Category: Corona Virus

Within minutes of getting the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, Michelle Zimmerman felt pain racing from her left arm up to her ear and down to her fingertips. Within days, she was unbearably sensitive to light and struggled to remember simple facts.

She was 37, with a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and until then could ride her bicycle 20 miles, teach a dance class and give a lecture on artificial intelligence, all in the same day. Now, more than three years later, she lives with her parents. Eventually diagnosed with brain damage, she cannot work, drive or even stand for long periods of time.

When I let myself think about the devastation of what this has done to my life, and how much Ive lost, sometimes it feels even too hard to comprehend, said Dr. Zimmerman, who believes her injury is due to a contaminated vaccine batch.

The Covid vaccines, a triumph of science and public health, are estimated to have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths. Yet even the best vaccines produce rare but serious side effects. And the Covid vaccines have been given to more than 270 million people in the United States, in nearly 677 million doses.

Dr. Zimmermans account is among the more harrowing, but thousands of Americans believe they suffered serious side effects following Covid vaccination. As of April, just over 13,000 vaccine-injury compensation claims have been filed with the federal government but to little avail. Only 19 percent have been reviewed. Only 47 of those were deemed eligible for compensation, and only 12 have been paid out, at an average of about $3,600.

Some scientists fear that patients with real injuries are being denied help and believe that more needs to be done to clarify the possible risks.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Continue reading here:

Thousands Believe Covid Vaccines Harmed Them. Is Anyone Listening? - The New York Times

The Vermont Department of Health has been forced to find new ways to report Covid-19 data after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped requiring hospitals across the country to report their Covid admission counts.

For nearly two years, the health department has shared the number of new hospital admissions for the virus in its weekly surveillance report, along with metrics such as wastewater testing, case counts and deaths. Before two years ago, the department would report the number of Covid patients in Vermont hospitals at any one time.

Beginning with next weeks surveillance report, the department plans to use a new indicator that is similar to, but not quite the same as, the current one: the number of visits to emergency department settings that involve a Covid diagnosis.

According to department epidemiologist John Davy, this would include both emergency and non-emergency visits to 14 Vermont hospitals with an emergency department. This captures a similar phenomenon as hospitalizations, and the two are closely correlated, he said.

This measure provides us (with) a very useful indicator of COVID-19 activity and burden, and one that performs similarly to the indicator that it replaces, he wrote in an email. We do not feel that this reduces our ability to track COVID-19.

The department plans to add retroactive data, so the public can continue to see changes over time, according to health department spokesperson Ben Truman. The CDC provides similar data, but in a different format, using the percentage of all emergency department visits.

The change comes after the number of Covid-related hospital admissions nationwide hit its lowest point since the beginning of the pandemic, according to a CDC update on April 20, the last one before the reporting requirement ended.

Hospital admissions in Vermont have also lowered significantly in recent weeks. For the past two weeks, the health department has reported only three new hospital admissions for the virus the lowest counts in two years.

Wastewater levels at three Vermont testing sites also showed low levels of Covid, according to WastewaterSCAN, a company that collects wastewater data.

The fall and winter seasons proved less deadly than previous years, although deaths continued to occur. The health department reported 114 Vermonters died of Covid between October and March, compared with 153 deaths during the same time period a year ago.

View post:

Vermont changes the way it reports Covid-19 data in response to CDC rules - VTDigger

Patients with COVID-19 had lower viral loads if treated with metformin, according to new University of Minnesota research that argues for broader use of the cheap anti-diabetes drug and against the controversial use of ivermectin.

Thursday's published findings helped connect the dots and explain why metformin in a U-led clinical trial reduced the likelihood of COVID-related hospitalizations or the development of long COVID illness. The amount of virus in patients is often associated with the severity of illnesses and complications, and it was found to be almost fourfold lower in patients in the trial who took metformin vs. non-medicating placebo pills.

The results "could be a tipping point" that convinces doctors to prescribe metformin to treat COVID, said Dr. Carolyn Bramante, the lead U researcher of the drug trial. "But people are cautious about using repurposed meds" so she predicted many will wait for results of a larger federally funded drug trial called ACTIV-6.

The U study results also showed that metformin users were less likely to see a rebound in 10 days of their viral loads, which also can be a proxy for the development of post-COVID complications, or long COVID.

