Skip to content

Hiatus

I've been thinking for a while about taking a break to reassess this blog. First, I'm not sure if the focus is optimal and whether this blog serves any unique function that isn't available elsewhere on the web. Second, I've not been happy with the design of the web site for some time, plus I've heard about problems with the subscription sign up widget not working now. I don't know that there is any good time for a pause, but now seems pretty good both from my schedule and from covid's (unpredictable) schedule.

I expect this may take at least a month or so - I want to work within the GWU system where my site is housed to look at tracking data and fixes available there, as well as to think about an entirely new site if I do decide to continue. I will provide an update post when I have a better idea of timing.

At the time I am writing this, we are all waiting for expected FDA approval of this fall's covid vaccines directed against the XBB lineage. ACIP has a meeting set for September 12 to discuss this, so I expect FDA's notice any second now! Also watch for the ACIP meeting on maternal RSV vaccination on September 22.

Nothing strikingly new on the variant front. Press releases from Pfizer and Moderna state their fall vaccines offer some immunity against BA.2.86 in addition to XBB lineages, and investigators have announced (on social media!) similar good news from in vitro studies. As usual, I'm waiting for actual data that I can assess myself.

Here is a quick update on noteworthy items from this week:

Influenza vaccine 2023 preliminary effectiveness in southern hemisphere looks very good, especially for kids. This bodes well for those who elect to receive flu vaccine for the upcoming season.

Covid variant BA.2.86 caused an outbreak in a nursing home in the East of England region of the UK - in the link, scroll down about 1/3 of the way. The attack rate was 86.6% (33 of 38 residents); so far 22 of the 33 positives have been sequenced and are BA.2.86. 29 of the 33 had received a spring covid vaccine booster. Only 1 resident required hospitalization. From the limited data presented, it appears that this very high risk population had relatively mild courses of illness.

During my hiatus, you may want to look at a few of those gazillion sites that I've found useful.

ProMED - https://promedmail.org/

CIDRAP Newsletter - https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/newsletter

CDC COVID Data Tracker - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

CDC Health Alert Network - https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/updates.asp

Biobot Network of Wastewater Treatment Plants (includes both covid and mpox) - https://biobot.io/data/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

United Kingdom COVID notifications - https://www.gov.uk/email-signup?topic=/coronavirus-taxon

Remember that comparing covid numbers now to those from last winter or prior years can be very misleading because of dismantling of some tracking systems as well as unreported home testing and lack of testing in general. Even covid tracking for ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths all are significantly changed. Probably only the wastewater methodology has remained similar over the few years, so I'm watching those trends more closely.

And one final optimistic note I picked up from David Brooks of the NY Times in his August 31 opinion piece (subscription required). The title was "People are More Generous Than You Think" and he referred to a scientific publication in a psychology journal that I found pretty surprising. For all I know he cherry-picked this article to come up with a heartening message, I didn't take the time to do a formal lit search and I certainly don't keep up with this subject matter.

In the study, almost 200 people in total, from 3 low-income and 4 high-income countries, were selected to receive $10,000 for whatever they wanted to use if for. The only strings attached were that they must report to the investigators how they used the money and they agreed to be randomized to either share their use of the money on Twitter or keep quiet about what they used it for. The investigators figured that the group publicizing this on Twitter would spend less of the money on themselves. That wasn't the case however. On average the individuals spent $6400 of the total on others, including $1700 on charitable donations. By and large, spending of those from lower income countries didn't differ that much from the higher income group, though the latter had slightly higher gifts to charity. The article really brightened my day, take a peek at it.

Take care and stay well,

Bud

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *