease outbreaks.
The select subcommittee has interviewed federal scientific officials, including Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), which funded Daszaks work; various scientists; and others. Perhaps none of them was closer than Daszak and EcoHealth to the virus research going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a major coronavirus research center and a lab where, some suspect, an accident could have sparked the outbreak of COVID-19.
In the course of their work, researchers at the virology institute created hybrid (or chimeric) bat viruses and tested them in mice genetically modified to express aspects of the human respiratory system. Although the tested hybrids were too genetically distant from SARS-CoV-2 to represent a precursor to the COVID virus, one grew much more robustly in the mice than the base virusrepresenting what some experts have called a gain of function in the pathogen. Though he was closely involved in coronavirus research in China, Daszak sometimes minimized his connection to the Wuhan institute as he played a role in early efforts to tamp down on what he called conspiracy theories related to a lab leak.
Daszak also was part of an international team organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) that investigated the pandemics origins. That teams report rated frozen seafood as a more likely source of the initial COVID outbreak than a lab incident in Wuhana finding that quickly met resistance from word leaders, including WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and scorn from those who viewed the lab-leak theory as at least plausible.
Democrats decried some of the House subcommittees earlier hearings and interviewsincluding those with Faucias political grandstanding that cast unwarranted doubt on the scientists and that didnt meaningfully advance understanding of the pandemics origins. But on Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans alike engaged in heated back-and-forths with Daszak.
They hammered away on one of the plot points in the origins debate, EcoHealths transparency in reporting on its studies to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Over the course of one five-year grant, EcoHealth was supposed to submit annual reports. One of those, covering 2018-2019, came two years late. Daszak claimed that EcoHealth had tried to submit the report, but the NIH had a problem with its computerized reporting platform. According to a report by the subcommittees Democrats, however, a forensic audit found no evidence for this assertion.
When EcoHealth finally submitted the progress report, NIH said it showed that experiments involving infecting humanized mice in China with engineered chimeric coronaviruses had resulted in one strain making mice sicker than the unaltered strain. Though NIH had not deemed EcoHealths research to be enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research (that is, gain-of-function research that increases potentially dangerous attributes of a pathogen), a term in the EcoHealth grant stipulated that if one of chimeric viruses grew at a significantly higher rate than an unaltered version, EcoHealth was to stop the experiment and report the findings.
One of Daszaks collaborators, Ralph Baric, a prominent coronavirus researcher in North Carolina, has criticized the security of the lab in Wuhan, telling congressional investigators that some coronavirus work that would normally be done in more secure labs in the United States was done in facilities without the same precautions at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak, however, told Vanity Fair that animal infection experiments in Wuhan were done at the same level of biosafety as in the United States.
Daszak reiterated to the subcommittee EcoHealths claim that the organization had indeed reported the concerning results to NIH, in a 2018 report. The groups update from that year, the fourth of the grant term, includes details of an experiment studying the effect of hybrid viruses on genetically engineered mice, which Daszak said was the same experiment as the one that has elicited NIHs concern. The NIH has disputed that they were, in fact, the same experiment.
The report for year five of the grant was due in September 2019 but wasnt submitted until August 2021, during which time, of course, the coronavirus pandemic spread around the world and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Daszak, the NIH, and gain of function research on potentially pandemic pathogens came under a harsh spotlight. Members of Congress criticized Daszaks claims that his organization had tried to submit reports on time. You knew that there were difficulties. You had a previous experience of doing this and making sure people got things, and what I am saying is when the taxpayers money is used for scientific research, it is imperative that people comply with the rules, Rep. Deborah Ross, a North Carolina Democrat, told Daszak.
When EcoHealth sent in the late report, it ignited a firestorm over the organizations alleged violations of the requirement to notify the government immediately of the worrying experimental results (although, according to the NIH, the chimeric viruses under study in Wuhan couldnt have been precursors of the COVID virus).
A government watchdog report subsequently faulted the NIH for lax oversight over the EcoHealth grant.
Daszak previously told the subcommittee that he had concluded the year five report wasnt necessary because EcoHealth had applied for and won a continuing award. But the subcommittees Democrats wrote in their report that the application for extending the grant did not contain the same results in the year five report that showed how the chimeric viruses affected the humanized mice.
Apart from any potential SARS-CoV-2 origins-related implications, those results would have been important in enabling NIAID to oversee [EcoHealth Alliances] grant compliance effectively, the report noted.