Researchers of the U-led trial, named COVID-OUT, found no statistically significant evidence of lower viral loads in participants who took ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that has been championed by some doctors, politicians and vaccine skeptics. A third drug, fluvoxamine, also showed no benefit.

All three drugs had been identified early in the pandemic as promising targets, but a U computer simulation singled out metformin for its potential to disrupt the life cycle of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Metformin's benefits appeared statistically stronger in unvaccinated participants, but the drug also appeared to work for vaccinated participants. It also reduced viral loads in those infected by the alpha, delta or omicron coronavirus variants that caused distinct COVID-19 waves over the three years of the pandemic.

COVID has become something of an afterthought in 2024. Hospitalizations related to the infectious disease have plummeted since December, according to Thursday's state update. Signs of the coronavirus in Minnesota wastewater samples were at their lowest since August.

COVID-19 related deaths have declined from 113 in February in Minnesota to 62 in March to 40 so far in April almost all among senior citizens. Health officials warned that this is still an elevated mortality rate that has just been normalized by the earlier severity of the pandemic.

Long COVID also remains a concern: federal survey data showed that more than 7% of Minnesota adults were dealing with the lingering condition last month.

Federal health officials earlier this year urged people 65 and older at greatest risk of severe COVID to seek additional vaccine boosters. Uptake has been slow; the most recent state data showed only 3% of seniors were up to date on COVID vaccinations since the latest recommendations.

Go here to read the rest:

U of M strengthens case to treat COVID-19 with metformin, not ivermectin - Star Tribune

Four years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chinese city of Wuhan, what do we know about the origin of the SARSCOV2 virus?

We were presented at the outset with two competing theories: natural-origin spillover from animals to humans, and accidental lab leak. And at the outset, a cadre of elite scientists passionately argued that the evidence overwhelmingly favored a natural origin. With comparable fervor, they dismissed the possibility that SARSCOV2 leaked from a lab as a conspiracy theory.

With a few notable exceptions, mainstream media outlets and the larger scientific community vehemently nodded in agreement. NPR said the lab-leak theory was debunked, Vanity Fair called it a right-wing coronavirus conspiracy, and Facebook banned posts suggesting the virus may have been manufactured in a lab.

Four years later that narrative has begun to crackand rightly so.

It was always a lie; one of the most consequential lies of the 21st century. Like all great lies it perfectly inverted the truth: the evidence supporting natural spillover has always been thin. Conversely, the evidence pointing to a lab leak has always been compelling and has grown substantially more persuasive with time.

A coalition of elite scientists and complicit media outlets have proven remarkably effective in suppressing the truth for this long. But in recent months, as congressional investigations have intensified, honest scientists and journalists have begun challenging the false consensus with greater alacrity as new revelations have tipped the scales toward lab leak even further.

The clique of elite scientists propagating the natural-spillover theory have always had several problems on their hands. Despite an exhaustive four-year search, no intermediate animal host has ever been found. The closest natural relatives to SARSCOV2 are found in bats in Laos and in Yunnan Province over 600 miles away.

>>>How Fauci and NIH Leaders Worked to Discredit COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory

Two of the more popular arguments advanced by spillover partisansthat pandemic began at the Huanan wet market in Wuhan and that it jumped to humans from raccoon dogs and pangolinshave withered under scrutiny. The academic papers supporting both arguments have been hollowed out by fatal challenges to the underlying data, methods, or conclusions.

To date, a natural-spillover explanation for the COVID-19 pandemic remains little more than a distant theoretical possibility.

The Lab-Leak Theory

The most obvious piece of incriminating evidence for the lab-leak theory has always been the existence of a biolab in Wuhan just miles away from the initial outbreak. This wasnt just any old biolabthe Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was an advanced research facility studying coronaviruses that collaborated on publications and secret projects with Chinas military. And this wasnt just any old coronavirus researchthe WIV was conducting the riskiest viral research in the world.

Gain-of-function research of concernwhich can make viruses more transmissible to humans, ostensibly in order to create vaccineswas so risky, and the chance of causing an accidental pandemic was so great, that the U.S. government banned funding for this research in 2014. Nevertheless, U.S. agencies continued funding this dangerous research at the WIV, even before the moratorium was officially lifted in December 2017.

