10.1136/bmj.n2559

Members of the Independent Scientific and Advisory Group for Emergencies may be surprised to find themselves portrayed as rebel scientists (doi:10.1136/bmj.n2504),1 and critics may see this as yet another reason to distrust or dismiss this self-appointed group. But rebels they have been, and we need rebels if things are to change. Opinions differ as to whether iSAGE has made a positive difference in the UK’s response to the covid-19 pandemic, but it has definitely achieved one thing. Through its frequent and open engagement with the public, and by always showing its workings, it has forced the government’s advisers to be more transparent and accountable (doi:10.1136/bmj.n2452),2 and this has changed the nature and raised the quality of the debate.

Why healthcare needs rebels

10.31234/osf.io/hv4cb

Background. Why does adversity lead to mental health complaints in some, but not others? Individual differences in the development of depressive complaints are related to the regulation of affect states. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a prolonged period of perturbations to the daily lives of people across the globe, providing an unparalleled opportunity to investigate how fluctuations in positive and negative affect relate to the evolution of mood complaints. Methods. 228 participants from the Boston College daily sleep and well-being survey completed at least 20 assessments of positive and negative affect and depression complaints between March 20th 2020 and June 26th 2020. We explored affect trajectories throughout this period and estimated longitudinal multilevel network models. Furthermore, we investigated how individual network structures relate to changes in depression severity over time. Results. On average, positive affect was reported somewhat higher than negative affect. However, when separating affect trajectories based on the individuals’ depressive complaints, we identified that individuals consistently experiencing depressive complaints report higher levels of negative affect compared with positive affect. Contrary, individuals consistently reporting no depressive complaints show opposite results. Furthermore, we found many and strong associations in the multilevel network between the distinct affect states and depressive complaints. Lastly, we established that the higher the connectivity of an individual’s network, the larger their change in depressive complaints is. Conclusions. We conclude that affect fluctuations are directly related to the development of depressive complaints, both within- and across individuals, and both within a single measurement moment and over time.

Disentangling dynamic affect trajectories for distinct depression courses during the COVID-19 pandemic

10.31234/osf.io/6j2zq

Preventing the negative impacts of major, intersectional U.S. social issues hinges on personal concern and willingness to take action. We examined social comparison of COVID-19, racial injustice, and climate change during Fall 2020. Participants in a U.S. university sample (n = 288), reported personal levels of concern and action taken on these issues, and estimated their peers’ concern and action. Participants accurately estimated similar levels of personal and peer concern for racial injustice and climate change, but overestimated peer concern for COVID-19. At higher personal concern levels, people estimated that they took greater action than peers for all issues. Exploratory analyses found that perceived personal control over social issues increased participants’ concern and action for racial injustice and climate change, but yielded no change for COVID-19. This suggests that issue-specific features, including perceived controllability, may drive people to differently assess their experience of distinct social issues relative to peers.

Social Comparison for Concern and Action on Climate Change, Racial Injustice, and COVID-19

10.31234/osf.io/jeh84

That behavioral sciences are overrepresented by some countries, in terms of samples and authors, is a well-documented finding. Considering the immediate policy implications, the present study aimed to scope whether this is true in the context of understanding the effects of the coronavirus as well. We assessed relevant preprints with “coronavirus” or “COVID-19” as keywords published on PsyArxiv between March-April, 2020, as well as between May-December, 2020 in terms of samples, participants, and authors. We found that some countries, such as the US, were overrepresented in both waves; papers based on authors from such countries, and employing samples from such countries were also more likely to be published in journals with higher impact factors, and were also more likely to be cited more. Implications, especially regarding a reductionist bifurcation of research as “WEIRD” or “non-WEIRD,” are discussed.

Too WEIRD, Too Fast? Preprints about COVID-19 in psychology

10.31234/osf.io/z36xe

In March 2020, the Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded by chemosensory researchers to address then emerging reports of unusual smell and taste dysfunction arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Over the next year, the GCCR used a highly collaborative model, along with contemporary Open Science practices, to produce multiple high impact publications on chemosensation and COVID19. This invited manuscript describes the founding of the GCCR, the tools and approaches it used, and a summary of findings to date. These findings are contextualized within a summary of some of the broader insights about chemosensation (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) and COVID19 gained over the last 18 months, including potential mechanisms of loss. Also, it includes a detailed discussion of some current Open Science approaches and practices used by the GCCR to increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility.