The subcommittee also sharply criticized Daszaks involvement in a 2020 letter published in a leading British medical journal, The Lancet. The letter, signed by 27 top scientists, received heavy coverage and served to tamp down speculation about a lab leak. In it, Daszak and the others wrote, We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Though an organizer of the letter, Daszak, for some time considered not signing it, according to the Democratic report, so that it wouldnt link back to our collaboration. Initially he didnt disclose his work on bat coronavirus research in China, and after being requested to do so, he didnt mention his work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
It seems like you were aware your involvement in The Lancet statement had at minimum the appearance of a competing interest, Democrat Raul Ruiz told Daszak.
When Daszak said hed worked with multiple organizations in China, Ruiz cut him off, accusing him of obfuscating his work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It was Wuhan. The one lab that were interested in is Wuhan, Ruiz, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee said.
Subcommittee members also accused Daszak of trying to mislead the federal government in a 2018 grant proposal submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Agency, a Pentagon science group. The grant wasnt ultimately approved. But it sought funding to conduct experiments that would have inserted in SARS-like coronaviruses, genetic elements that, in the COVID virus, allow the virus to readily spread and cause illness among humans.The subcommittee pointed to instances of Daszak appearing to tell his colleagues that while he planned to distribute work among collaborators in China and the United States, he would emphasize the work to be done in the United States. He proposed to do this, in part, by including in the grant application biographical information for himself and Baric, but not for collaborators overseas. This, Daszak said, was because he didnt want to give the impression that too much US money would flow to China.
A spokesperson for EcoHealth said in a statement that the organization has been working diligently with NIH to resolve the issues identified in the critical government watchdog report. The organization denied that Daszak tried to conceal his ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, calling them a matter of public record.
It is unfortunate that Wednesdays hearing appeared to have foregone conclusions about our work, published in reports before Dr. Daszak even entered the room, that failed to acknowledge our ongoing efforts to respond to these and countless other inquiries, the statement said.
Over the next few days, we will publish statements in response to each allegation from the [subcommittee] reports, that demonstrate our compliance, with documentary evidence.
The Republican side of the subcommittee has called on EcoHealth and Daszak to be debarred, or prevented from receiving government funds. Republicans also called for a criminal investigation.
During the hearing, Daszak defended his organizations work and extolled its benefits to pandemic prevention, including its creation of what he called the first emerging infectious disease hotspot map, which allowed for better targeting of public health resources. The public nature of our work and our long-standing collaborations with Chinese scientists made us a target for speculation about the origins of COVID-19, beginning in early 2020 and continuing to this day. Misinformation about our research began to circulate widely through social media and the press, often spread by people with little knowledge or understanding of the science underlying our research, Daszak said in his opening remarks.
Daszak, who has been vilified by many who believe COVID began with a lab leak, testified to experiencing extreme levels of harassment. He told Congress that hes received a letter with white powder and death threats against him and his family. He described experiencing a swatting incident. Someone called the police, Daszak said, to report that a scientist had been killed in his house and that wife was being held hostage in the basement. Of course it was a fake call, but we ended up with six police cars and detectives searching the house and staying the afternoon, Daszak said.
Wednesdays hearing didnt shed new light on how COVID-19 began, and the subcommittees Democrats said that the investigation has not shown that EcoHealth Alliance created SARS-CoV-2. It did show, however, a level of bipartisan condemnation for one of the central figures of the origin mystery.
Its possible perhaps that youre framing issues in a way that is most favorable to you and less so in a way thats confronting the science at any given moment. And that is just a concern, the counsel for the subcommittees Democrats told Daszak.
Ive only told you the truth, the scientist protested.
Editors note: This post has been updated to include a statement from EcoHealth Alliance and details about the Republican push to prevent the organization from accessing federal funding as well as to initiate a criminal investigation.
You don't have permission to access "http://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/astrazeneca-s-covishield-causes-rare-blood-clot-disorder-tts-what-is-it-124043000340_1.html" on this server.
Reference #18.c43a2217.1714907456.8a2630ce
https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.c43a2217.1714907456.8a2630ce
WUHAN, CHINA - (Photo by Stringer/Getty Images)
Indeed. Estimates of Chinas economic performance in the past two years diverge.
China's GDP Growth for 2022 and 2023, Beijing's Version vs the IMF's Version
According to Beijing, the Chinese economy grew about 5% annually in 2022 and 2023, measured in local currency.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) adjusts for the fact that the renminbi lost 12-14% of its value over that period, and comes up with a different picture. Real GDP actually declined from 2021 to 2023. (Other Western sources, including the World Bank and the Federal Reserve cite similar numbers.)
China's GDP 2014-2023 IMF's Version vs the Official Chinese Version
The Chinese growth engine seems to have stalled. What happened?