This was a spectacularly irresponsible decision. U.S. authorities had visited the WIV and found it to have wildly inadequate safety protocols. In a truly Strangelovian twist, we later learned that the WIV was conducting virus research that theoretically could end human civilization in BSL-2 conditions, roughly the equivalent of a dentists office safety protocols. Thats screwed up, responded Dr. Ian Lipkin, an early proponent of natural spillover, after learning of the WIVs safety protocols. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.

As well it should have. Mere miles from Ground Zero of the coronavirus pandemic, in chronically unsafe conditions, a government lab collaborating with the Chinese military was doing extremely risky research on coronavirusesincluding the closest known relatives of SARSCOV2.

Brace yourself, theres more.

The Chinese Coverup

If the COVID-19 pandemic wasnt the product of a lab leak, one might reasonably expect the Chinese government to provide a degree of cooperation with the international community, if for no other reason than to clear its name.

China, of course, did the exact opposite. It swiftly arrested doctors and whistleblowers. It ordered labs to transfer or destroy any related viral samples and not to publish any information related to the unknown disease. And shirking its obligations to international health regulations, it refused to provide key data to international investigators.

When the World Health Organization requested to do an audit of the WIV and the wet market, China again refused. It also refused to turn over vital pieces of evidence, such as the blood samples of the lab workers or the animals at the wet market.

Adding to the mystery, a few months before the acknowledged outbreak in December 2019, several researchers inside the WIV became sick. The WIV changed its security protocols, ordered an expensive new air incinerator and ventilation system, and in the middle of the night mysteriously took down an online database of 22,000 bat virus samples.

And lets not overlook the fact that Beijing was inexplicably able to produce a vaccine in record time, with a patent filed in February 2020. Most scientists believe the timeline to create a vaccine implausibly short unless someone in China had access to SARSCOV2 before December 2019.

Notably, this mystery vaccine was created by a Chinese military scientist. Rather than being hailed as a hero for creating a vaccine with improbable speed, Mr. Zhou Yusen suspiciously died months later and was virtually scrubbed from the record by the Chinese Communist Party. At least one report claimed he fell to his death from the rooftop of the WIV.

In sum, rather than providing any semblance of cooperation or transparency on the origins of the deadliest event of the 21st Century, China acted pretty much exactly as you would expect from a paranoid communist country trying to cover up a lab leak.

Brace yourself, theres more.

The Smoking Gun

This list of giant red flags grew even longer with the discovery and examination of the DEFUSE proposal, submitted to the Pentagon in 2018 by a group of organizations led by Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance.

Under lab examination, SARSCOV2 was always a bit of a mystery, adorned with some peculiar characteristics. The virus appeared better designed to target humans than animals, fully optimized for interaction with the human ACE2 receptor and consistent with a laboratory optimized coronavirus which entered the human population fully evolved.

An even more consequential peculiarity was the presence of a Furin Cleavage Site (FCS), which has the unfortunate property of enhancing a viruses transmissibility. The presence of an FCS was particularly puzzling because none of the over 1,500 of known sarbecoviruses (the sub-genus of SARSCOV2) has ever been found in nature with a FCS. On the other hand, its not uncommon for virologists to insert an FCS while doing gain-of-function experiments in a lab.

For a while, it looked like the presence of an FCS in SARSCOV2, located at the S1/S2 boundary, would remain a vexing, unsolved mystery. Then we learned the details of the $14 million DEFUSE proposal. One year before the pandemic, Mr. Daszak and his collaborators requested funding from the Pentagon to conduct gain-of-function research at the WIV. Specifically, they proposed inserting a FCS into a coronavirus at the S1/S2 boundaryprecisely the never-before-seen characteristics present in SARSCOV2 that aided the virus rapid transmission.

The Pentagon wisely declined to fund the DEFUSE proposal, but a growing pile of evidence suggests this research went ahead in some form anywayor was already being conductedand likely escaped from the Wuhan lab and started the COVID-19 pandemic. If you study hundreds of different bat viruses at BSL-2 [safety protocols], your luck may eventually run out, admits one of the godfathers of gain-of-function research and a frequent WIV collaborator, Dr. Ralph Baric.

Of the two possible theories of COVID-19s origins, only one stands atop of mountain of increasingly persuasive evidence. Natural-spillover proponents have nevertheless sought to dismiss this damning indictment as merely a chain of misinterpreted coincidences. The proximity of the WIV, the gain-of-function research, the dead PLA scientists, the mysterious vaccines, the dentist-office security protocols, the Furin Cleavage Site, the deleted databases, the silenced doctors, the DEFUSE proposal, the lack of an animal host are all just coincidences.