Massively collaborative crowdsourced research on COVID19 and the chemical senses

10.31234/osf.io/q349k

For a very long time in the COVID-19 crisis, behavioural change leading to physical distancing behaviour was the only tool at our disposal to mitigate virus spread. In this large-scale naturalistic experimental study we show how we can use behavioural science to find ways to promote the desired physical distancing behaviour. During seven days in a supermarket we implemented different behavioural interventions: (i) rewarding customers for keeping distance; (i) providing signage to guide customers; and (iii) altering shopping cart regulations. We asked customers to wear a tag that measured distances to other tags using ultra-wide band at 1Hz. In total N = 4,232 customers participated in the study. We compared the number of contacts (< 1.5 m, corresponding to Dutch regulations) between customers using state-of-the-art contact network analyses. We found that rewarding customers and providing signage increased physical distancing, whereas shopping cart regulations did not impact physical distancing. Rewarding customers moreover reduced the duration of remaining contacts between customers. These results demonstrate the feasibility to conduct large-scale behavioural experiments that can provide guidelines for policy. While the COVID-19 crisis unequivocally demonstrates the importance of behaviour and behavioural change, behaviour is integral to many crises, like the trading of mortgages in the financial crisis or the consuming of goods in the climate crisis. We argue that by acknowledging the role of behaviour in crises, and redefining this role in terms of the desired behaviour and necessary behavioural change, behavioural science can open up new solutions to crises and inform policy. We believe that we should start taking advantage of these opportunities.

Practical behavioural solutions to COVID-19: Changing the role of behavioural science in crises

10.31234/osf.io/5rzj9

The COVID-19 outbreak imposed an overwhelming workload as well as emotional burdens on healthcare professionals (HCPs). In May 2020, an online survey was administered to HCPs in Italy to assess the pandemic’s psychological impact and to investigate possible predictive factors that led to individual differences. Female and younger respondents, especially those operating in northern Italy experienced more frequently negative emotional states such as irritability, anxiety, loneliness, and insecurity. However, positive feelings, first of all solidarity, were also reported especially by female and older workers. The majority of the negative as well as positive emotional states were experienced almost equally by both doctors and nurses, and independently of the operational unit in which they operated. Our findings can provide useful information in planning more tailored psychological interventions to support this category of workers.

Psychological impact in Healthcare Professionals during emergencies: the Italian experience with COVID-19

10.31234/osf.io/a9unf

The COVID-19 outbreak has led to major restrictions globally, affecting people’s psychosocial health and their health behaviors. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review was to summarize the available research regarding the nature-health-association in the COVID-19 context. Keywords related to natural environments and COVID-19 were combined to conduct a systematic online search in six major databases. Eligibility criteria were a) published since 2020 with data collected in the COVID-19 context b) peer-reviewed, c) original empirical data collected on human participants, d) investigated the association between natural environments and psychosocial health or health behavior, and e) English, German, or Scandinavian language. Out of 8,568 articles being obtained, we identified 82 relevant articles representing 80 unique studies. Most studies focused on adults in the general population and were predominantly conducted in the USA and Europe. Overall, the findings tentatively indicate that nature mitigates the impact of COVID-19 on psychological health and physical activity. Through thematic analysis of the extracted data, three primary themes were identified: 1) type of nature assessed, 2) psychosocial health and health behaviors investigated, and 3) heterogeneity in the nature-health relationship. Research gaps in the COVID-19 context were identified regarding I) nature characteristics that promote psychosocial health and health behaviors, II) investigations of digital and virtual nature, III) psychological constructs relating to mental health promotion, IV) health behaviors other than physical activity, V) underlying mechanisms regarding heterogeneity in the nature-health relationship based on human, nature, and geographic characteristics, and VI) research focusing on vulnerable groups. Overall, natural environments demonstrate considerable potential in buffering the impact of stressful events on a population level on mental health. However, future research is warranted to fill the mentioned research gaps and to examine the long-term effects of nature exposure during COVID-19.

