OT Coronavirus: America in chaos, News and Updates. One million Americans dead and counting

Video Twists Advice on Delta Variant and Vaccination

SciCheck Digest
An epidemiologist recommended that people get the COVID-19 vaccine because some evidence suggests an unvaccinated person who gets the delta variant is “twice as likely to require hospital treatment” than someone infected with the alpha variant. But a Facebook video twists that advice to claim that he said vaccinated people would be twice as likely to be hospitalized.


How effective are the vaccines?
Full Story
Studies indicate that currently available vaccines are largely effective against the delta variant of the virus that causes COVID-19. But a video circulating on Facebook wrongly tells viewers the opposite.



The video is part of a series of similar webcasts from Jen DePice, a Philadelphia-area chiropractor who has used Facebook to advocate against the vaccines. Another video in the series, for example, is pinned to the top of her organization’s page with this message: “JUST SAY NO…to the Jab!❌“

The video we’ll address here has been viewed 48,000 times and has garnered comments such as, “Best news as I’ve not been VAC & have no plans to be.”

In the video, DePice claims that those who are exposed to the delta variant are “twice as likely to require hospitalization if the person was vaccinated.”

There is no support for this statement, and, as we noted, studies have shown the COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the U.S. are largely effective against the delta variant.

Although DePice says that her claim is based on research “from Harvard,” we could find no such study, and she didn’t respond to a message on her Facebook account asking for further details.

However, it appears that she misrepresented an interview with a Harvard University professor.

The post accompanying the video links to an interview Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health posted with William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology.

In that July 8 interview, Hanage said (emphasis added), “Delta’s greater virulence means that unvaccinated people who become infected will be sicker and the burden on the health care system will be greater. Evidence suggests, for example, that an unvaccinated person with Delta infection is roughly twice as likely to require hospital treatment than a person infected with the previously dominant variant.”

Hanage’s point is supported by a Scottish study published in June that found the risk of hospitalization was about twice as high for those with the delta variant compared with those with the previously dominant alpha variant, but the finding was preliminary.

As we’ve explained, it’s not yet settled whether the delta variant causes more severe disease than other versions of the virus. Public Health England, for example, posted an assessment on July 23 saying that the delta variant appeared to increase the risk of hospitalization relative to alpha, but that there was a “low” level of confidence about this.

But, as far as DePice’s claim is concerned, it appears that she has misrepresented what Hanage said about what group is at higher risk to be hospitalized.

She also failed to convey what Hanage said about the value of vaccination against COVID-19 generally.

Hanage clearly advised in that interview: “Get vaccinated if you are not already.”

He explained that the high transmissibility of the delta variant means that the virus can spread faster than the rate of vaccination around the world. This variant also appears to produce high viral loads early in infection, he said, “which may mean that it’s even more infectious during the period when people don’t yet realize they’re infected.”

A July study from China that has yet to be peer reviewed found that the viral load for those infected with the delta variant was 1,000 times higher than for those who had the original strain of the virus.

Hanage also noted in the interview that the delta variant appears to be more able to cause “so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated people.” But, he said, the resulting infections are “comparatively mild.”

In the U.S., the delta variant accounted for 83% of COVID-19 cases for the two weeks ending July 17, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated. And on July 16, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, said at a press briefing that more than 97% of those who were hospitalized were unvaccinated.

As we said, the vaccines appear to be effective against the delta variant, but several studies have emphasized the importance of getting the full dosage of the vaccine if two shots are required, as is the case for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

Editor’s note:SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Projectis made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over our editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.

Sources
Sakay, Yasemin Nicola. “Here’s How Well COVID-19 Vaccines Work Against the Delta Variant.” Healthline.com. 22 Jul 2021.

Bernal, Jamie Lopez, et al. “Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant.” New England Journal of Medicine. 21 Jul 2021.

Feldscher, Karen. “The danger of the Delta variant.” T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 8 Jul 2021.

Sheikh, Aziz, et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness.” The Lancet. 14 Jun 2021.

Li, Baisheng, et al. “Viral infection and transmission in a large, well-traced outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.” medRxiv. 23 Jul 2021.

Reardon, Sara. “How the Delta variant achieves its ultrafast spread.” Nature. 21 Jul 2021.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker — Variant Proportions. Accessed 26 Jul 2021.

Walensky, Rochelle. “Press Briefing by White House COVID-19 Response Team and Public Health Officials.” Whitehouse.gov. 16 Jul 2021.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/s...rP33Mukjc-SL5lmfMEEPlwdSzSqRgGEJv9E97nCfSOk3w

 

If they're anything like @EL PRESIDENTE masks should help them with the ladies.

 

Fact check: Inventor of method used to test for COVID-19 didn’t say it can’t be used in virus detection

Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote appears not to be a direct quote from the inventor, Kary Mullis, has lost some context and does not mean COVID-19 testing is fraudulent, as suggested by some social media posts.

The posts have been shared over 1,000 times on Facebook (here , here , here).

The post begins with the words “COVID-19 TEST a FRAUD?”, then introduces the alleged quote from Mullis, who invented the PCR method in 1985 and was recognized for this achievement by being awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 (here).


However, the quote is actually from an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19 (here).

The context around the quote shows Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead, he is clarifying that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves: “PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”

Even if Mullis had voiced a similar statement before his death in 2019, this quote does not mean the PCR test is unable to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes COVID-19 - rather that it cannot determine whether the individual tested is infectious.

The PCR test is the preferred COVID-19 testing method in England (tinyurl.com/u9xxxup). It detects the presence of the virus by amplifying the virus’genetic material to a point where it can be detected by scientists (tinyurl.com/y7rno7pf).


A spokesperson for Public Health England told Reuters why PCR tests are being used widely in England: “Molecular diagnostic tests, such as real-time PCR, are the gold standard methods for identifying individuals with an active viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of COVID-19 disease), in their respiratory tract. These tests are rapid and produce results in real-time.

“It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.”

VERDICT
Misleading. The quote regarding the limitations of PCR tests appears not to be directly from Mullis, but in any case is not evidence the test is fraudulent. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here .