Any one of them would have been a legitimate cause for inquiry and concern. A dozen of them, by the laws of probability and basic common sense, constitute a smoking gun.

The Real Conspiracy

Which begs a final question: How could this group of elite scientists have gotten this paramount question so horribly wrong?

The inevitable answer is: they didnt. They werent wrong. They were lying.

We know from leaked internal communications that some of the same scientists most ardently dismissing the lab-leak theory took one look at SARSCOV2 and concluded it was, in the words of biologist Kristian Andersen, so friggin likely the virus escaped from a Wuhan lab because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.

The virus seemed pre-adapted from the get go, observed virologist Edward Holmes. The presence of an unprecedented Furin Cleavage Site in SARSCOV2 kept scientist Bob Garry up all night. The SARSCOV2 genome was inconsistent with evolutionary theory, concluded Dr. Andersen on January 31, 2020.

One day later, some of the same scientists held a phone call with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Dr. Anthony Fauci and rapidly did an about-face, condemning the lab-leak theory as a crackpot conspiracy and viciously attacking anyone questioning their fabricated consensus. A larger network of scientists and science journalists quickly fell in line. The coverup had begun.

The Coverup

A tight network of elite scientists soon engaged in a remarkably effective effort to deceive the world. They collectively briefed the U.S. government, World Health Organization, and any media outlets that would listen: The science was settled, this wasnt a lab leak. Some of them went on to publish the now-infamous Proximal Origins paper in March 2020 in Nature Medicine, ranked as the most impactful science article of that year. We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible, the papers authors asserted.

Their efforts to discredit the lab-leak theory were aided substantially by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak. He had been involved in multiple collaborations with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including the now-infamous DEFUSE proposal which included a veritable blueprint for creating SARSCOV2. The experiments were so dangerous, and the WIV safety protocols so poor, Daszak intentionally sought to deceive the Pentagon by suggesting the research would be conducted in the U.S.not China.

(Shockingly, Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance are still receiving tens of millions of dollars in U.S. government research grants, including a seven-figure grant awarded in December 2022.)

After the pandemic outbreak, Daszak conveniently avoided disclosing his personal connections to risky coronavirus research at the WIV as he organized and co-drafted a letter in The Lancet to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.

The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney. Its simply not true, Daszak proclaimed in an April 2020 interview.

Daszak also managed to get himself appointed to join the World Health Organizations (WHO) investigation into COVIDs origins. The investigation produced a March 2021 report that concluded it was extremely unlikely SARSCOV2 leaked from a lab. (Under growing scrutiny, the second phase of the WHO investigation was quietly shelved.)

Daszak also positioned himself to lead The Lancets COVID-19 Commission. The following year, chairman Dr. Jeffrey Sachs disbanded the commission over concerns about the conflicts of interest of one its members and his tiesto the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Sachs later lamented how Dazsak was not telling me the truth and was filled with misdirection, admitting its time to fess up [SARSCOV2] might have come out of a lab.

We dont have definitive evidence of either hypothesis, Sachs posited. But what we do have is definitive evidence that officialdom has tried to keep our eyes away from the lab leak.

Dr. Fauci was also working overtime to deflect attention from the lab-leak theory. In multiple bouts of congressional testimony, Fauci engaged in semantic games to insist the U.S. wasnt involved in funding dangerous gain-of-function research at the WIV. (It was.) On several occasions, Fauci publicly argued the evidence very, very strongly leans toward natural origin. (It doesnt.) Those challenging Fauci on these questions, he famously told CBSs Face the Nation, were really criticizing science, because I represent science.

Fauci also tried to explain away Chinas stunning lack of cooperation with the international community and elaborate coverup that cost the world countless lives by blaming the Trump administrations accusatory nature for Chinas deadly obfuscation.

Fauci also led an effort to brief other U.S. government agencies on COVIDs origins, reportedly leaning on the intelligence community, White House, and State Department to conclude a lab leak was unlikely. One whistleblower later claimed Faucis opinion substantially altered the conclusions that were subsequently drawn.

Oddly, U.S. intelligence agencies proved largely split and indecisive in their conclusions, with nearly all submitting low confidence assessments it was either a lab leak, natural origin, or the evidence was inconclusive. Only one agency had a medium confidence assessment in either theory: the FBI is convinced SARSCOV2 is the product of a lab leak. So too is former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who explained in 2023: a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense.