Natural Environments, Psychosocial Health, and Health Behaviors during COVID-19 – A Scoping Review.

Synthesizing research on wisdom and a real-world practitioner intervention, we develop/test a strategy for presenting political views that fosters cross-partisan respect. This strategy—balanced pragmatism—combines two aspects of “wise reasoning:” balancing multiple interests and seeking pragmatic solutions. Studies 1-3 (N = 1187) demonstrate that participants respected out-group political elites more when they used balanced pragmatism vs. other forms of messaging. Studies 4-6 (N = 671) extend the usefulness of balanced pragmatism to everyday political disagreements: cross-partisan comments about divisive issues (i.e., guns and immigration) generated more respect when they used balanced pragmatism vs. logical analysis. Strikingly, people were as willing to discuss politics with disagreeing opponents who used balanced pragmatism as they were agreeing ingroup members. Mediation analyses suggest that balanced pragmatism improves cross-partisan respect by making opponents seem more moral, authentic, and rational. Results highlight connections between political/moral psychology and wisdom research, and the fruitfulness of scientist-practitioner collaborations.

10.31234/osf.io/yhpdt

Using “Balanced Pragmatism” in Political Discussions Increases Cross-Partisan Respect

Well, it has finally happened. News this week of widespread and disruptive anti-vaccine protests at Canadian medical centres means that America’s destructive, self-defeating and totally nonsensical anti-vaccine movement has begun crossing the border.

The U.S. anti-vax movement is contaminating Canada

The next fortnight could get pretty damn ugly. Here's hoping the we are near the peak

Exponential

Conservative firebrand Bob Enyart, the pastor of the Denver Bible Church and indelible talk show host, has died from COVID-19, his radio co-host announced Monday on Facebook.

Bob Enyart, conservative firebrand and pastor, dies of COVID-19 Share this:

note that some of these mean *more* missed school/learning loss; eg schools that dont mask are probably more likely to keep some kids at home or close

some of the things to compare to learning loss / missed school when considering risks/benefits of masking and other NPIs re schools:Quote TweetSeth Trueger@MDaware · 13 Augvs the risks of kids getting sick and dying, kids being around kids & family members who get sick and die, missing school due to more quarantines and closures, the pandemic dragging out longer & longer if mitigation efforts are not usedShow this thread

Quote TweetShay Stewart Bouley@blackgirlinmain · 13 SepToday's kids are living through something that not even the adults have lived through. A global pandemic with 4 million people dead and counting. Why do we expect them or ourselves to get back to normal? We are trying to prepare them for a world that may no longer exist.Show this thread

This work was led by @AthenaAkrami and Hannah Davis. Please do follow her, and the many groups who have educated us about this through their lived experience including @LongCovidKids

Also, want to add that there's amazing patient-led work in this area which looked at 74 symptoms of long COVID, and consistent with many other studies showed that neuro-cognitive symptoms tend to increase and persist over time, which is deeply concerning.

Sorry, earlier tweet should have read 'but it doesn't affect *young* people', Yes it does!

I partly wrote this thread so anyone could use it to counter false narratives & unevidenced critique from long COVID deniers. Please feel free to link it to anyone who suggests there isn't strong evidence for long COVID. They can then engage on facts.

And pl follow @Daltmann10 @VirusesImmunity @kamleshkhunti @Dr2NisreenAlwan @trishgreenhalgh for accurate information on this.

If you are one of the scientists who made this choice, please be honest that this is ideology, and not science. Because the evidence tells us to be very very cautious about exposing children to infection, & that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh harms.

Choosing to expose children to infection rather than vaccinate them, when millions across the world have been safely vaccinated is negligent, and harmful. We are exposing children to a multi-system chronic illness we don't understand & don't know how to treat.

There is scientific consensus that this is not just a respiratory disease, but a multi-system one. Here's really good review from Nature medicine on this. So let's not follow ideology. Let's follow the current evidence. All of which is gravely concerning.

So there is uncertainty- but this uncertainty doesn't mean we can ignore these very real risks - when all signs are pointing in a very worrying direction. We *must* adopt the precautionary principle & protect our young from this multi-system chronic disease.

yes, we don't fully understand the underlying pathology yet, and this will take time, but all indications are that it is serious - even in children. And very likely affects multiple organ systems, with long-term impacts even on young people.

I hope this will go a way to convince those who still aren't that long COVID is a biologically complex syndrome, that is common, and concerning. It impacts young people, and is often quite functionally severe and debilitating. So let's not minimise this.

There are also many studies that suggest SARS-CoV-2 impacts our immune system- including T cell ageing & dysregulation of immune responses following infection. There is also evidence of virus persistence in some tissues. I'm not an immunologist- pl follow @fitterhappierAJ on this

Organ disfunction was common, and far more prevalent in those hospitalised with COVID-19 than in the control group. And more associated with COVID-19 in under 70s compared to over 70s.

Another large study among those hospitalised in England showed that 1 in 3 were re-admitted after discharge, and 1 in 10 died within 5-6 months. This was 4-8 times higher than in the control hospitalised group studied - matched on many factors.

The risk of organ dysfunction was 38·9% in those aged 19–49 years - clearly impacting a very high proportion of young people as well.

We also know that acute infection has impact on many organ systems in those affected with severe infection, including among young people. A recent study of >70,000 hospitalised patients showed that *half* had at least one organ system affected- lung/kidney/heart/brain/gut

What else do we know about what COVID-19 does to our immune system? There's good evidence now that acute infection with COVID-19 leads to a plethora of auto-antibodies against many tissues in our body. We don't know the impact of these fully yet.

Neuro-psychiatric disease is common post-COVID even among those not hospitalised with severe infection. COVID-19 also appears to be associated with increased risk of strokes, and other neurological conditions at 6 months post infection:

I've summarised some of the evidence here. There is strong evidence now that even those with mild infection can have long-term structural brain changes, including thinning of grey matter is specific brain areas related to smell, taste, memory & emotion

The cognitive symptoms (brain fog, memory loss, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbances) tend to become prominent later in long COVID, & also last longer. These are worrying also because there are now studies showing the virus affects the brain, even in younger people.

So, to summarise, long COVID is common - even in young people with mild infection - who don't have to go into hospital. And it also affects children, and is usually multiple symptoms, that in many affect day to day lives. Let's look at other data now.

Another study from Norway showed persistent symptoms at six months were even more common, where over half had persistent symptoms at 6 months (including children). These were people self-isolating at home so not severe illness needing hospitalisation. https://nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01433-3

Risk factors that increased risk included being a woman, increasing age, smoking, and low income, deprivation, and severe acute infection requiring hospitalisation. That this is a disease that affects disadvantaged & women more might explain why many are happy to dismiss it.

So if symptoms persist for 12 weeks as they do in 1 in 3 people as per the REACT-1 study, they tend to persist for much longer (up to 22 weeks or more). Also 1/3rd of those with one symptom persisting said it impacted their day to day lives- that's just above 10% of cases.

For most affected, this wasn't a single symptom. It was a combination of many symptoms. e.g. 20% of those infected reported 3 or more symptoms and 17% reported 4 or more symptoms at 12 weeks. Note that there isn't much drop off in prevalence of symptoms after 12 wks

So what does the REACT-1 study, which examined more than half a million people show? This study is limited to >=18 yr olds in England. This examined 29 symptoms, and showed 1 in 3 people with COVID-19 had symptoms lasting more than 12 weeks. This included young adults.

These 400,000 sadly include 9000 children who have been affected for more than a year. This isn't a mild syndrome, or a short one for thousands of our young- who've been impacted due to policies where they were forced to go into unsafe environments without adequate mitigation.

This means the ONS estimate may be underestimating the prevalence of long COVID considerably. Also these symptoms are not mild. Of the ~1 million people affected, 2/3rds said it impacted their day to day activity. And 400,000 have had persistent symptoms for more than a year.

'But it's just mild symptoms that don't matter, and most people only have 1 symptom' Unfortunately, there's a plethora of symptoms, and many of them are very common, so many people present with a combination of symptoms. The ONS only examined 21- there are 100s of symptoms.

'But it doesn't affect old people'... it absolutely does! The majority of those affected are <50 yrs. And it affects children. Between 10-13% of children have symptoms for 5 wks or more, and 7-8% of children had symptoms for *12 wks or more* compared with <2% of controls.

This strongly challenges the rhetoric by some about 'floating numerators' & that this is 'background symptoms' in the population. The ONS survey showed very clearly that 13.7% of those infected (1 in 8) developed long-term symptoms > 12 wks compared to <2% controls

The ONS data compares symptoms post-infection among those infected with control groups of those confirmed not to have infection. Persisting symptoms were *8x* more common among those testing positive with PCRs compared to those who were negative.

First, ONS data & REACT-1 data- these are some of the most robust data on long COVID. Why? -They include infections based on PCR tests through random nationally representative surveys of thousands of people -ONS data was based on 313,216 samples, REACT-1 on 508,707 people

Some stats first - there are several studies that now put the overall incidence of long COVID as between 10-50% of those infected, depending on symptoms studied & cohorts studied. Let's look at some of these.

Ok, time to do a thread on long COVID. Long COVID is a *real* multi-system syndrome that occurs in those infected (far more common than in uninfected controls)- predominantly impacting the young. Let's do a deep delve into this syndrome that some in JCVI are in denial about!

In sum, RCTs of masks were difficult to do, and participants randomised to wearing masks didn’t comply well. But these RCTs were in the context of – for example – a flu outbreak on a university campus in a country that had never seen a deadly pandemic of anything. 31/

There haven’t been many RCTs of masks in the lay public. It’s easier to randomise healthcare workers. A few (pre-Covid) RCTs in semi-institutionalised settings (university halls of residence) are summarised here. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jep.13415… 30/

Note: as a long-term survivor of a poor-prognosis cancer, I owe my life to RCTs of drugs and surgery. RCTs are fantastic for testing both treatments and vaccines, and have led to many lives being saved in the pandemic. But they are problematic for testing masks. 29/

In short, EBM’s preferred methods are unsuited to studying some aspects of the pandemic (notably masks), as is its philosophy of demanding definitive findings and waiting until you’ve got them. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003266… 28/

These two issues—the near-impossibility of using RCTs to test hypotheses about source control and over-reliance on “statistically significant effects” within a short-term intervention period—is why a RCT of masks is *highly likely to mislead us*. 27/

=> if masks reduce transmission by a TINY bit (too tiny to be statistically significant in a short RCT), population benefits are still HUGE. UK Covid-19 rates are doubling every 9 days. If they increased by 1.9 every 9 days, after 180 days cases would be down by 60%. 26/

Take the number 1 and double it, and keep going. 1 becomes 2, then 4, etc. After 10 doubles, you get 512. After 10 more doubles, you get 262144. Now instead of doubling, multiply by 1.9 instead of 2 (a tiny reduction in growth rate). After 20 cycles, the total is only 104127. 25/

More fundamentally, we’re not just interested in whether my mask protects either me or you from catching Covid during a short intervention period (say, one month). We’re interested in how masking impacts on the *exponential spread* of an accelerating pandemic. 24/

The RCT design can’t cope with this. It’s easy to design a study where the primary outcome is infection in wearers, but how would a RCT of source control work? I consent to wearing a mask, but the whole town must consent to be tested (at baseline & repeatedly) for infection. 23/

Many reasons. Drugs are (arguably) a simple intervention, but masks are a highly complex one. As we all know, there are two key questions: do they protect the wearer from other people’s germs – and do they protect other people from the wearer’s germs (‘source control’)? 22/

Random allocation means that differences between the arms of a RCT are highly likely to be due to the intervention (in this case, masks) and not to confounders. But it does *not* follow that a RCT is better, for any scientific question, than a non-RCT design. Why not? 21/

A RCT is a controlled experiment. Since people (or animals) are randomly allocated to one or another group (‘arm’), any confounding variables are distributed evenly between the arms so they all cancel out (so long as the study is large enough and allocation is truly random). 20/

If you were raised in the EBM tradition, where “rigorous RCTs” are mother’s milk, it’s not easy to get your head round why this was a bad way to approach the problem. Looks like Prof Greenhalgh has lost it, dropped her standards, joined the dark side etc. Bear with me. 19/