Western economists tend to focus on the usual economic drivers, the indicators and trends that regularly factor into their models trade figures (mixed signals), debt loads (high), price trends (deflationary), consumer demand (weak), consumer savings (excessive), industrial capacity (overbuilt), fiscal stimulus (inadequate), monetary policy (incoherent). Some see a parallel to the long period of economic stagnation that Japan experienced following its economic crisis in the late 1980s. References to the Japanification of China have begun to proliferate.
All that may be true. But there is another factor driving the Chinese downturn, which is not part of the Japanification scenario. It is missing from most economists explanations because lies outside the parameters of economic science as such.
The Chinese economy is suffering from the continuing impact of Covid-19.
Chinese public health policies were severe. For almost three years following the outbreak of the pandemic, China pursued a zero-Covid policy aimed at maximum suppression which meant aggressive contact tracing, frequent mass testing, border shutdowns, large-scale internal quarantine programs, and ultimately lockdowns of entire cities. Factories and businesses struggled to maintain operations. Consumption patterns were disrupted as consumers were restricted from many of their normal activities. Supply chains serving Western customers broke down. The economic damage was significant, as this assessment published in October 2022 summarized:
Then in December 2022 China abruptly ended zero-Covid.
A relief consensus took hold; Chinas economy would surely now experience a robust rebound. Chinese leaders were optimistic, and many Western observers agreed. Goldman Sachs saw the glow of a new dawn in the East.
Goldmans report was titled After Winter Comes Spring.
For investors, there would be upside
And even hope for the real estate industry there:
These forecasts proved to be wrong in every possible way. The renminbi plummeted. Consumption languished. A deflationary trend developed. The property market transitioned from dismal to disastrous. The Chinese stock market continued its multi-year slide.
Stock Markets US vs China
The failure of the post-Covid recovery is puzzling, and is made more so by the lack of sound information about the true impact of Covid in China both before and after the change in the Zero policy.
What is becoming clear is that the scope of Covids impact on the Chinese economy has been much more severe than the official data describe. At first reflexively, then as a matter of proactive design, the Chinese government set out to conceal the reality of the pandemic from its own citizens and from the outside world. The motive (I think) was an instinctive need to defend the Communist Partys reputation for competency, upon which its practical legitimacy is based. In the end, they deceived themselves as well.
In this column, I will examine the discrepancies and gaps in the data from China related to the impact of the pandemic, to show why the official narrative cannot be trusted. In the second installment, I will review the ways in which these gaps can be filled in by other means to get a better sense of the scale of the medical, social and economic disaster that is still unfolding, which underlies the negative economic scenario described above.
COVID-19 caused the worst global public health emergency in 100 years. As of mid-2023, almost 700 million people had been infected worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 7 million have died. Other authoritative estimates suggest the number of COVID deaths could exceed 30 million.
COVID-19 also provoked a severe data emergency that has impeded efforts to respond to the public health crisis and has undoubtedly cost many lives.
Data is key in any crisis response: timely, accurate, accessible data, freely shared and updated. As the COVID virus spread rapidly across the globe in early 2020, the need for accurate information about the origin, nature, and trajectory of the disease became urgent. Medical professionals and public health authorities, initially working in the dark as to the nature of the disease agent, desperately sought crucial data to understand and model its transmissibility, virulence, and mutation rates, as well as how to diagnose, treat, and prevent the illness. Governments urgently needed guidance on how to manage the economic, social, and political impact of the pandemic.
The epidemiological data was compromised from the beginning. Medical scientists and public health authorities around the world ran up against gaps and deficits in the availability, completeness, and integrity of COVID information.
Some of these problems were the natural consequence of the confusion created by an unforeseen and fast-moving crisis. The first months of the pandemic everywhere were characterized by severe uncertainty and frantic improvisation. Some of the most important early data was never properly collected or retained.
But the worst data deficiencies arose from active policies of information suppression in China, where the disease originated. Some of the most critical data was withheld, or intentionally altered, even destroyed. These policies have continued to this day.
It is becoming clear that the COVID impact on China was and is much worse than portrayed in official statistics. In December 2022, after years of maintaining a storyline of miraculous success in containing the virus (often cited by Beijing as evidence of the superiority of the Chinese political system), the country abruptly abandoned its zero-COVID policy. This suddenly exposed an immunologically unprepared population of 1.4 billion people to the ravages of the highly contagious Omicron variant.
At the same time, the suppression of key data intensified. China eliminated mass testing and simply stopped reporting some of the most important statistics. Shortly after Chinas abandonment of zero-COVID in December 2022, The New York Times, in an article titled As Cases Explode, Chinas Low COVID Death Toll Convinces No One, wrote:
It is worse today. Even the most basic data is now unavailable. As Nature magazine reported in June 2023, China no longer publishes its COVID-19 case count. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have sickened, and likely millions have died, overwhelming the Chinese healthcare system and wreaking social and economic havoc. The crisis has damaged Chinas economy and accelerated the diversifications by many Western companies away from reliance on Chinese supply chains, a trend that will impact the global economic landscape for decades to come.
China has been the source of many of the major infectious diseases that have emerged in the last century. The country is thus often on the medical front line of new outbreaks, where critical early data related to a new disease first becomes available. Understanding the epidemiological patterns that develop in China, which first reveal the symptomatic expression, transmissibility, and the virulence of a new infectious agent, is vitally important for public health authorities in other countries.
Unfortunately, the initial instinct of local Chinese officials is often to cover up problems or hide data that do not fit the official storyline. China has a history of public health scandals involving faulty vaccines (multiple incidents); and coverups and mismanagement related to the initial outbreaks of SARS (2003); bird flu (2004) and (2013); and swine flu (2019).
It is not surprising that the COVID crisis in China has unfolded behind a curtain of secrecy, active falsification, and even destruction of data. Researchers and medical personnel have been put under gag orders. Truth-tellers in the first weeks of the outbreak were persecuted for spreading rumors (famously, and tragically, in the case of Dr. Li Wenliang). Scientific labs in China refused to cooperate with international requests for COVID data. Official reporting on COVID mortality was shut down after April 2020. Even today, Beijing continues to publish COVID statistics that no one believes, and which are dismissed by most of the media, international authorities, and even (according to leaks) by some Chinese officials themselves.
Nevertheless, Chinese government statistics can be examined to reveal something of the true scope of the problem, or at least to show how far the official picture differs from reality. There are at least three ways of assessing the plausibility of the official numbers:
The COVID-19 outbreak occurred in China in late 2019 and early 2020 in the Hubei province and its capital, Wuhan. In addition to silencing medical whistleblowers, Chinese authorities delayed sharing data showing that human-to-human transmission of the virus was occurring. Nevertheless, after some initial confusion, the data collection process seems to have functioned quasi-normally, without obvious manipulation, for the next few months. Chinas infection and mortality figures for the first quarter of 2020 seem plausible today, which is to say they are in line with the early experiences in other countries.
Then, in April 2020, Chinese COVID reporting was frozen.
COVID mortality for the next 22 months was officially nonexistent. In February 2022, a small cluster of deaths was reporteddue to the inclusion of mortality figures for Hong Kong (which had more open reporting policies). However, except for the Shanghai outbreak in the spring of 2022, China did not report a single new death on the mainland from mid-April 2020 until December 8, 2022, when the zero-COVID policy was canceled. Even when the Omicron variant slammed Shanghai in the spring of 2022leading to tens of thousands of reported infections and a three-month near-total lockdown of a city of 25 million people, officials reported just three deaths from COVID (later revised to ten deaths).
After more confusion and testing halts, zero-COVID was lifted and the authorities adjusted the death toll to about 90,000. Then, in March 2023, the official daily death rate abruptly plunged back to near zero.
New Reported Covid Deaths in China
This pattern is an epidemiological impossibility. A disease agent as virulent as COVID-19especially the Omicron variant, said to be as much as 30 times more infectious than the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 could not simply disappear. While it is reasonable to believe that the Chinese governments strict pandemic controls reduced COVID-19 infections and related deaths between mid-2020 and the countrys first Omicron outbreak in January 2022, the long flat-zero periods in the data record for 2022when Omicron outbreaks were a constant struggleare evidence that COVID mortality data for Mainland China has been and is still being suppressed.
Chinas reported mortality rate that is, deaths per 100,000 population is implausibly low.
The mortality rates for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea (countries that followed similar, strict zero-COVID policies) are between 1600 and 4000 times higher than Chinas reported COVID mortality rate for the period from April 2020 (when Covid reporting was shut down) to December 2022 (when zero-COVID ended).
Covid Mortality Rates China vs Comparables
While it may be argued that Mainland China followed a stricter version of zero-COVID, it cannot account for this astronomical discrepancy.
Updating this to include deaths reported after the end of zero-Covid, The New York Times assembled data on COVID infection rates and mortality rates from the beginning of the pandemic through March 2023. Unlike many other sources, the Times database provides separate figures for Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. (Singapore and New Zealand also followed very strict zero-COVID regimes, and are also included here.)