The Conspiracy

This was the real conspiracy. Many of the elite scientists seeking to discredit the lab-leak theory knew all along it was the most credible explanation. Not only did they intentionally deceive the world, they slandered any scientist or journalist that challenged them. For daring to question this fraudulent consensus, scientist Alina Chan was viciously attacked as an intellectually dishonest, manipulative conspiracist with very little subject matter expertise who hascompensated for her mediocrity by pursuing personal profit.

>>>Stuck on Failure at the WHO

So, why did the scientific establishment act with such disgrace and deception? Their motivations were multi-causal.

First, some of these scientists were direct collaborators with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Peter Hotez had channeled U.S. government funds to five coronavirus research projects conducted by the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences and the WIV between 2016 and 2019. Mr. Daszaks DEFUSE proposal included a veritable blueprint for SARSCOV2. They were rightly concerned they could be held personally accountable.

Second, some of these scientists had for years been quietly waging a behind-the-scenes battle to defend risky gain-of-function research over the considerable objections of other virologists. If the pandemic was, in fact, the product of a lab leak, it might deal a fatal blow to their crusade to preserve this controversial research. Even worse, from their perspective, it would mark the death knell for scientific cooperation with China.

Third, some of these scientists had strong financial and reputational incentives to suppress the lab-leak theory, especially after Dr. Fauci weighed in. Dr. Andersen, for example, had a roughly $9 million grant pending with Faucis government agency at the timea grant that was approved two months after he co-authored the seminal academic paper supporting natural spillover, Proximal Origins. There were people that did not talk about [the lab leak], because they feared for their careers, Dr. Filippa Lentzos of Kings College later admitted. They feared for their grants.

Fourth and finally, the lab-leak debate was hyper-politicized from the outset. Once President Donald Trump suggested a Wuhan lab might be responsible, scientists felt compelled to pick a side. Supporting with the lab-leak theory was siding with President Trump and nothingnot science, honesty, morality, credibility, or public healthwas more important than opposing the racist conspiracy theory adopted by Trump, even if it was likely to be true.

The Conclusion

Presented the evidence objectively, the American people can now decide for themselves whether the natural origin theory of COVID-19 represents the most implausible string of coincidences imaginable or the lie of the century.

Read the original post:

The Lie of the Century: The Origin of COVID-19 - Heritage.org

{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is calling for a criminal probe into the origins of the COVID-19 virus.

The demands for an investigation come after the release of an interim staff report accusing EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak of funding "dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, without sufficient oversight."

"Overwhelming primary source documents and credible firsthand testimony gathered throughout the Select Subcommittees investigation provide significant evidence that Dr. Daszak repeatedly violated the terms of the NIH grant awarded to EcoHealth," a Wednesday statement from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability reads.

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE PRESIDENT TO TESTIFY ON COVID ORIGINS, WUHAN LAB TAXPAYER-FUNDED RESEARCH

Peter Daszak (R), Thea Fischer (L) and other members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, arrive at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province. (HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)

It continues, "Given Dr. Daszaks apparent contempt for the American people and disregard for legal reporting requirements the Select Subcommittee recommends the formal debarment of and a criminal investigation into EcoHealth and its President."

EcoHealth Alliance is a non-governmental organization based in the United States and focused on researching pandemic prevention.

According to congressional lawmakers, EcoHealth used taxpayer dollars "to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)" in China.

The NGO disputes that claim.

FBI DIRECTOR SAYS COVID PANDEMIC 'MOST LIKELY' ORIGINATED FROM CHINESE LAB

Security personnel stand guard outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan as members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus make a visit to the institute in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on February 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/ AFP)

"EcoHealth Alliance did not support gain-of-function research at WIV, nor were any policies violated. Any assertions to the contrary are based either on misinterpretation, or willful misrepresentation of the actual research conducted," EcoHealth Alliance told Fox News Digital in a statement.

The NGO added, "Despite the SSCPs contention that EHA did gain-of-function research, the NIH itself disagrees, as confirmed by NIH on July 7, 2016, in a letter to EcoHealth Alliance made public via Freedom of Information Act requests stating "NIAID is in agreement that the work proposed is not subject to the [gain-of-function] research funding pause."