In the name of evidence-based medicine (EBM), the West got off on the wrong foot. We became obsessed with the holy grail of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) that would quantify both the benefits and the harms of masks, just as you would for a drug. 18/

There was never one jot of evidence for risk compensation. But as Eleni Mantzari and team showed, scientists *talking up* risk compensation as a purely hypothetical problem led to significant negativity towards masks. https://bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2913… 17/

The other masks-are-harmful meme related to risk compensation. If you wear a mask, you’ll feel protected and take more risks. Like the driver who becomes more reckless when wearing a seatbelt, you’ll be slapdash about hand-washing and you’ll get too close to passers-by. 16/

There was an alternative, common-sense view. Your cotton mask is no more likely to kill you than your cotton T-shirt which you pull over your head. In mid-2020, @jeremyphoward came up with the slogan “it’s a bit of cloth, not a land mine”. 15/

The meme that *touching your own mask* could kill you was an extraordinary fantasy in which many reputable scientists got swept up. Masking was depicted as a highly specialist activity, dependent on perfect donning/doffing procedures. The public simply weren’t up to it. 14/

This never made sense. If your mask contains virus, it’s likely come from you, so you’re already infected. There was never any evidence that people touch their faces more when masked. They touch them less. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768767… 13/

The putative harms of masks were twofold. First, self-infection. The idea was that the mask was dirty, and by touching it (while putting it on, or when your face itched under it) you might transfer virus to your hands and thence to your eyes etc. 12/

The most fundamental error made in the West was to frame the debate around the wrong question (“do we have definitive evidence that masks work?”). We should have been debating “what should we do in a rapidly-escalating pandemic, given the empirical uncertainty?”. 11/

Asian countries framed the challenge differently. Recalling SARS (2003) and MERS (2012), they weren’t taking any chances. Masks *might* help in this new disease, so let’s wear them just in case. (e.g. Taiwan: https://cnbc.com/2020/07/15/how-taiwan-beat-the-coronavirus.html…) 10/

For many mission-critical weeks in early 2020, these bodies persisted in saying “there’s not enough evidence of benefit” and (without evidence) “there could be harms”, and insisting that these arguments justified inaction. 9/

But that’s what happened. Tragically, WHO along with Public Health England, CDC and many other bodies around the world all focused on two things: a) the lack of incontrovertible, definitive evidence and b) speculation about possible harms. 8/

A bit of cloth over the face simply doesn’t have the same risks as a novel drug or vaccine, and *doing nothing* could conceivably cause huge harm. Arguing for “caution” without engaging with the precautionary principle was scientifically naïve and and morally reckless. 7/

New drugs & vaccines may have toxic side effects worse than the disease itself. Hence, it’s appropriate to require definitive empirical evidence from RCTs of the benefit-harm balance before they're introduced. But critics inappropriately applied the same rules to mask studies. 6/

Critics of that early paper were right that the empirical evidence was weak. But they didn't engage—and 16 months later have still not engaged—with the moral arguments. They continue to argue that the best course of action in the face of empirical uncertainty is to do nothing. 5/

In this BMJ paper, we presented very limited and indirect empirical evidence (from non-Covid studies) and also *moral evidence* to argue for the precautionary principle: let’s all wear masks, *just in case*. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32273267/ 4/

Was this association or causation? Early on in the pandemic, we didn’t know. But – important point - nobody in these Asian countries seemed to come to harm from wearing a mask. 3/

Let’s start with observational data. Countries that introduced mandated masking within 30 days of the first case (mostly Asian) had *dramatically* fewer Covid-19 cases than those that delayed beyond 100 days (mostly Western). https://ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/103/6/article-p2400.xml… 2/

I’m struggling with how best to stress how fragile the global situation is, so I’ll be blunt: Each week >2.6 million cases and >53,000 deaths are reported to @WHO Reported, meaning that there are many others. Stop and think about that. (Short thread)

It’s July 4th calendar-related but yesterday was the first day where TSA passenger traffic exceeded the same-day 2019 level:

Updates to the wiki of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: Safety syringes retract: https://hackmd.io/ovEzSQWcRp2bctQn8MYElQ#FACT-Safety-syringes-retract-after-an-injection… Fertility not affected by the vaccine: https://hackmd.io/ovEzSQWcRp2bctQn8MYElQ#FACT-COVID-19-vaccines-have-no-impact-on-your-fertility… @SciBeh @stefanmherzog @johnfocook @Sander_vdLinden @adamhfinn @julieleask @CorneliaBetsch @PhilippMSchmid

"Misinformation" is creating a "real dilemma" for young people considering whether they should take the Covid-19 vaccine, Northern Ireland's mental health champion has said.