The difference in reported infection rates is extreme: 132 times higher for Hong Kong than for the mainland.
Covid Infection Rates China vs Comparables
Moreover, the updated mortality figures in the Times study are still implausibly low.
Covid Mortality Rates China vs Comparables Including Post-Zero-Covid Figures
Hong Kong is the best comparable. In general, Hong Kong followed a strict zero-COVID program similar to Mainland China. Yet despite this, and despite spending more than five times as much per capita on healthcare (approximately $3030 for Hong Kong alone versus $583 for China overall a figure which includes HK), which should have improved treatment outcomes, Hong Kong reported a COVID death rate 30 times higher than the Mainland.
Observed Covid Mortality Ratios
These gross disparities are indicative of a vast program of systematic underreporting. Health workers are said to have been pressured to keep COVID-19 off death certificates to limit reported numbers. Mortality figures have sometimes been released accidentally by local officials, and then quickly retracted. In December 2022, the central authorities changed the official criteria for assigning COVID as a cause of death. The British Medical Journal reported that as of late 2022
In July 2023, some Chinese provinces even deleted all mortality data, to avoid disclosing peripheral information (e.g., figures on cremations ballooning far above the normal level) that could be used to infer the true scope of the crisis.
Here is the most decisive evidence of data manipulation.
The case-fatality rate (CFR) counts COVID deaths as a percentage of confirmed cases. A scientific study authored by researchers in Hong Kong and Shenzhen cited the following figures for COVID infections rates and mortality in Mainland China:
This equates to a CFR of 1.5 percent, which is not out of line with other countries. (The U.S. CFR is 1.1 percent, according to Johns Hopkins data.) However, 88 percent of the reported Chinese deaths took place in the first three months of 2020, in Hubei province. After mid-April 2020 the CFR was just 0.2 percent.
Even this does not tell the full story. For two years, between April 21, 2020, and April 21, 2022, Chinese authorities reported 111,195 cases of COVIDbut just 16 reported deaths. This works out to an impossibly low CFR of 0.01 percent. (These are all official Chinese government statistics.)
This is even more significant than the cross-country disparities in the infection and death rates. The principal claim for Chinas zero-COVID policy is the reduction in the number of infections, not the reduction in mortality following infection. If zero-COVID is assumed to be effective, a lower rate of infection could be deemed a possible outcomeand indeed, some zero-COVID or elimination regimes in other countries do show this result, for as long as such regimes are maintained. However, once an individual is infected, zero-COVID does not impact mortality. The policy does not presume any improvement in the efficacy of treatment for COVID. The Chinese CFR should therefore be roughly similar to the CFR other countries.
This is not what we see. For example, the CFR in Hong Kong (a zero-COVID jurisdiction, with cultural and ethnic characteristics that are the closest to the mainland) is 33 times higher. The global CFR is 63 times higher.
This is prima facie evidence of data tampering. Zero-COVID is aimed at preventing the spread of the virus to reduce infection rates: It has nothing to do with treatment. In other words, we might expect a lower infection ratebut not a lower CFR. There is no evidence, and indeed no claim, that China has developed superior methods of COVID treatment that would lower the death rate among those who are infected.
In summary, as The Economist declared in 2023, Official statistics are useless.
Workers place barriers outside the closed Huanan Seafood wholesale market during a visit by members ... [+] of the World Health Organization (WHO) team, investigating the origins of the Covid-19 coronavirus, in Wuhan, China's central Hubei province on January 31, 2021. (Photo by Hector RETAMAL / AFP) (Photo by HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)
In Part 2 of this analysis, we will examine the various approaches taken to provide a more realistic estimate of Covids public health impact on China.
Respiratory virus season may be ending in the United States, but a new group of COVID-19 variants are circulating, sparking concerns about a potential summer wave.
The family of variants, nicknamed "FLiRT," after their mutations, include KP.2, which is now the dominant variant in the United States. In recent weeks, KP.2 quickly overtook JN.1, the omicron subvariant that drove a surge in COVID cases this past winter.
Currently, KP.2 accounts for one in four infections nationwide, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
During a two-week period ending April 27, KP.2 made up nearly 25% of cases in the U.S., up from about 10% during the previous two-week period ending on April 13. After KP.2, the next most common variant is JN,1, which accounts for 22% of cases, followed by two JN.1 subvariants, JN.1.7 and JN.1.13.1.
Another FLiRT variant, called KP.1.1, is also circulating in the U.S., but is less widespread than KP.2. It currently accounts for about 7.5% of infections nationwide, per the CDC.