Daszak publicly testified Wednesday before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

"The public nature of our work and our long standing collaborations with Chinese scientists have made us a target for misinformation about the origins of COVID," Daszak told committee members at the Wednesday hearing. "Beginning in early 2020 and continuing to this day, we have repeatedly and refuted the many myths and false allegations about EcoHealth Alliance research."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

This aerial view shows the P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province. (HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP via Getty Images)

"However, at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic seemed out of control and emotions were running high, our organization and our staff and even my own family were targeted with false allegations, death threats, break-ins, media harassment and other damaging acts," he continued. "Our organization has gone to great lengths to address any allegations head on, checking our records and stating the facts publicly."

Fox News Digital previously reported that EcoHealth Alliance received millions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). U.S. taxpayer funds flowed to Chinese entities conducting coronavirus research through EcoHealth Alliance.

Fox News Digital's Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

See the original post:

House COVID committee calling for criminal probe into gain-of-function virus research in Wuhan - Fox News

The number of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 has hit its lowest weekly level since the start of the pandemic.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports just 5,615 were hospitalized in the U.S. due to the coronavirus the week of April 20, the most recent data available. Thats far below the 150,650 who were admitted the week of Jan. 15, 2022, when the Omicron variant was at its peak.

While the CDC will continue to monitor COVID cases, it is seemingly feeling comfortable enough with current levels and the effectiveness of vaccines that, as of May 1, it has stopped requiring hospitals to report COVID-19 admissions, capacity numbers and occupancy data. (It is, however, encouraging them to report that data voluntarily.)

With the ending of required reporting, the agency says it will archive its current admissions chart.

Emergency room visits and hospitalizations were both down dramatically (falling 17.9% and 14.4% respectively) in the past week. Deaths from COVID were down 10%, the agency says. To date, 1,189,603 people have died from COVID231 of which died in the most recent reporting week.

Vaccination numbers still arent especially high, though. The latest CDC figures show 22.6% of the nations adults are up to date on their COVID-19 vaccines and just 14% of people between 6 months and 17 years have received the most recent shot.

Only two counties in the U.S. were classified as having high levels of COVID-19 admissionsWhite Pine County, Nevada, and Ness County, Kansasthough that was due to the low number of people who live in each. In each county, just two people were admitted to hospitals because of the virus. The high/medium/low designation is determined by looking at the number of new admissions per 100,000 people in the countys population.

View original post here:

Fewer people than ever are being hospitalized because of COVID - Fortune

A woman wearing a mask passes by a coronavirus disease mobile testing van in Washington Square Park in New York City, US. Reuters

A fresh group of COVID-19 variants has emerged in the United States.

Also, it appears at least one of them might soon be competing for the top spot in terms of transmission.

Scientists havecalledthese variations the FLiRT.

There is growing concern because of their potential for rapid transmission.

Heres all we know about them.

What is FLiRT?

The FLiRT variants are descended from the deadly Omicron variant but are derivatives of the JN.1, which caused a surge in cases earlier this year.

Advertisement

The letters of FLiRT variations originate from the technical names of their mutations: F and L are included in one, and R and T are included in another.

KP.2, one of the sub-variants in this set, is of rising concern.

According to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data, KP.2 accounted for around 25 per centof new sequenced cases during the two weeks ending 27 April.

However, according to TIME magazine, other FLiRT variations, such as KP.1.1, have not yet become as widespreadin America.

The characteristics of these variants, such as their transmissibility and the severity of the disease they cause, are still being investigated.

Should we be concerned?

These variants are concerning because of their potential for rapid transmission.

Experts say this could result in diseases that are more severe than those caused by prior strains or that could partially elude the protection offered by currently available vaccines.

The KP.2 variant from the family variants is becoming more common in the US, according to DrEric Topol, executive vice president at Scripps Research.

He told TIME that it is too soon to say whether this would result in a significant spike in cases in the upcoming months.

It mightbe a wavelet, Topol said.

This is because, he says, individuals who have recently contracted the JN.1 strain appear to be somewhat immune to contracting it again.

Advertisement

Furthermore, not enough mutations have occurred in the virus to diverge significantly from earlier strains.

According to Wion News which cited the CDC, the quantity of COVID-19 viruses in US wastewater is still minimal at this time.

Following their recent peaks in January, hospitalisations and deaths have likewise been gradually declining.

While case counts increased globally between early and mid-April, they are still significantly fewer than they were a few months prior.