Covid-19: 'Vaccine misinformation a dilemma for young people'

First phase 3 efficacy results for the Clover vax are out in a detailed press release. https://cloverbiopharma.com/news/83.html Great relief: it's a critical vax for the COVAX supply. Protein subunit vax, with a Dynavax adjuvant & alum. Records on it: https://zotero.org/groups/2528572/covid-19_vaccine_results/tags/SCB-2019%20Clover%2FDynavax/library… ...1/n HT @lutl88

Estimates of the prevalence of self-reported "long COVID" and associated activity limitation, using UK Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey data.

Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK: 7 October 2021

because of vaccine mandates we’re losing teachers who don’t believe in science, healthcare workers who don’t believe in medicine, and police who don’t believe in public safety…

10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5511

Vaccination is an essential component of the public health strategy to end the COVID-19 pandemic.1-3 Recently, there have been reports of acute myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccine administration.4-6 We evaluated acute myocarditis incidence and clinical outcomes among adults following mRNA vaccination in an integrated health care system in the US. googletag.cmd.push(function() { if (!App.suppressAds && (App.isAbstract || ((App.isSplitScreen || App.isMag) && !App.hasAccess))) { App.Ads.Mappings.dualMobile = googletag.sizeMapping() .addSize([1023, 600], [0, 0]) .addSize([0, 600], [[300, 250], [300, 600]]) .addSize([0, 0], [300, 250]) .build(); App.Ads.slots[8] = googletag.defineSlot(App.Ads.adPath + '/textbreak', [300, 250], 'ad-dual-box-mobile') .setTargeting('pos', ['bta']) .defineSizeMapping(App.Ads.Mappings.dualMobile) .addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.display('ad-dual-box-mobile'); } else { $(".ad-dual-box-mobile").removeClass("ad-text"); } }); Methods We included Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) members aged 18 years or older who received at least 1 dose of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) mRNA vaccine between December 14, 2020, and July 20, 2021. Potential cases of postvaccine myocarditis were identified based on reports from clinicians to the KPSC Regional Immunization Practice Committee and by identifying hospitalization within 10 days of vaccine administration with a discharge diagnosis of myocarditis. All cases were independently adjudicated by at least 2 cardiologists. We calculated incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of myocarditis using vaccine administration as the denominator and compared it with the incidence of myocarditis in unexposed individuals between December 14, 2020, and July 20, 2021; and with vaccinated individuals during a 10-day period 1 year prior to vaccination. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs were calculated using STATA statistical software (version 14, Stata Corp). We described the characteristics and outcomes of acute myocarditis cases. A 2-sided P < .05 was used to define statistical significance. This study was approved by the institutional review board of KPSC with a waiver of informed consent because of the observational nature of the study in the course of standard care. Results Of 2 392 924 KPSC members who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 50.2% received mRNA-1273 and 50.0% BNT162b2. In this cohort, 54.0% were women, 31.2% White, 6.7% Black, 37.8% Hispanic, and 14.3% were Asian individuals. Median age was 49 years (IQR, 34-64 years), 35.7% were younger than 40 years, and 93.5% completed 2 doses of vaccines. In the unexposed group of 1 577 741 individuals, median (IQR) age was 39 (28-53) years, 53.7% were younger than 40 years, 49.1% women, 29.7% White, 8.8% Black, 39.2% Hispanic, and 6.6% were Asian individuals. There were 15 cases of confirmed myocarditis in the vaccinated group (2 after the first dose and 13 after the second), for an observed incidence of 0.8 cases per 1 million first doses and 5.8 cases per 1 million second doses over a 10-day observation window (Table 1). All were men, with a median (IQR) age of 25 (20-32) years. Among unexposed individuals, there were 75 cases of myocarditis during the study period, with 39 (52%) men and median (IQR) age of 52 (32-59) years. The IRR for myocarditis was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.05-1.40) for the first dose and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8) for the second dose. Sensitivity analyses using vaccinated individuals as their own controls showed similar findings (Table 1). Of the patients with myocarditis postvaccination, none had prior cardiac disease (Table 2). Eight patients received BNT162b2 and 7 received mRNA-1273. All were hospitalized and tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction on admission. Fourteen (93%) reported chest pain between 1 to 5 days after vaccination. Symptoms resolved with conservative management in all cases; no patients required intensive care unit admission or readmission after discharge. Discussion In this population-based cohort study of 2 392 924 individuals who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, acute myocarditis was rare, at an incidence of 5.8 cases per 1 million individuals after the second dose (1 case per 172 414 fully vaccinated individuals). The signal of increased myocarditis in young men warrants further investigation. This vaccinated cohort is unique in its racial and ethnic diversity and in receiving care at community hospitals with treatment reflective of real-world practice. Limitations of this study include the observational design; short follow-up time; absence of myocardial biopsy for definitive diagnosis; lack of uniform testing of all cases; possible more extensive workup of chest pain in vaccinated individuals during the immediate postvaccination period; and possible underdiagnosis of subclinical cases. No relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and postvaccination myocarditis can been established given the observational nature of this study.