Although cases and hospitalizations are down and the country is in the middle of a COVID-19 lull, the new FLiRT variants are stoking concerns about another wave of infections this summer.
Will there be another COVID-19 surge? What are the symptoms of the FLiRT variants? Are vaccines still effective? We spoke to experts to learn more.
The FLiRT variants KP.2 and KP.1.1 are spinoffs of JN.1.11.1, a direct descendant of JN.1, and were initially detected in wastewater samples from across the country.
The new variants have two additional mutations that set them apart from JN.1 and appear to give them an advantage over previous variants, Dr. Albert Ko, infectious disease physician and professor of public health, epidemiology and medicine at Yale School of Public Health, tells TODAY.com.
The nickname 'FLiRT" is based on the technical names for their mutations, according to the Infectious Disease Society of America.
Just like other COVID-19 strains that have gained dominance in the U.S. over the last year JN.1, HV.1, EG.5 aka Eris, andXBB.1.16 or Arcturus the FLiRT variants part of the omicron family.
The emergence of KP.2 and other FLiRT variants is the "same old story," Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D., virologist at Johns Hopkins University, tells TODAY.com. The SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates and gives rise to a new, highly contagious variant, which becomes the dominant strain. "The timeline that it happens in, three to six months, is much faster than we see with other viruses like influenza," says Pekosz.
Its still early days, but the initial impression is that this variant (KP.2) is rather transmissible, Dr. William Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, tells TODAY.com.
The proportion of cases caused by KP.2 is increasing while the proportion caused by other variants is decreasing, which suggests KP.2 has features that give it an advantage, the experts note.
KP.2 looks very similar to its parental strain JN.1, says Pekosz, which is highly contagious. "Except it has these two mutations. ... I think these two mutations together are making KP.2 a better virus in that it maintains its ability to transmit, but also now evades some of the pre-existing immunity in the population, says Pekosz.
Over 97% of people in the U.S. have natural or vaccine-induced antibodies against the the SARS-CoV-2 virus, per the CDC, but this immune protection fades over time.
Low vaccination rates and waning immunity create a vulnerable population, which may allow the FLiRT variants to take hold. Only time and more data will tell, the experts note.
Laboratory studies suggest that KP.2 is mutated enough such that current vaccines and immunity from prior infection will only provide partial protection, says Schaffner. "We'll have to see how true that is, but it appears, over time to be becoming a more prominent variant," he adds.
Its still really early in the emergence of KP.2, but I dont think we need to sound the alarm bells as of yet, says Ko.
It's too soon to tell whether the FLiRT variants will cause a summer wave or surge, the experts note. However, it is clear that COVID-19 is still circulating and won't be taking any time off.
"We're seeing these infections year-round, at modulating levels. ... Were probably not at the stage yet where well see COVID go away completely at any time of the year, says Pekosz.
Test positivity, which is an early indicator of case levels, is at 3% as of April 20, down 0.4% from the previous week and a sharp decline from around 12% in mid-January,per the CDC. (The CDC no longer tracks the total number of cases in the U.S.)
"We're not seeing a lot of hospitalizations, and we're certainly much lower than we were in the winter, so I'd say right now we're at a low point, which is reassuring," says Ko.
Wastewater datapublished by the CDC show that the viral activity level for COVID-19 is currently minimal it was considered high or very high for most of January and February.
"It seems like transmission is pretty low right now, and that makes sense because usually the big peaks are in the winter, when people are inside and in more contact," says Ko.
COVID-19 has caused summer waves in the past, the experts note, which are often smaller than the winter surges. I dont think that well see any kind of massive surge in cases, says Pekosz.
Speculating based on current COVID-19 trends, Ko says, KP.2 may cause a small wave, but not necessarily the large peaks that we saw in the winter again, it is too early to tell.
The seasonality of COVID-19 is something scientists are still trying to understand. But one thing is obvious: This virus is now integrating itself into our population and our way of life, says Schaffner.
There are several reassuring factors, says Ko. First, KP.2 is not a highly divergent variant in other words, it doesn't have a very large number of new mutations that differentiate it from other strains. Second, many people have immunity from recently being infected with the FLiRT variant predecessor JN.1. Last, during the summertime, people are spending less time indoors, which allows the virus fewer opportunities to spread.
Im not expecting a large surge in the summer, but again, we have to be cautious and we have to follow the data, says Ko. We always have to be humble because SARS-CoV-2 has taught us a lot of new things.
It is still too early to tell whether the symptoms of KP.2 and other FLiRT variants are different from previous strains.