Will vaccines work?

Vaccines can still be a good protection against COVID-19.

According to The Times of India, two early studies, however, have raised questions about the FLiRT variations capacity to evade the immunity protection offered by vaccines.

Advertisement

The KP.2 variantmay be less transmissible than itsJN.1, according to a Japanese study that was published online beforepeer review, but it could pose problems since it can partially escape vaccine-induced immunity.

Similar results were found in another study conducted byresearchers from China, highlighting the importance of constant vaccination advancements to stay up to date with the viruss progression.

What does WHO say?

The JN.1 lineage, from which the FLiRT variations have evolved, should serve as a base for future COVID-19 vaccine formulations, according to a statement released by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 26April.

With continued virus mutation, this suggestion seeks to maintain vaccine efficacy.

Advertisement

The basic public health advice is still the same, despite the difficulties presented by new variants: it is imperative to continue receiving current COVID-19 vaccines.

It might become necessary to update vaccines regularly, similar to how flu shots are updated annually, tomaintain high levels of protection against new varieties.

With inputs from agencies

Find us on YouTube

Read more:

What are 'FLiRT' variants of COVID-19 that are on rise in US? - Firstpost

The relative calm in the US regarding Covid-19 could be disrupted by a new cluster of SARS-CoV-2 variants, collectively known as the "FLiRT" variants. These variants have emerged from the JN.1 lineage, responsible for a surge in Covid-19 cases last winter. The most notable among these, the KP.2 variant, represented approximately 25% of the newly sequenced cases in the last two weeks of April, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As per a report in the Time magazine, while other variants in the FLiRT family, like KP.1.1, have not yet spread widely in the US, the scientific community is vigilantly monitoring their progression. Understanding the FLiRT Covid-19 variants The "FLiRT" Covid-19 variants represent a group of SARS-CoV-2 mutations that are part of the Omicron family. These variants emerged from a lineage known as JN.1, which was responsible for a notable surge in COVID-19 cases during the previous winter season. The name "FLiRT" comes from the technical names of their specific mutations, where one includes the letters "F" and "L" and another includes "R" and "T." Among the FLiRT variants, KP.2 has become particularly prominent. By the end of April, it accounted for about 25% of new sequenced cases in the United States, as reported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Other variants within the FLiRT family, such as KP.1.1, have not yet spread as extensively.

Expand

Follow this link:

Covid-19 'FLiRT' variants: What you need to know - The Times of India

Shanghai, Apr 30 (AP) The first scientist to publish a sequence of the COVID-19 virus in China staged a sit-in protest outside his lab after authorities locked him out of the facility a sign of the Beijing's continuing pressure on scientists conducting research on the coronavirus. Zhang Yongzhen wrote in an online post Monday that he and his team had been suddenly notified they were being evicted from their lab, the latest in a series of setbacks, demotions and ousters since the virologist published the sequence in January 2020 without state approval. When Zhang tried to go to the lab over the weekend, guards barred him from entering. In protest, he sat outside on flattened cardboard in drizzling rain, pictures from the scene posted online show. News of the protest spread widely on Chinese social media and Zhang told a colleague he slept outside the lab but it was not clear Tuesday if he remained there. "I won't leave, I won't quit, I am pursuing science and the truth! he wrote in a post on Chinese social media platform Weibo that was later deleted. In an online statement, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center said that Zhang's lab was being renovated and was closed for safety reasons. It added that it had provided Zhang's team an alternative laboratory space. But Zhang wrote online that his team wasn't offered an alternative until after they were notified of their eviction, and that the lab offered didn't meet safety standards for conducting their research, leaving his team in limbo. Zhang's latest difficulty reflects how China has sought to control information related to the virus: An Associated Press investigation found that the government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace it from the first weeks of the outbreak. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country. When reached by phone on Tuesday, Zhang said it was inconvenient for him to speak, saying there were other people listening in. In an email Monday to collaborator Edward Holmes seen by AP, Zhang confirmed he was sleeping outside his lab after guards barred him from entering. An AP reporter was blocked by a guard at an entrance to the compound housing Zhang's lab. A staff member at the National Health Commission, China's top health authority, said by phone that it was not the main department in charge and referred questions to the Shanghai government. The Shanghai government did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Zhang's ordeal started when he and his team decoded the virus on Jan. 5, 2020, and wrote an internal notice warning Chinese authorities of its potential to spread but did not make the sequence public. The next day, Zhang's lab was ordered temporarily shut by China's top health official, and Zhang came under pressure by Chinese authorities. Around the time, China had reported several dozen people were being treated for a respiratory illness in the central city of Wuhan. Possible cases of the same illness had been reported in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan involving recent travelers to the city. Foreign scientists soon learned that Zhang and other Chinese scientists had deciphered the virus and called on China to release the sequence. Zhang published it on Jan. 11, 2020, despite a lack of government permission. Sequencing a virus is key to the development of test kits, disease control measures and vaccinations. The virus eventually spread to every corner of the world, triggering a pandemic that disrupted lives and commerce, prompted widespread lockdowns and killed millions of people. Zhang was later awarded prizes in recognition for his work. But Zhang's publication of the sequence also prompted additional scrutiny of his lab, according to Holmes, Zhang's collaborator and a virologist at the University of Sydney. Zhang was removed from a post at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and barred from collaborating with some of his former partners, crippling his research. Ever since he defied the authorities by releasing the genome sequence of the virus that causes COVID-19 there has been a campaign against him, Holmes said. He's been broken by this process and I'm amazed he has been able to work at all. (AP) ZH ZH