Acute Myocarditis Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination in Adults Aged 18 Years or Older

10.31234/osf.io/247bs

Patterns of public opinion recently observed in American politics tempt the conclusion that substantive arguments and evidence are less effective, or ineffective, at changing partisan minds when they overtly contradict cues from in-party leaders. This conclusion follows naturally from theories of partisan motivated reasoning. However, observations of public opinion do not provide the counterfactual outcomes required to draw this conclusion. Here we report a large-scale survey experiment in which we randomized exposure to the policy positions of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, as well as information that overtly contradicts their positions. Our design incorporates 24 policy issues and 48 information treatments. We find that the information does persuade partisans on average, and, critically, fully retains its persuasive force even when paired with countervailing cues from in-party leaders. This result holds across policy issues, demographic subgroups, and one- and two-sided cue environments, and is puzzling for partisan motivated reasoning theory.

Exposure to Arguments and Evidence Changes Partisan Attitudes Even in the Face of Countervailing Leader Cues

The divide between the Covid vaccine haves and have-nots has been described as “criminal”, with only 20% of people in low and middle income countries having had one dose, compared with 80% in higher income countries. Countries with high vaccination rates have been called on to give up their place in the vaccine queue. The dual-track global vaccination programme has led to real anger, made worse by announcements of booster programmes in richer countries (despite the World Health Organisation calling for such plans to be put on hold). Claudia Hammond and her panel of global experts discuss the scale of vaccine inequity and consider whether evidence of waning vaccine immunity justifies the rollout of booster jabs, or if the soundest scientific case dictates everybody in the world should be vaccinated first. Claudia’s guests include Dr Yodi Alakija, co-chair of the African Union’s Delivery Alliance for Covid-19 in Abuja, Nigeria, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organisation’s Technical Lead for Covid in Geneva, Switzerland and two world leading immunologists, Dr Peter Openshaw, Professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College, London, UK and Dr Akiko Iwasaki, Professor of Immunobiology and Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at Yale University in the US.

The EvidenceCoronavirus: The EvidenceCoronavirus: The EvidenceTo boost or not to boost?

Media reports investigating the challenges that lead to relatively low covid-19 vaccine uptake rates in younger age groups highlight a need to consider “vaccine hesitancy” not as a single phenomenon, but as part of a spectrum.

Unpacking vaccine “hesitancy:” the spectrum of vaccine acceptance

The phrase took off earlier this year but flew too close to the sun. Maybe we should let it burn.

A Better Name for Booster Shots

STOCKHOLM, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Sweden and Denmark said on Wednesday they are pausing the use of Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups after reports of possible rare cardiovascular side effects.

Sweden, Denmark pause Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups

United Airlines Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Officer Scott Kirby said Monday that 98.5% of its U.S.-based employees have been vaccinated against Covid-19.