The FLiRT variants are probably not going to create very distinctive symptoms. It looks at the moment to follow the other subvariants, says Schaffner.
The symptoms of the FLiRT variants are similar to those caused by JN.1, which include:
According to the CDC, the type and severity of symptoms a person experiences usually depend more on a persons underlying health and immunity rather than the variant that caused the infection.
Similar to JN.1 and other omicron subvariants, the FLiRT variants seem to be causing milder infections, says Schaffer.
Theres no evidence now that makes us think KP.2 is more virulent or more able to cause severe disease than the prior variants, says Ko.
"Early laboratory studies indicate that the vaccines will continue to provide protection against KP.2 a little less protection, but not zero by any means," says Schaffner.
As the virus mutates, it is becoming progressively different from the omicron strain targeted in the latest updated booster released in the fall of 2023. "We would expect that to happen, and we anticipate the plan is to have an updated vaccine in the fall available to everyone," says Schaffner.
Even if vaccines do not prevent infection, they can still offer some protection by preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and COVID-19 complications, TODAY.com previously reported.
Its still clear that the more severe cases that come into the emergency room predominate in people who either are not up to date on their vaccines or havent gotten a vaccine in a really long period of time, says Pekosz.
Vaccination is especially important for the elderly, says Pekosz, which is why the CDC recently recommended adults ages 65 and older get an additional dose of the 2023-2024 updated COVID-19 vaccine.
Unfortunately, vaccination uptake is still poor, the experts note. "The vaccines are still showing signatures of effectiveness, but they're not being utilized anywhere close to the level that they should be," says Pekosz.
All current PCR and at-home tests are recognizing KP.2 and other FLiRT variants, the experts note. (Though if you have symptoms of COVID and test negative, it's a good idea to stay home to avoid potentially exposing other people, TODAY.com previously reported.
If you are using an at-home antigen test, always remember to check the expiration date and whether its been extended bythe U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Antivirals (such as Paxlovid) are also working well. ... Theres not any major signals of antiviral resistance in the population, which is a positive sign, says Pekosz.
While it's too early to tell how the FLiRT variants will pan out this summer, people can always take steps to protect themselves and others against COVID-19.
The CDC recommends the following prevention strategies:
Caroline Kee is a health reporter at TODAY based in New York City.
YSRC general secretary Sajjala Ramakrishna ReddyFile Photo
VIJAYAWADA: Lashing out at TDP for its vicious propaganda on Land Titling Act, YSRC general secretary Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy said the yellow party is opposing it as they dont want an Act to stop land grabbing. He described Naidu as more dangerous than Corona virus and cautioned people not to believe him.
Speaking to mediapersons in Vijayawada on Saturday, he questioned that should a person who was Chief Minister for 14 years accuse another person in the same post that he will grab lands using legislation.
The Act is brought to stop the land grabbing. The modalities are yet to be made and even a Gazette notification was not issued. It may take some time, say two to three years, he maintained.
Sajjala said if there is a person, who resorted to land grabbing, it is Chandrababu Naidu. In the name of Webland, Naidu resorted to land irregularities. Changes made in webland have put several people in trouble. In the name of deemed mutation, Naidu resorted to irregularities and grabbed the land. Jagan is trying to right the wrong and protect the lands, the YSRC leader explained.
The YSRC leader said those who are habituated to looting peoples properties for their own and those who are close to them, do not like the reforms brought in to ensure genuine landholders do not lose rights on their lands.
Open this photo in gallery:
Toronto Public Health nurse draws a dose of Moderna into a syringe at a Toronto vaccination clinic on Feb 3, 2022.Fred Lum/the Globe and Mail
Canadas immunization advisory task force published new guidance on Friday that strongly recommends a fall COVID-19 shot for seniors, people with underlying medical conditions and anyone else in a higher-risk group.
Other high-risk groups who should get an updated vaccine include people who are pregnant; people living in long-term care or other congregate facilities; individuals in or from First Nations, Mtis and Inuit communities; members of racialized and other equity-deserving communities; and people who provide essential community services.
People aged six months and older who are in lower-risk groups and have been previously vaccinated may get an additional dose, says the National Advisory Committee on Immunization.
In its new vaccination guidance document, NACI notes that the use of the word may reflects a balance between known benefits and unknown disadvantages or uncertainty in the evidence.
The fall 2024 advice differs from last year, when the group recommended that anyone in an authorized age group receive a newly formulated COVID-19 vaccine, provided it had been six months since their last shot or infection.
Canadians with long COVID are struggling with myriad symptoms and patchwork treatments
The change also reflects, in part, how the risk of COVID-19 has shifted thanks to the arrival of effective vaccines in 2021 and the exposure of many people to the virus, which has built immunity throughout the population. Newer variants in circulation are also less severe than those going around in the early part of the pandemic.
Last year, the rise of new subvariants prompted pharmaceutical companies to develop updated vaccines to more closely match the strains in circulation. A monovalent vaccine targeting the XBB.1.5 subvariant was approved last autumn, which was supplanted by the JN.1 subvariant as the fall respiratory virus season took hold.
In its new guidance document, NACI notes that COVID-19 has not yet reached a level of predictability of other seasonal viruses, such as the flu, that would warrant the rollout of population-wide booster campaigns.
The NACI document also notes that more work is needed to fully understand how the newest iteration of COVID-19 vaccines hold up over time in terms of reduced rates of infection and protection against severe illness.
(NewsNation) More than 13,000 injury compensation claims linked to COVID-19 vaccinations have been filed with the federal government, according to a New York Times investigation.
The study showed that despite claims the shots caused side effects, little has been done to investigate those concerns.
The newspaper spoke with 30 people who say that they have been harmed by the vaccines, which are estimated to have prevented 14.4 million COVID-19-related deaths, according to one medical study cited by the Times.
However, the Times investigation found that of the 270 million Americans who received a total of about 677 million doses of the vaccines, just 0.001% experienced side effects believed to be associated with them.
Those claiming to have experienced side effects told the newspaper their symptoms were neurological, autoimmune or cardiovascular in nature.
Yet of the 13,000 claims filed, only 19% have been investigated, the newspapers probe found.
Among the maladies linked to the COVID-19 vaccines is shingles, which has been tied to about seven of every 1 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Other side effects that have been reported include limited cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) and limited blood clotting that were associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccines.
Federal health officials have told the Times that serious COVID-19 vaccine side effects were extremely rare and that health officials surveillance efforts to detect patterns of adverse effects were more than sufficient.
The Times investigative story can be found here, while the newspapers key findings from its probe can be found by clicking here.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) released its updated guidelines on Friday on the use of COVID-19 vaccinesduring the upcoming fall season.
Although COVID-19 rates are currently low across the country, NACI said it anticipates a surge in activity during the fall and winter months, aligning with patterns seen in previous years and consistent with the behaviour of other respiratory viruses.
As COVID-19 activity is expected during the upcoming fall and winter months, and COVID-19 disease can compound the impact on the health system of other fall and winter respiratory viruses, NACI continues to provide early guidance on the use of COVID-19 vaccines to facilitate planning by provinces and territories, the guidelines state.
An updated vaccine to replace the current XBB.1.5 vaccine may be available starting in the fall of 2024, depending on the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 and recommendations of international advisory groups expected in mid-spring 2024.
Story continues below advertisement
2:54 Health Matters: Yale Public Health researchers recommend annual COVID-19 vaccination
Starting in the fall of 2024, NACI strongly recommends the most recent updated COVID-19 vaccines for previously vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 disease as follows:
All other previously vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals (six months of age and older) who are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 may receive the most recently updated vaccine in the fall of 2024.
And for unvaccinated people aged five years of age and older who are moderately to severely immunocompromised, NACI recommends that two doses should be given and an additional dose (for a total of three doses) may be given, regardless of vaccine platform.
Story continues below advertisement
For previously vaccinated individuals, NACI recommends an interval of six months from the last dose, with aminimum interval of three months from the last dose. This minimum will ensure that those who receive a spring 2024 dose (which includes those who are most at risk for severe disease) will be eligible again for an updated fall 2024 dose when it becomes available, NACI said.
Trending Now
1:57 New Moderna mRNA vaccine production plant opens in Laval
Omicron sublineages of COVID-19 continue to circulate in Canada and globally, NACI said. From sequencing data up to the week of March 10, JN.1 sublineages, are the most prevalent among all positive cases sampled across Canada.
There is not yet sufficient data to determine the best time to start the COVID-19 vaccination program in the fall, although preliminary observations from previous seasons suggest that COVID-19 activity began to increase before fall vaccination campaigns were rolled out, NACI said Friday. In 2023, the national percent positivity of COVID-19 testing began to increase in mid-August.
Story continues below advertisement
In August 2023, after months of low transmission of the virus, COVID-19 started to rise across the country due to two variants on the scene, EG.5, a subvariant of Omicron, and BA.2.86.
Although COVID-19 cases started to spike, the rollout of the fall 2023 boosters did not happen until around October.
2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