See the original post:

Chinese scientist who published first sequence of COVID virus protests after being evicted from lab - The Week

Beijing, May 1 (AP) The first scientist to publish a sequence of the COVID-19 virus in China said he was allowed back into his lab after he spent days locked outside, sitting in protest. Zhang Yongzhen wrote in an online post on Wednesday, just past midnight, that the medical center that hosts his lab had tentatively agreed to allow him and his team to return and continue their research for the time being. Now, team members can enter and leave the laboratory freely, Zhang wrote in a post on Weibo, a Chinese social media platform. He added that he is negotiating a plan to relocate the lab in a way that doesn't disrupt his team's work with the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, which hosts Zhang's lab. Zhang and his team were suddenly told they had to leave their lab for renovations on Thursday, setting off the dispute, he said in an earlier post that was later deleted. On Sunday, Zhang began a sit-in protest outside his lab after he found he was locked out, a sign of continuing pressure on Chinese scientists conducting research on the coronavirus. Zhang sat outside on flattened cardboard in drizzling rain, and members of his team unfurled a banner that read Resume normal scientific research work," pictures posted online show. News of the protest spread widely on Chinese social media, putting pressure on local authorities. In an online statement Monday, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center said that Zhang's lab was closed for safety reasons while being renovated. It added that it had provided Zhang's team an alternative laboratory space. But Zhang responded the same day his team wasn't offered an alternative until after they were notified of their eviction, and the lab offered didn't meet safety standards for conducting their research, leaving his team in limbo. Zhang's dispute with his host institution was the latest in a series of setbacks, demotions and ousters since the virologist published the sequence in January 2020 without state approval. Beijing has sought to control information related to the virus since it first emerged. An Associated Press investigation found that the government froze domestic and international efforts to trace it from the first weeks of the outbreak. These days, labs are closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and some Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country. Zhang's ordeal started when he and his team decoded the virus on January 5, 2020, and wrote an internal notice warning Chinese authorities of its potential to spread but did not make the sequence public. The next day, Zhang's lab was ordered to close temporarily by China's top health official, and Zhang came under pressure from the authorities. Foreign scientists soon learned that Zhang and other Chinese scientists had deciphered the virus and called on China to release the sequence. Zhang published it on January 11, 2020, despite a lack of permission from Chinese health officials. Sequencing a virus is key to the development of test kits, disease control measures and vaccinations. The virus eventually spread to every corner of the world, triggering a pandemic that disrupted lives and commerce, prompted widespread lockdowns and killed millions of people. Zhang was awarded prizes overseas in recognition for his work. But health officials removed him from a post at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and barred him from collaborating with some of his former partners, hindering his research. Still, Zhang retains support from some in the government. Though some of Zhang's online posts were deleted, his sit-in protest was reported widely in China's state-controlled media, indicating divisions within the Chinese government on how to deal with Zhang and his team. Thank you to my online followers and people from all walks of life for your concern and strong support over the past few days! Zhang wrote in his post Wednesday. (AP) NPK NPK

Read the original:

Chinese scientist who published COVID-19 virus sequence allowed back in his lab after sit-in protest - The Week